A non-atheist CAN be a skeptic.

[Lord Kenneth]

In the same sense that a scientist can be an astrologer, or at least give astrology some credibility.

Given the evidence for the claims (which is none), hypocrisy and being misinformed appear to be the only two likely possibilites. It's possible that you can have knowledge no one else does, but not likely.

There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy, and less obvious facts that people may believe in but are actually unsupported, such as the validity of lie detector tests.

We all make mistakes. And it is up to others to help them realize their mistakes.


In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:

Quote:

Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

[arcticpenguin]

And yet there are things you could probably agree on with some of these "skeptical theists", such as that Penta water, homeopathy, psychic readings, telekinesis, abduction by little green men, etc. are a drag on society, and educating people about them is a good thing.

I hope.

[Lord Kenneth]

In short, the misinformed skeptic who is a theist is no more a skeptic than the atheist skeptic.

However, if they have the same information and come to a different conclusion, then either the information is too vague, one's life experiences keep them conceeding for whatever reason, or one simply isn't as much of a skeptic as the other.

A skeptic can believe in homeopathy... but if you keep on showing them how that homeopathy has not been showed to have an effect time and time again, pointing out the research, and they still insist and hold out, then their thinking is flawed.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
And yet there are things you could probably agree on with some of these "skeptical theists", such as that Penta water, homeopathy, psychic readings, telekinesis, abduction by little green men, etc. are a drag on society, and educating people about them is a good thing.

I hope.

Of course.

The issue of God is, however, an issue that belongs in that list-- it's a claim believed in by people but is not necessary needed to explain things (Occam's razor comes to mind) and no evidence supports it.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

A skeptic can believe in homeopathy... but if you keep on showing them how that homeopathy has not been showed to have an effect time and time again, pointing out the research, and they still insist and hold out, then their thinking is flawed.

A key point here being that homeopathy is a testable claim.

[LucyR]

I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

A key point here being that homeopathy is a testable claim.

You're right, I admit that.

If a claim is not testable, that does not make it more valid, however.

An unfalsifiable theory is actually what it is...

But neither have evidence, and neither are needed to explain things.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
In the same sense that a scientist can be an astrologer, or at least give astrology some credibility.

Given the evidence for the claims (which is none), hypocrisy and being misinformed appear to be the only two likely possibilites.

* * *

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

I hope you a gentle with Mr. Randi when you kick him out of his foundation and set it on the one, true and correct path.

. . . After you're grounding ends, I mean.


NA

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by LucyR
I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

That is why you ask for evidence for the claims of the used-car salesman, and when they claim your intelligent, attractive, and witty, they should provide evidence too (not that hard-- comparisons are all you need for that).

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I hope you a gentle with Mr. Randi when you kick him out of his foundation and set it on the one, true and correct path.

. . . After you're grounding ends, I mean.


NA

I didn't quite understand that.

[arcticpenguin]

DC,

There's a concept called "the fervor of the convert" that perhaps you could look into.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
DC,

There's a concept called "the fervor of the convert" that perhaps you could look into.

Given all the information I/we have (or don't have as the case is with unsupported claims), there is only one possible rational conclusion, I believe.

The issue isn't necessarily atheism-- the only reason that's touchy is because religion has been a "big thing" with people for a long, long time.

The claim of God's existence is similar to that of other unfounded claims, except it's not falsifiable... but then again, I don't think ANYTHING truly is. You can add any unlikely factor. You could say that the existence of, say, Piltdown can be (and was) falsified, which is technically true, but one could invent a scenario where where all attempts to disprove it were contaminated by gnomes, replaced by aliens, or anything even more bizarre. That's why we use Occam's razor for that and similar ideas. I could be wrong on that point, however-- do point it out if I am.

I hope I made sense-- I didn't express myself very good on that.

[Torment]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

Many theists do think that there is infact evidence, observation, and rational basis for God though. They also don't think there is evidence to the contrarty either. (Quite frankly they are right in the last part, there is no evidence against a God, because like you said it is an undisprovable claim)

As far as I'm concerned their reasoning is flawed, but can't you say the same is true for many skeptics who aren't thiests? There is no definite written method of reasoning, and many times "evidence" for one thing or another has been disproven despite being accepted by many of the scientific community as true prior to that point.

What I'm trying to say is theists can be skeptics, they just happen to be wrong in one case.

