Christian and Skeptic??

[Harlequin]

So far, this thread seems to add up to two opposing viewpoints.

Some people are saying that there's no proof against God and anecdotal evidence is all we've got, therefore, there's nothing wrong with being Christian.

Others are saying that this is inconsistent with an overall skeptical attitude. How can you call yourself a skeptic and attack others for their woo-woo beliefs, when you have some similar beliefs yourself?

There's been only some slight mention of the implications for belief - how you might live or enjoy your life with or without a belief in God.

There's another question that has been raised in philosophical discussions elsewhere: How is an all-powerful, but undetectable and "hands-off" god any different from no god at all? The "god of the gaps" that carefully retreats as scientific knowledge expands can also be called by its more common name: Ignorance.

This ties very strongly into discussions about "what is the harm of believing in crystals/psychics/mediums/con-artists?" What is the harm of being a Christian and believing in God?

 

[jmercer]

Those are interesting points, Ernesto, but Homeopathy is a physical and testable subject - it can be done completely objedtively in a scientific study. The subject of God isn't subject to testing, unfortunately.

 

[voidx]

There's another question that has been raised in philosophical discussions elsewhere: How is an all-powerful, but undetectable and "hands-off" god any different from no god at all? The "god of the gaps" that carefully retreats as scientific knowledge expands can also be called by its more common name: Ignorance.

That's the matter of fact way of putting it . What I find is that in this scenario, the variable of "God" simply becomes a useless concept. All you really have is how your belief in the concept makes you feel.

This ties very strongly into discussions about "what is the harm of believing in crystals/psychics/mediums/con-artists?" What is the harm of being a Christian and believing in God?

I think this is a pretty tricky question. One could take the expected cheap shot and point out religious fanaticism and its effects. But many people really are not very fanatical about their religion or even about belief in God. I think the harm varies. I also think its possible that a belief in God may not do any harm at all for some people. Take those arguing the God of the Gaps. It basically seems as though they hold out hope that there is a spot for God somewhere in the universe. It has no daily affect on their lives, its merely something they believe in and wish for. I don't think people of that attitude are generally harmed by their belief, because they realize there's really no way to apply it to their everyday lives.

 

[Kumar]

Those are interesting points, Ernesto, but Homeopathy is a physical and testable subject - it can be done completely objedtively in a scientific study. The subject of God isn't subject to testing, unfortunately.

Because it needs no testing, it just need understanding. IT is abc of all understandings. Let us hope that on some sunny/good day we may be able to understand this concept.

 

[Ernesto]

Here are three empirical claims:

1)"By repeatedly diluting small amounts of a base substance homeopathy is able to cure illness and disease in human beings"

2)"The population of Gods in the universe is equal to 1"

3)"The Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the Sun"


How convienient that 2) isn't subject to testing. I've got a test - maybe if we searched all over the universe and didn't find anything, maybe we could all agree to be atheists. Until then we should say (deep breath) we don't have sufficient evidence to say either way.

I'm aware this ignores the burden of proof question. Oh, my head hurts today.

Great thread.

 

[Harlequin]

I think the harm in god-belief is not a simple concept. On your own, believing in god seems to be a "victimless crime". The problem is when a lot of people get together with this belief and start to act, based on it.
The subtler harm is that resulting when you allow people to get used to suspending their disbelief in one area of their life. There is always a risk that it will spill over into other areas of their life.

Belief in god leads to belief in faith-healers which leads to preference for miracle-workers over doctors, which leads to innocent children dying from curable diseases.

This chain may seem like a tenuous connection, but this is where I see a problem with any unexamined belief.

 

[jmercer]

Here are three empirical claims:

1)"By repeatedly diluting small amounts of a base substance homeopathy is able to cure illness and disease in human beings"

2)"The population of Gods in the universe is equal to 1"

3)"The Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the Sun"


How convienient that 2) isn't subject to testing. I've got a test - maybe if we searched all over the universe and didn't find anything, maybe we could all agree to be atheists. Until then we should say (deep breath) we don't have sufficient evidence to say either way.

I'm aware this ignores the burden of proof question. Oh, my head hurts today.

Great thread.

Well, you're not the only one - I'll send you some virtual aspirin, because this has been one intense thread. I'm enjoying it, but yeah - it's a tough one to keep up with.

Just a point - I agree, it's convenient that #2 isn't subject to testing, but it's inherent in the concept. Frustrating, though, that's for sure.

 

[Beth]

Really interesting thread and I, too, appreciate that it has stayed so civil. Just a couple of tangential points I'd like to make:

So far, this thread seems to add up to two opposing viewpoints.

Some people are saying that there's no proof against God and anecdotal evidence is all we've got, therefore, there's nothing wrong with being Christian.

Others are saying that this is inconsistent with an overall skeptical attitude. How can you call yourself a skeptic and attack others for their woo-woo beliefs, when you have some similar beliefs yourself?

