Skeptics and non-atheists...

[SixSixSix]

In the latest SWIFT, Mr Randi notes that he sees no reason to say that those who are not atheists should be called non-skeptics.

I agree with this, albeit for probably different reasons:

• There is no advantage to hostility here. Even if I personally think that belief in a deity is a non-skeptical belief, what can be achieved by hostility to those who think otherwise? It is unlikely such tactics will convince anyone to abandon beliefs, but they might think us atheist skeptics are making them feel unwelcome. This is not a desirable outcome.
• Labels aren't necessarily useful anyway. As other threads (in progress or otherwise) show, some people like to call themselves agnostics rather than atheists. Others don't feel that it's the same order of belief as (say) telepathy or spoon bending. Though I personally disagree with this, it's not going to keep me awake at night.
• It is far healthier to look for similarities than differences. You have a much better chance of convincing someone to reconsider what you think is an irrational belief if you start from a position that you agree with most of the rest of their beliefs. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar.

Even for the most rabid atheists out there, though - motivated self interest should logically mean that we want everyone that wants to call themselves a skeptic to come along to TAM and be involved in the skeptics movement, as this is the best way to convert them.

 

[Imrational]

I don't see it as a matter of hostility. I see it as a matter of definition.

I think it should be pointed out that being an atheist does not make you a skeptic. An atheist can believe in anything: esp, pyrokinesis, astrology, UFO abductions, etc....

What makes someone a "skeptic"? If someone believes every whacked out, unsupported idea and is skeptical only about spoon-bending, are they still a skeptic?

I'm all for encouraging theists, agnostics, deists, and even atheists to become skeptics. But where do you draw the line between a skeptic and a "believer"?

 

[SixSixSix]

Why draw a line at all? If some dowser wants to bring along his telepathic buddy to the next TAM, let them. It's not likely to hurt.

 

[Darat]

Why draw a line at all? If some dowser wants to bring along his telepathic buddy to the next TAM, let them. It's not likely to hurt.

Which is what the JREF does with TAM, which I think is part of its strength. What it doesn't however do is ignore the fact that some beliefs make claims which can be tested, which is another part of its strength.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

For me, skepticism is a postition of agnosticism and not non-belief. I don't not believe in bigfoot, but the evidence is inconclusive so i can only say "I don't know". I can't say "there is no bigfoot" because i don't know that. Even though i think skepticism is more philiosophically consistent with agnosticism than atheism, that doesn't mean that i think atheists are wrong and arent true skeptics. I feel the same way about theists who are skeptics. Since God is a truly subjective definition and is something that the evidence for which is non-existant, it's very different than ESP which could be tested for or against. It's a different kind of belief. Some people say there is a supernatural world and there is a physical world and the two don't mix. That's a position that can have skepticism (if they don't mix then ghosts dont bother the living) and God. So i have no problem with theists, atheists, or agnostics being skeptics. If they can justify it, good for them, we need more people on the team.

 

[Imrational]

Why draw a line at all? If some dowser wants to bring along his telepathic buddy to the next TAM, let them. It's not likely to hurt.

I did not say that the doors should be closed to anyone with an irrational belief. By all means, everyone should be invited to attend.

What I am referring to is the definition of skeptic. Should Uri Geller be called a skeptic merely because he wishes it? I would say that there is a difference between being merely skeptical about certain topics versus being a skeptic.

I am sure that I have irrational beliefs of my own. However, I try to weed those things out. If someone is able to prove to me that one of my beliefs is wrong, I will try to no longer believe in it.

CACTUSJACKmankin, I appreciate what you are saying, I think that it may be possible for certain agnostic and theist belief systems to be compatible with the term skeptic. But, not all. Certain belief systems are inherently illogical and I would say that continued belief in irrational ideas despite evidence to the contrary means that you can not refer to yourself as a skeptic.

 

[Medb]

What I am referring to is the definition of skeptic. Should Uri Geller be called a skeptic merely because he wishes it? I would say that there is a difference between being merely skeptical about certain topics versus being a skeptic.

Now we just have to figure out where to draw the line. How do you figure out at what point someone is skeptical enough to be called a skeptic?