[Lord Kenneth]

If we would be discussing gnomes who could fade out of reality whenever something would observe them and then fade in elsewhere that was safe, that would be unfalsifiable, would that not?

Let's use these gnomes in the similar God-sense.

These gnomes are used to explain where underpants, pocket change, and the TV remote disappear too. If they re-appear, then the magical gnomes put them back, or perhaps lead you to find them in the couch cushions and you didn't realize it.

No informed, rational person would believe such a thing. And I believe God is quite similar to such a scenario. The continued belief of God is simply a product of society in general believing in it-- humans do appear to have a herd mentality in some cases.

It's not because it's religion. It's because it's plain ol' irrationality.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

The issue isn't necessarily atheism-- the only reason that's touchy is because religion has been a "big thing" with people for a long, long time.

It certainly is a big thing for you recently. But it is not the only thing.

DC, I think you know by now that I am an atheist also, but all things have a time and a place. You don't show up at someone's wedding and start showing embarrassing pictures of them (OK, not unless you really, really hate them).

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Torment


Many theists do think that there is infact evidence, observation, and rational basis for God though. They also don't think there is evidence to the contrarty either. (Quite frankly they are right in the last part, there is no evidence against a God, because like you said it is an undisprovable claim)

EXACTLY! That is the misinformation I mentioned!

However, if they hold on to their "evidence" even if it is argued against and shot down, then we most likely do not have a rational thinker on our hands.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned their reasoning is flawed, but can't you say the same is true for many skeptics who aren't thiests? There is no definite written method of reasoning, and many times "evidence" for one thing or another has been disproven despite being accepted by many of the scientific community as true prior to that point.

That's why science is a self correcting system, or tries to be. Holding on to evidence that no longer hold water, however, is not rationality.

Quote:

What I'm trying to say is theists can be skeptics, they just happen to be wrong in one case. [/b]

Yes. But if they hold on to a belief despite what I mentioned before, are they really skeptics?

I'm sure some skeptics believe that lie detector tests are, for the most part, accurate. That isn't their fault. It's the misinformation's fault.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It certainly is a big thing for you recently. But it is not the only thing.

DC, I think you know by now that I am an atheist also, but all things have a time and a place. You don't show up at someone's wedding and start showing embarrassing pictures of them (OK, not unless you really, really hate them).

Religion is supposed to be respected in society, even though it deserves none. People treat it as if it is important, but it hold no water. If people thought of healing crystals the same way their do their dogmas, then the targets would be equal.

[Checkmite]

The JREF is based on the principle of proving questionable claims false through scientific means, primarily testing.

Since the God hypothesis is untestable, the JREF does not care if you believe in God - which is one of the reasons the organization is so cool. To be succinct - God doesn't matter here. Let the philosophers debate such things; we'll stick to scientific issues.

Dear all,

Is Martin Gardner a skeptic, or not? I'd certainly say yes.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[LucyR]

It's very naive to deny the importance of religion in human society. As a critical thinker this is unworthy of you. Religion, in its various guises, is apparently very useful, if not essential, for maintaining societal cohesion.

[Nyarlathotep]

I can see how one could, in theory have a non-atheist skeptic (or a non-skeptical atheist for that matter though I think that is a lot more rare), however in MOST people (and this is purely my opinion here) the line of reasoning that leadsone to either skepticismor atheism is the same so ther will be a tremendous amount of overlap between the two groups.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


However, if they hold on to their "evidence" even if it is argued against and shot down, then we most likely do not have a rational thinker on our hands.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I can see how one could, in theory have a non-atheist skeptic (or a non-skeptical atheist for that matter though I think that is a lot more rare),

I wouldn't be so sure. While I was in high school, certain - shall we say, cliques - tended to claim atheism, but typically only because they wanted to be like their friends.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.

...implying that that somehow fits me?

If so, how?

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I wouldn't be so sure. While I was in high school, certain - shall we say, cliques - tended to claim atheism, but typically only because they wanted to be like their friends.

Actually, those types are what I call "ignorant atheists"-- there are atheists, but do not have much valid justification of their beliefs.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The JREF is based on the principle of proving questionable claims false through scientific means, primarily testing.

