True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[BS Investigator]

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

If you are a skeptic and demand evidence for everything else in your life, but then you make this one exception for your religion, you are corrupting your skepticism, and you are not a true skeptic.

 

[Ryokan]

Deja vu.

What do you mean by religious?

I'm a Buddhist, a sceptic and an atheist. No problem.

 

[BS Investigator]

You can be a Buddhist, with no supernatural beliefs, and still be a skeptic. Buddhism, stripped of supernatural elements, is really a "spiritual" or philosophical belief, not a religion, as I am describing.

 

[Ryokan]

Ah, so you decide what religion is. Sorry, then.

 

[Mercutio]

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

If you are a skeptic and demand evidence for everything else in your life, but then you make this one exception for your religion, you are corrupting your skepticism, and you are not a true skeptic.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

A skeptic follows the evidence. It is entirely possible, in this culture, for someone to ask the right questions, to question the right claims, but to ask these questions of the wrong people, and to receive answers which lead to religious belief. (For that matter, there are likely to be atheists who have come to their (non) beliefs from other avenues than critical thinking).

IMHO, the major religious viewpoints are wrong--but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that the individuals who believe in them cannot be skeptics.

The issues are orthogonal, to use my favorite statistical term...

 

[BS Investigator]

Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

I disagree wholeheartedly.

A skeptic follows the evidence. It is entirely possible, in this culture, for someone to ask the right questions, to question the right claims, but to ask these questions of the wrong people, and to receive answers which lead to religious belief. (For that matter, there are likely to be atheists who have come to their (non) beliefs from other avenues than critical thinking).

IMHO, the major religious viewpoints are wrong--but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that the individuals who believe in them cannot be skeptics.

So this is an argument allowing for the stupiditity of these skeptics/believers as their excuse? Not very flattering!

If you are truly a skeptic, you will demand evidence, and reject extraordinary claims if they lack it. Period.

But really, I am talking about smart people who consciously decide to suspend their skepticism so they can retain their belief in "God."

 

[Kopji]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

So this is an argument allowing for the stupiditity of these skeptics/believers as their excuse? Not very flattering!

If you are truly a skeptic, you will demand evidence, and reject extraordinary claims if they lack it. Period.

But really, I am talking about smart people who consciously decide to suspend their skepticism so they can retain their belief in "God."

But you are jumping to a quite a conclusion. People naturally tend to accept experience as evidence. From that pov their 'skepticism' has been satisfied.

Sometimes an external event will challenge that internal sense of satisfaction, (and sometimes not.)

Is belief always a conscious choice though? I can think of several reasons it would not be.

 

[plindboe]

I see nothing wrong with skeptics who have supernatural beliefs, as long as they are aware that their beliefs doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny and they understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

But it depends on one's definition of skepticism I guess. The one I use is that skepticism is a method of evaluating evidence, and that you can never be certain to have true knowledge. With the definition I use, it is not a requirement that all beliefs the skeptic holds must have been scrutinized scientifically, cause if it were there probably would exist no true skeptics in the real world anyway. Just consider the vast amount of political beliefs a person has for instance.

 

[Kopji]

I guess I see it as even simpler than that. Being skeptical is a perspective. Sometimes it extends to religious beliefs, but sometimes it does not. I don't lose much sleep over it.

An example might be the Mormon "FARMS" Internet database. This is a HUGE database containing every criticism about the Mormon church or leaders or anything I might not even have thought to criticize them about yet. It is voluminous and very intelligently done.

Some people might disagree but I think a lot of Mormons are very smart people... But for some reason a little bell fails to go off that your intellect is being applied to chasing something like a carrot on a stick.

 

[Nucular]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

There is no reason to believe in a god or God. And I tend to be disappointed if I read that a prominent sceptic, or one who is known to me, professes a belief in God.

But also I think sceptics would vary a lot on the types of things they apply their scepticism to; and many of them would say that, since the question of the existence of God is beyond the bounds of scientific study (is unfalsifiable), we can hold such beliefs with moral impunity.

Why would they choose to hold such a belief? Sceptics are not robots; indeed, many are human. Since religious issues carry a lot of baggage - emotion, guilt, culture, society, family, etc. etc. - it is fairly understandable that many might want to draw a circle around that particular belief. It's true that they'd be hypocritical if they begin to accept on faith religious claims which are testable, such as weeping statues, Biblical literalism, or transsubstantiationalism; but then I doubt many people would do this and continue to think of themselves as sceptical.