One thing I've noticed is that the posters here who are self-declared christians are not ones who attack others for their beliefs. Further, I notice that many of the posters who insist that belief in god is incompatible with being a self-declared skeptic are among those who do attack others for their beliefs, whatever they may be. (Disclaimer - I haven't done a scientific survey. That's just my general impression. Individual results may vary.)

This ties very strongly into discussions about "what is the harm of believing in crystals/psychics/mediums/con-artists?" What is the harm of being a Christian and believing in God?

Sure, you can provide examples of harm, but the question is, does the harm done outweigh the benefits overall? The sucess rate of homeopathy, psychic healing, therapudic touch, etc. may be no better than that of a placebo, but on the other hand placebos have a roughly 30% success rate with no toxic effects and no dangerous or unpleasant side effects. I tend to think of such things as methods people employ to generate the placebo effect.

I also presume that most religious people feel they get something beneficial out of following their religion or they wouldn't bother to keep it. While incidents of harm due to religious belief exist, the more meaningful but difficult question to answer is "does the harm outweigh the benefit"? Based simply on observation, looking at how many people choose to hold religious beliefs - I have to conclude that on average the benefits are greater than the costs.

Beth

 

[TLN]

One thing I've noticed is that the posters here who are self-declared christians are not ones who attack others for their beliefs. Further, I notice that many of the posters who insist that belief in god is incompatible with being a self-declared skeptic are among those who do attack others for their beliefs, whatever they may be. (Disclaimer - I haven't done a scientific survey. That's just my general impression. Individual results may vary.)

Can you show us an example of one of these attacks?

 

[drkitten]

Here are three empirical claims:

1)"By repeatedly diluting small amounts of a base substance homeopathy is able to cure illness and disease in human beings"

2)"The population of Gods in the universe is equal to 1"

3)"The Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the Sun"


How convienient that 2) isn't subject to testing.

Not necessarily convenient, but certainly observable. And if 2) isn't subject to testing, we can't rely on testing to give us evidence.

I've got a test - maybe if we searched all over the universe and didn't find anything, maybe we could all agree to be atheists.

Or, alternatively, if we can both agree up-front that we can't get test-based evidence, we can look for evidence that isn't testable. (That's the way real scholars work.) Obviously, if a way of testing the hypothesis ever comes up, we can run the tests if and when. But until then, we operate on the basis of the best evidence we have.

That's how, for example, historians, even skeptical ones, work. There's too much evidence out there that isn't test-based to simply ignore anything that didn't happen in a lab. There are too many serendipitous findings, anecdotes, third-hand reports, and unsubstantiated rumors to ignore, and too few to run statistics upon.

Again, I refer you to the discovery of Dramamine. If someone says "this cured my motion sickness," should you use that as a starting point for further study, or should you just walk past like they never said anything?

Until then we should say (deep breath) we don't have sufficient evidence to say either way.

Or, alternatively, we could evaluate the evidence that we have.

 

[jmercer]

Can you show us an example of one of these attacks?

For the record, I don't feel as if I was attacked by TLN or anyone else, although I did have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to having the label of hypocrisy assocated with me. It's one of those words that are loaded with a lot of negative connotations. I eventually realized that it wasn't intended as an assault on my integrity, but a description of how TLN viewed the dichotomy we're discussing.

 

[TLN]

For the record, I don't feel as if I was attacked by TLN or anyone else, although I did have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to having the label of hypocrisy assocated with me. It's one of those words that are loaded with a lot of negative connotations. I eventually realized that it wasn't intended as an assault on my integrity, but a description of how TLN viewed the dichotomy we're discussing.

Thank you. It's certainly wasn't my intention to attack anyone personally, only their reasoning.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Beth Clarkson -- One thing I've noticed is that the posters here who are self-declared christians are not ones who attack others for their beliefs. Further, I notice that many of the posters who insist that belief in god is incompatible with being a self-declared skeptic are among those who do attack others for their beliefs, whatever they may be. (Disclaimer - I haven't done a scientific survey. That's just my general impression. Individual results may vary.)

Why make these categorical judgements when you admit you are unsure. When, exactly, have you been "attacked" for your beliefs?

Sceptics question supernatural and paranormal claims. They ask for empirical evidence to back up the anecdotal claims of believers in such extraordinary powers or events.

You seem to want to demonize some posters, Beth.

Why?

Do you think you have been unfairly treated by the JREF?

 

[Harlequin]

Sure, you can provide examples of harm, but the question is, does the harm done outweigh the benefits overall? The sucess rate of homeopathy, psychic healing, therapudic touch, etc. may be no better than that of a placebo, but on the other hand placebos have a roughly 30% success rate with no toxic effects and no dangerous or unpleasant side effects.

I think the point is that the "toxic effects" from use of these different placebos is not necessarily a result of the actual pseudomedication, but rather from a lack of actual treatment, which leads to nasty results that could have been prevented if proper treatment were given early.
This type of dangerous side effect is actually quite common. There are lots of cases where someone didn't get treatment for their cancer because they were going to meditate their way to better health or cure themselves with sugar-pills. Or, what about "re-birthing" - that actually had a fatal side-effect.