Since the God hypothesis is untestable, the JREF does not care if you believe in God - which is one of the reasons the organization is so cool. To be succinct - God doesn't matter here. Let the philosophers debate such things; we'll stick to scientific issues.

True, but the discussion here is about skeptics and religion, not the JREF and religion.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Yes. But if they hold on to a belief despite what I mentioned before, are they really skeptics?

So what do you think of Hal?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


...implying that that somehow fits me?

If so, how?

If you don't get it, you never will.

[Dub]

Quote:

Originally posted by Torment


Many theists do think that there is infact evidence, observation, and rational basis for God though. They also don't think there is evidence to the contrarty either. (Quite frankly they are right in the last part, there is no evidence against a God, because like you said it is an undisprovable claim)

'thinking' that there is evidence is quite different from there actually being evidence. I may 'think' that the pen infront of me is an anti-Tiger device. 'It must be, and its works - there are no Tigers in my room'. I have never seen, heard or read of any objective evidence presented for the existence of a God. It usually either specious reasoning (as above), misinterpretation, or just down right ignorance. Also, 'they' are not right in saying that there is no evidence against God. However, the evidence can only, obviously, be against a specific definition of God. When people are free to define a God any way they want - without any constraints, and also being allowed to change definitions to suit new circumstances, it's imposible to provide eivdence against it. Like it said though, specific definitions - and they are ALOT of them, even within the same religion, can be disproven. For exmaple, it once thought that God made the Earth the center of the universe, and the Sun revoled around us. This was how God made it. We now know this to be wrong. Therefore, the this specific definition of God has been proved false.

Quote:

What I'm trying to say is theists can be skeptics, they just happen to be wrong in one case.

Of course a theist can be skeptic about other things, just like someone who believes in fairies can be skeptical of other things. Would you still consider someone who believes in fairies a skeptic? What about other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as life after death, re-incarnation etc; can people that believe in these be skeptics? I personally believe that, while a person can be skeptical to almost everything, if they believe in something, such as a mytical man iin the sky, they are not, by my definition a 'skeptic'. The problem with theism is that its so deeply ingrained in society people dont see it in the same light as other beliefs. It's only when religious nutters appears (like the Waco lot) that people call them irrational. I'm stunned by the sheer hypocrisy of theists who say that these people are irrational /wrong /stupid /insane etc. On what grounds do they doubt that Dave Koresh was the son of God, and yet still believe that Jesus was? Perhaps he really was the son of God and now we're all screwed.

[darling]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

That depends I suppose on your definitions.

Some people believe in God
I believe Southampton will win the FA cup next week.

If neither of us have any evidence for our claims, don't pretend to, and realize the limitations of such a position, what's the difference?

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


True, but the discussion here is about skeptics and religion, not the JREF and religion.

Perhaps someone can fervently apply skepticism in matters scientific, yet simply not care enough about philisophical matters like religion (or perhaps doesn't consider such matters important enough) to apply any deep thought to them.

I consider "skeptic" to be a term relative to particular issues. One can be a scientific "skeptic", yet not a philisophical one; one can examine claims related to medicine with the most extreme skepticism, yet will trust his wife when she says the car accident wasn't her fault. I believe the person who is an all-encompassing "skeptic" in every possible way is the true rarity.

Quote:

Originally posted by LucyR
I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

What about the fact that the physical realm can be described by physical laws written in the language of mathematics?

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy,

It's no good, I'm going to have to nominate this statement for the BillHoyt illogic prize.

[RSLancastr]

First off DC - an excellent thread, and you are keeping it on track nicely, and not allowing the personal references others are throwing into the mix to sidetrack you. Nicely done, sir.

To your question...

In my experience, there are very few people who do NOT consider themselves to be skeptics, or at least skeptical.

I doubt there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". Everyone has things they accept without thoroughly examining the evidence for them. Are you skeptical that there will be tides tomorrow? That drinking molten lava is a bad idea?

Of course, it all depends on how you define "skeptic". There are a wide variety of dictionary definitions of the term. Here are a few, from various dictionaries (all found at www.dictionary.com):

Quote:

- One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

- One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

- One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

- (Theol.) Doubting or denying the truth of revelation, or the sacred Scriptures.

- someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs.

The definitions vary so widely, just about anyone can claim to be a skeptic, based on at least one of the definitions.