But I guess only some theistic sceptics will be so due to emotional and family issues and pressures; some might just like the idea, and so subscribe to it provisionally whilst it remains outside the realm of science.

I personally disagree with this position, but 'scepticism' is not a homogenous set of beliefs or disbeliefs, and for a while I certainly considered myself 'religious' (in a kind of way) whilst vociferously objecting to unevidenced beliefs in other areas.

And like plindboe said, probably the important thing in terms of sceptical fortitude is that the nature and motivation of the religious belief are fully acknowledged.

 

[Mojo]

Re: True Scotsmen Cannot be Religious

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

If you are a skeptic and demand evidence for everything else in your life, but then you make this one exception for your religion, you are corrupting your skepticism, and you are not a true skeptic.

It very much depends on which branches of these religions you are talking about. Many Christians consider that their religion is purely a matter of faith, and that it is not possible to produce proof for the existence of God. The same people tend also to view that creation myth in Genesis as a metaphor, rather than literally true. Looking at religion in this way, as something outside the observable universe, is not incompatible with applying a sceptical attitude to the observable universe. I think the Bible says something about this: "render unto Caesar..."

Now fundamentalists such as YECs, of course, are a different matter.

 

[Blondin]

It has always baffled me how different, intelligent people can look at the same data and come to totally opposite conclusions. I was quite disappointed to hear one of my favorite astronomers, David Levy, commenting that it was so obvious that there was a creator. The more he learns about the universe and all its complexity and beauty the more he is convinced that its creation was no accident.

I still respect him as an astronomer but I just can't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. It just seems irrational to me. Apparently he feels the same way about anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion. Go figure...

 

[drkitten]

You can be a Buddhist, with no supernatural beliefs, and still be a skeptic. Buddhism, stripped of supernatural elements, is really a "spiritual" or philosophical belief, not a religion, as I am describing.

Of course no True Scotsman would ever put salt on his porridge

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

So this is an argument allowing for the stupiditity of these skeptics/believers as their excuse? Not very flattering!

Please read it again. Nowhere do I excuse anyone for stupidity; indeed, I specified that these folks were "ask[ing] the right questions, question[ing] the right claims"... but in our culture, especially in some communities, it is quite possible that the answers you get will be...incomplete. I had one student whose first real exposure to evolution by natural selection was in my class--freshman year in college. She was a very smart student, but her school in Kansas had science teachers who favored creationism. As a child growing up, the proper authorities to ask about those questions should be your science teachers, no? Or is she supposed to know, a priori, that they would give her incorrect answers?

If you are truly a skeptic, you will demand evidence, and reject extraordinary claims if they lack it. Period.

And these skeptics you speak of, they come out of the womb with the knowledge of how to do this, or are they taught by those around them? If those around them are, as in my student's case, people of faith, is it not possible for a skeptical investigation to uncover lots of "evidence" supporting belief? After all, if the majority of your community believe in the xian god, how extraordinary a claim can it be? If none support it, what an extraordinary claim is the claim that we are cousins to apes!

But really, I am talking about smart people who consciously decide to suspend their skepticism so they can retain their belief in "God."

As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. I suspect that you are talking about quite a small percentage of people here. More, I would guess, do not "consciously decide", but instead would have to consciously decide to abandon the beliefs they were raised with and reject god to embrace skepticism to the degree you desire.

 

[Ed]

I suppose a person can claim adherance to a religion and pick and choose the aspects that they accept but if one is a Catholic it seems to me that one must suspend rational thought and not be, as we would define it, a sceptic.

In Catholisism there are dogmas that are necessary to believe to be a Catholic. For example consider the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

A pretty succinct description of some of the stuff required. Let's take Saints for a moment. To believe in the fact of Sainhood one must believe in miracles. How can one be a sceptic and hold that belief?

 

[sphenisc]

Ed wrote

To believe in the fact of Sainhood one must believe in miracles.

Evidence please.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

If you are truly a skeptic, you will demand evidence, and reject extraordinary claims if they lack it. Period.

Period? As in, "This answer is not to be questioned"? You can say this, and claim to be a true skeptic? Aren't you committing the same act for which you scorn others?