 

[Harlequin]

I understand Beth's point about the rabid-skeptics attacking poor Christians, but I'm not sure it's as bad as she says. I suspect she is only objecting because some of those attacks are directed at her and refer to other threads.

As many have noted, this thread has been remarkably polite considering its topic. I think this is due to the fact that it is largely a discussion between people that mostly agree with each other. You could also say that only a SKeptic can argue in favour of religion without getting too excited...

 

[jmercer]

So far, this thread seems to add up to two opposing viewpoints.

Some people are saying that there's no proof against God and anecdotal evidence is all we've got, therefore, there's nothing wrong with being Christian.

Others are saying that this is inconsistent with an overall skeptical attitude. How can you call yourself a skeptic and attack others for their woo-woo beliefs, when you have some similar beliefs yourself?

I think that the first position is slightly different than your summary... I think that some people (including myself) are saying that if anecdotal evidence and personal experiences are all we've got, then that's all we can use. (And we should use it, not just ignore it.) Whether or not the conclusions drawn from that evidence by me are correct is certainly debatable. And to be absolutely clear, not all Christians deal with the issue and arrive at this position as I have - a lot of them are indeed "woo's". I can only speak for myself on this, which is exactly what I've been doing.

Regarding the last sentence... I don't attack others for their beliefs, woo-woo or otherwise. I ask them for explanations of their belief and for any evidence they can provide. And - exactly as has been done here to me and others - I challenge their evidence and logic if I think it's flawed. And occasionally I manifest a bit of cynicism - hopefully humorously.

I can, however, become abrupt and intolerant when I believe that someone is deliberately attempting to deceive me, or is a troll. I also have very little patience or tolerance for racists and similar types.

There's been only some slight mention of the implications for belief - how you might live or enjoy your life with or without a belief in God.

Probably because that would be a derail of the main topic. I suspect for most people there wouldn't be much of a difference. It's not like I think about God constantly, nor do I continually ask myself things like "What Would Jesus Do?", etc. I just examine my conduct based on my perceptions of what constitutes moral and ethical behavior. Some of those morals and ethics are very much derived from Christianity. Others are not.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Harm in religion? I cite Benny Hinn!

As noted above, most religious people are quite happy to "live and let live." But fanatics and zealots can do a lot of harm. If a religion claims universal exclusivity, and is evangelical in nature, then the logical consequences of belief in [your version] of an omniscient, omnipotent god is that "the other", the unbeliever, is sinful, corrupt, and immoral because they are willfully ignoring the dictates of the Almighty.

Remember, I am talking about fanatics here. You don't have to search far to find them gaining power both today and throughout history. So, believers and unbelievers should be cautious and ask "what could this lead to?"

It is worrying, for example, to see a promotion in the USA of what amounts to a "Divine Right of Presidents".

 

[jmercer]

Harm in religion? I cite Benny Hinn!

As noted above, most religious people are quite happy to "live and let live." But fanatics and zealots can do a lot of harm. If a religion claims universal exclusivity, and is evangelical in nature, then the logical consequences of belief in [your version] of an omniscint, omnipotent god is that "the other", the unbeliever, is sinful, corrupt, and immoral because they are willfully ignoring the dictates of the Almighty.

Remember, I am talking about fanatics here. You don't have to search far to find them gaining power both today and throughout history. So, believers and unbelievers should be cautious and ask "what could this lead to?"

It is worrying, for example, to see a promotion in the USA of what amounts to a "Divine Right of Presidents".

I fully agree, and I've become increasingly worried about it. I really, really, really don't want government and religion any more involved with each other in the US than it already is. (In fact, I'm uncomfortable with the current level of involvement.)

I do not want to live in a theocracy. (Hey, my up-north cousins - can I become Canadian if that happens? Please?? )

 

[voidx]

Or, alternatively, we could evaluate the evidence that we have.

And the current evidence as it pertains to the existance of any particular definition of "God" can tell us what exactly? I'd say at best it'd be a shrug of the shoulders. I agree that ancedotes and all the rest are potentially evidential. But it would be weak evidence at best.

I also think the implication that those of us arguing against the compatibility of skepticism and belief are attacking peoples beliefs is unwarranted. This too me is a knee jerk response. I think the discussing in here has been extremely civil, yet hard questions have been asked, which in my mind is really the intent of this thread.

As to the benefits of religion I imagine most people would cite the social aspects that religion creates. A sense of belonging, a sense of hope and purpose in the universe, a sense of community, of morales. And yes these are positive things, but they come with baggage attached. The implication starts to become that these things are not possible without religion. I would disagree, but I'm also smart enough to realize that people generally need some kind of structure, and overwhelmingly, people prefer the structure that belief and religion give. That is not too say that a non-religious structure could not be found that would hold all the same benefits, but it is my belief that discovery of such a social structure is held back by the tradition of religion.

 

[Harlequin]

Too late. King George II has already been anointed. You are in a theocracy already.

But, you can come up here anytime. One of the disadvantages of being in Canada is that nothing exciting ever happens. Fortunately there are large numbers of people in the world that see that as the biggest advantage.