 

[Jekyll]

Now we just have to figure out where to draw the line. How do you figure out at what point someone is skeptical enough to be called a skeptic?

Surely calling oneself a sceptic means that you are prepared to justify your beliefs.
So Uri geller is free to call himself a sceptic, it only means that he has to justify his actions.

 

[Medb]

Surely calling oneself a sceptic means that you are prepared to justify your beliefs.

Justify your beliefs to whom, and to what extent?

 

[Jimbo07]

For me, skepticism is a postition of agnosticism and not non-belief.

Amen.

A dyed-in-the-wool skeptic would probably be skeptical of adopting the 'skeptic' label.

An atheist doesn't somehow disprove a negative, but makes the positive claim, "The universe was created through definable (natural/physical/mathematical) processes. A multiverse model gives rise to the statistical inevitability of the universe. The multiverse exists, either eternally, or again due to definable (natural/physical/mathematical) processes."

At this stage, we don't know. We might not be able to know. I fully support the scientific (free from religious constraint) search, but a positive affirmation either way is probably not yet justified. I take a hardline against hardline positions.

Skeptics of all stripes may be better to focus on pragmatic decisions, and on this a religious joke/parable sums it up for me best:

A man fell into the river. As we was washed down the river a log went floating by a ways away. He thought to himself, "I don't have to swim for it, God will save me." Soon after, a boater shouted to him to swim for the boat, but he said, "God will save me." Shortly after, a search helicopter tried to get him, but he didn't reach for the ladder, trusting God to save him. He soon hit a rock head first and passed away. When he finally met God, he asked, "God, I had faith in you, why didn't you save me?" God replied, "What did you want? I sent a log, a boat and a helicopter!"

If God exists, he is a skeptic

 

[Imrational]

Now we just have to figure out where to draw the line. How do you figure out at what point someone is skeptical enough to be called a skeptic?

How about someone who is willing to drop a belief when it is shown to be irrational and is willing to choose a more rational belief instead?

Note: Some people may merely alter their belief slightly when the original belief has been shown to be wrong. Example, crop circles. It can be shown that they are easily faked, yet some people continue to believe that crop circles were the product of alien landings/messages. They alter their belief to accomodate the new data, but do not eliminate it. Another example, Santa Claus. Skeptic asks: How can Santa fly around the world to all the homes of good boys, girls, and corgis in one night? Believer answer: magic reindeer. How do you disprove that? Occam's Razor is one method the scientific community uses to choose between theories. Why can't that be applied in line with skepticism?

I personally think that the best route is to only believe in what can be shown or predicted to exist through logic, rational thought, science. If you don't have those things, then it does not exist in your world-view. Yes, you could very well be wrong about some things (maybe ghosts do exist), but you'd only be wrong for a short period of time (because you'd adopt the belief once evidence is presented.

What would be the more skeptical standing? A magical pink bunny named "Fred" created the earth yesterday and gave us all fake memories of our lives... or that the earth is a product of the natural universe and is several million years old? Only believe in what you can prove, predict, or logically work out, combined with Occam's Razor. You don't believe in Fred because you currently do not have any evidence for his existence.

 

[Jekyll]

Justify your beliefs to whom, and to what extent?

Just generally, to consider yourself to be intellectually accountable for your beliefs.

There is no uniform standard of sceptism (just look in the politics forum), but what seems to set sceptics apart is the idea that their cherished beliefs should survive scruitiny. And (hopefully) to be prepared to admit when they are wrong.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I really don't get into the whole argument over the differences between an agnostic, atheist, or skeptic. I think most of us here are basically curious about reality.

Furthermore I suggest that everyone holds at least a few irrational beliefs. They might involve deities, sex, or just aspects of ordinary life.

So can a skeptic believe in a deity? Of course. I believe the next operating system from Microsoft will be a good one!

LLH

 

[Rasmus]

I really don't get into the whole argument over the differences between an agnostic, atheist, or skeptic. I think most of us here are basically curious about reality.

That may also be true for your average homeopath or dowser. I would like to be rich, I would like to be a pilot, and I would like to have more time for a few projects right about now. Whishful thinking does not tend to make things so.