Maybe they "believe" in the background as a sort of insurance. After all, the "true" skeptic, despite your personal definition, does not reject extraordinary claims because there is no extraordinary supporting evidence; rather, he puts both his belief and disbelief in abeyance, pending additional data. Is it that there is no supporting evidence, or that no supporting evidence has been found? Do you know enough about the mechanics of the cosmos to definitely say one way or the other? What if your examination of the evidence, or the apparent lack, is mistaken? Are you really that omniscient and discerning that you can say for certain, one way or the other?

Or, maybe they put such questions on autopilot, as it were, because, for a skeptic, the ultimate fate of their "soul" is not a high-priority item? Maybe they "believe" because that's what they were brought up to do, and there are more interesting things to think about; they haven't yet gotten around to examining that particular area of their life.

Those are just a couple of possibilities. But then, since you are such a consciencous skeptic, have already considered them quite fully, haven't you?

So this is an argument allowing for the stupiditity of these skeptics/believers as their excuse?

Is it any more intelligent to make absolutist pronouncements based on the lack of evidence? You quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," yet you seem to have selectively forgotten "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Isn't it possible that one of the things that makes extraordinary evidence extraordinary, is its rarity? Seems to me that if the evidence you apparently demand were common, it wouldn't be extraordinary.

 

[Ed]

Ed wrote

To believe in the fact of Sainhood one must believe in miracles.

Evidence please.

Assuming that you are not joking:

Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession is uninterrupted.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

And a miracle includes:

An event is above the course of nature and beyond its productive powers:
with regard to its substantial nature, i.e., when the effect is of such a kind that no natural power could bring it to pass in any manner or form whatsoever, as e.g., the raising to life of the widow's son (Luke, vii), or the cure of the man born blind (John, ix). These miracles are called miracles as to substance (quoad substantiam).
With regard to the manner in which the effect is produced i.e., where there may be forces in nature fitted and capable of producing the effect considered in itself, yet the effect is produced in a manner wholly different from the manner in which it should naturally be performed, i.e., instantaneously, by a word, e.g., the cure of the leper (Luke, v). These are called miracles as to the manner of their production (quoad modum).

I suppose one might accept "sainthood" without accepting the requirements. Then one would have to do some mental gymnastics to avoid dealing with the definitions.

Interestingly, there is a move afoot to dispence with the need for a miracle to achieve Sainthood.

The bigger problem, however, is that most modern miracles approved by the church are inexplicable healings that require testimony from attending physicians. The church solicits a doctor's statement and records it to be sure that the cures wrought through prayer cannot be explained by science. "Getting doctors to collaborate is not always easy," says Father Paul Chavasse, the British priest in charge of the cause of Cardinal John Henry Newman, a towering figure in 19th-century Catholicism. The pope acknowledged as much when he declared in 1986 that "the cases of physical healings are becoming more rare."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6856542/site/newsweek/

As Wilde said: "The history of science is the history of dead religions".

 

[Blondin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

Good points, well made, Beady.

... one of the things that makes extraordinary evidence extraordinary, is its rarity...

This is probably a good example of a tautology.

extra + ordinary = outside of the ordinary = rare.

 

[Ashles]

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

If you are a skeptic and demand evidence for everything else in your life, but then you make this one exception for your religion, you are corrupting your skepticism, and you are not a true skeptic.

There is no true sceptic.

Every single person makes assumptions every day and operates on beliefs.

When your partner says they fed the dog yesterday, do you question that? When your boss says a new job may be opening up soon, do you doubt them? When you buy a cereal that says it contains 7g of fibre per 100g do you ask to see evidence?
Do you have any superstitious little habits (most people have some form of habit)?
Do you think your partner loves you, or even likes you? How do you know?

We take many things on faith in our daily life as it would be impossible to operate otherwise.

Nobody is 100% sceptical so to criticise anyone for not being a 'true sceptic' is rather silly.

An atheist can be very credulous in many fields of their life, and conversely someone can believe in a God but approach most aspects of their life sceptically.

I consider myself very sceptical, and am a long time atheist, but I wouldn't make the mistake of asssuming that I am always sceptical of everything I ever encounter.

I would agree that if someone is religious then they are not approaching that area of their life sceptically, but that is their choice. It doesn't make their opinion any less valid on other matters.

Darwin was profoundly religious, yet his contribution to our understanding of evolution was immense. He came to conclusions that disagreed with his beliefs. It's a good job we don't belittle his conclusions simply because he believed in a God.

And I really don't understand your distinction between Buddhists and those who believe in a God. Buddhism still makes claims that have no evidence to suport them, so scepticism is equally suspended.