Conversely, there are definitions there which would mean that any SANE person could NOT be a skeptic. For example, the last one. It's believed pretty widely that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick will hurt. Does someone have to habitually doubt that to be a "skeptic?"

What happens at this board (and I have been guilty of it myself) is to mock/denegrate someone who calls himself/herself a skeptic, but is not skeptical in the same way(s) that the majority of the herd here is. And it can be hard to see someone post "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that John Edward is talking with the dead."

So, there you have it: everyone is a skeptic, and nobody is a skeptic.

So much for labels.

So, can a person have religious beliefs and still be considered a skeptic? I say yes. Mainly because the label is so vague as to be nearly meaningless.

[Iconoclast]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy, and less obvious blah blah....

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It's no good, I'm going to have to nominate this statement for the BillHoyt illogic prize.

I knew you were going to come in here with that crap.

Please, Ian-- what definition of "God" has more evidence to support it than what I listed? I do realize that the things I listed are tangible things, but they can be contructed to be intangible to humans.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

Why do peeeeple haf to fiiight? Why don't they know what the cheeldren knoooow....

heh. Never heard the song he sung or saw that TV show, but I did see him in a Rumplestiltskin thing...

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

We all make mistakes. And it is up to others to help them realize their mistakes.


In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:


Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

Maybe It is not a mistake.

I don`t want to speculate here, but maybe this is only a business, if I am wrong, please Hal can clarify this.

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by RSLancastr
First off DC - an excellent thread, and you are keeping it on track nicely, and not allowing the personal references others are throwing into the mix to sidetrack you. Nicely done, sir.

To your question...

In my experience, there are very few people who do NOT consider themselves to be skeptics, or at least skeptical.

Of course, we all are skeptical in certain matters, but the term skeptical is usually applied, at least by us, to be skeptical of claims without evidence.

I do recognize that all I know could be one large set-up, a "The DarkCobra Show" of sorts. It's unlikely, of course, but a skeptic is more of a person to question what they hear first, instead of just accepting it when they hear it.

Quote:

I doubt there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". Everyone has things they accept without thoroughly examining the evidence for them. Are you skeptical that there will be tides tomorrow? That drinking molten lava is a bad idea?

If what I know is correct, then there WILL be tides tomorrow-- the moon pulls the tides. If I am wrong, I have been misinformed. If someone (or even I) discover that this is untrue and is able to argue their point with facts, logic, and truth, then that is science correcting itself in action.

If I am wrong, show me I am wrong, and I will admit to it.

Quote:

Of course, it all depends on how you define "skeptic". There are a wide variety of dictionary definitions of the term. Here are a few, from various dictionaries (all found at www.dictionary.com):



The definitions vary so widely, just about anyone can claim to be a skeptic, based on at least one of the definitions.

When people say skeptic in the sense of what "we are", they usually mean the same thing: Someone who is skeptical of claims which "violate" Occam's razor and in general uses scientific principles to learn new things, correct themselves, and analyze what they know, in general.

Quote:

Conversely, there are definitions there which would mean that any SANE person could NOT be a skeptic. For example, the last one. It's believed pretty widely that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick will hurt. Does someone have to habitually doubt that to be a "skeptic?"

But us, as skeptics, follow a definition in which we are generally skeptical about anything; we hold nothing sacred or as an unquestionable truth. At least, we shouldn't. But that doesn't mean we can't think certain ideas are silly. However, if those ideas get scientific evidence to back them up, then they become more valid.

Quote:

What happens at this board (and I have been guilty of it myself) is to mock/denegrate someone who calls himself/herself a skeptic, but is not skeptical in the same way(s) that the majority of the herd here is. And it can be hard to see someone post "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that John Edward is talking with the dead."

I am guilty of that myself. Usually they aren't really a skeptic, but they think they are (Franko, anyone?)

It's probably better to give them the facts, and answer their questions and see what conclusion they come up to.

Both claims cannot be equally valid.

Quote:

So, there you have it: everyone is a skeptic, and nobody is a skeptic.

So much for labels.

So, can a person have religious beliefs and still be considered a skeptic? I say yes. Mainly because the label is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. [/b]

Again, using skeptic in the sense I have put it is what we usually mean by "skeptic".

Sorry I'm not very clear right now. Perhaps someone can define "skeptic" with more clarity than I did?

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


If you don't get it, you never will.

Woman logic?