That aside, it is my curiosity about reality that lets me debate over the differences (rather: the defintions) of agnostics, atheists and sceptics.

Furthermore I suggest that everyone holds at least a few irrational beliefs. They might involve deities, sex, or just aspects of ordinary life.

If that is so - and I think it is likely to be true, even though I don't see a problem with the notion that I am nothing less than an ordinary sex god - then maybe just holding an irrational believ is just not a good indicator of one's scepticism.

So can a skeptic believe in a deity? Of course.

What's wrong with "of course not"?

I believe the next operating system from Microsoft will be a good one!

I think that is highly unlikey - however it is not outright impossible. If you continue to hold that believe after the release of the OS (and, assuming it turns out to be no good with any reasonable defintion of the important erms involved) then you are no longer a sceptic. No matter how much you may want to be one.

Rasmus.

 

[Imrational]

An atheist doesn't somehow disprove a negative, but makes the positive claim, "The universe was created through definable (natural/physical/mathematical) processes. A multiverse model gives rise to the statistical inevitability of the universe. The multiverse exists, either eternally, or again due to definable (natural/physical/mathematical) processes."

What you are describing is not an atheist. An atheist merely lacks the belief of a god/gods. Being an atheist has nothing to do with believing the universe was created by natural processes. An atheist does not automatically equal skeptic or rational thinker.

So what do you call someone who only holds a scientific world-view, strives to be a rational thinker, and only "believes" in what can be proven/predicted through science? I would propose we call that someone a skeptic. Seeing that you can not prove the existence of a god or gods, I would say a skeptic shouldn't believe in them.

 

[Imrational]

I just wanted to add...

By straddling the fence of agnosticism, don't you really believe in everything? I mean, there will always be the infinitesimal chance that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Atlantis, Rectal-probing Aliens, and Bigfoot really exist. You'll never know for certain.

Do the agnostics here believe in those things? Why or why not?

 

[Jono]

It is a peculiar paradigm, skeptic, if one has the wooish idea of actually being a skeptic in the totalitarian sense.
Meaning that there is not any element of irrational (unscientific??) belief within the person.

Therefor it should be delt more as an issue of shades, levels and/or degrees of skepticism within the mind-conduct of the individual in question.

Perhaps introducing questions like "How much of a skeptic are you?".

*making mental notes on that the latter did sound a tad silly*

 

[Jono]

An agnostic believes one haven't proven an existence of a "God" element.
An atheist believe that there just isn't a God.

 

[Hellbound]

An agnostic believes one haven't proven an existence of a "God" element.
An atheist believe that there just isn't a God.

While that's become common usage, it's not based on original meaning.

I, for example, call myself an atheist. But I don't actively insist there is no God. I simply don't believe there is. There is a difference in these two statements. I haven't seen evidence of a diety, but likewise I can't rule it out, so I with-hold belief.

Agnostic, however, is completly misused here. Agnostic does not describe a religious position on the existence of a diety, but a philisophical position ont he possiblity of proving a diety. An agnostic is one who acknowledges that the question is inheritly unknowable (look up the root word gnostic). Thus, you can have an agnostic atheist (close to my own philosophy), an agnostic diest, an agnostic thiest, or any combination.

Most modern sources tend to seperate into a "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" position. The "strong atheist" is what most people think of when they think of atheist, and it is the active belief that there is(are) no god(s). Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief.

 

[Jono]

While that's become common usage, it's not based on original meaning.

I, for example, call myself an atheist. But I don't actively insist there is no God. I simply don't believe there is. There is a difference in these two statements. I haven't seen evidence of a diety, but likewise I can't rule it out, so I with-hold belief.

Agnostic, however, is completly misused here. Agnostic does not describe a religious position on the existence of a diety, but a philisophical position ont he possiblity of proving a diety. An agnostic is one who acknowledges that the question is inheritly unknowable (look up the root word gnostic). Thus, you can have an agnostic atheist (close to my own philosophy), an agnostic diest, an agnostic thiest, or any combination.

Most modern sources tend to seperate into a "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" position. The "strong atheist" is what most people think of when they think of atheist, and it is the active belief that there is(are) no god(s). Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief.

Agreed.