True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[BillyJoe]

jmercer,

The phrase "true skeptic" isn't an "idealistic" phrase at all - it's an absolutist phrase.

I'm not sure if I can see the difference. We are saying, aren't we, that a true sceptic is someone who practices the methodology of scepticism in ALL aspects of their lives. This would be an ideal, wouldn't it, towards which a sceptic strives, however unsuccessfully?
What do you mean by "absolutist"?

BillyJoe.

 

[BS Investigator]

Artists have resorted to drugs and alcohol in living memory and I would wager all the way back to the caves.

A lot of the best myths and stories come from the subconcious mind, or what is called the collective unconcious. These drugs, I suspect, help tap into the goldmine that is the unconcious mind. It's the same realm where we dream.

The only thing "religious" about this, is that religions (which are some of the great myths), come from the same place as art. That doesn't say anything about religion being true. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[BS Investigator]

jmercer,

I'm not sure if I can see the difference. We are saying, aren't we, that a true sceptic is someone who practices the methodology of scepticism in ALL aspects of their lives. This would be an ideal, wouldn't it, towards which a sceptic strives, however unsuccessfully?

Exactly.

I suggest that we embark on adding "True Skeptic" to the JREF wiki.

 

[BS Investigator]

Handled? As in "silenced"? Or merely "controlled"?

As in "dealt with."

However, thanks for the tip. If you're starting to resort to insults, it's an indication that you're running low on arguments.

Or running low on patience?

 

[jmercer]

jmercer,

I'm not sure if I can see the difference. We are saying, aren't we, that a true sceptic is someone who practices the methodology of scepticism in ALL aspects of their lives. This would be an ideal, wouldn't it, towards which a sceptic strives, however unsuccessfully?
What do you mean by "absolutist"?

BillyJoe.

There's a difference, and it's not semantical.

"True" is a binary condition; something can only be true or false. There are no graduations allowed within the spectrum, only those two absolutes - so, either one is a "true skeptic" or a "false skeptic". As used in the OP, this is a narrow-minded application which is both dogmatic and fundamentalist. It's also absolutist because it is composed of two absolute states.

If you want to cite an ideal for a skeptic, try this phrasing, instead:

"A perfect sceptic is someone who consistently practices the methodology of scepticism (where appropriate and practical) in ALL aspects of their life."

This provides for a range of skeptics, from the ideal skeptic and downward. It doesn't say "If you're not 100% skeptical all of the time, you're not a true skeptic". It says that to be perfect, one must use skepticism consistently when and where appropriate. Failing to do so doesn't result in a pass/fail state; instead, it results in a measure of consistency with which an individual applies skepticism. So one can be described as being skeptical about something even if they don't apply skepticism universally (or even mostly!)... and someone who applies skepticism most of the time can properly call themselves a skeptic.

That fits the real-world; a world where skeptics apply skepticism to parts of their lives - but not ALL aspects of their lives. In fact, I'll even claim that under the "true/false" absolutist version of the OP, NO ONE CAN EVER BE CONSIDERED A TRUE SKEPTIC.

That's a claim; claims require proof. To prove my claim, all I need do is point out one single instance where it is impossible to comply with this requirement:

Shrodingers Cat
What do you think the state of Schrodinger's Cat is, and why?

1) Dead

2) Alive

3) Indeterminate

If you answer 1 or 2, you are stating that Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary proof. If no such proof is available, then - by your own definition - you are not a true skeptic because you've come to a conclusion without evidence or proof.

If you choose the third possibility, then you are also committing an act of faith - because, by definition, there can be no evidence of the Cat's state while it is unobserved. Once again, you aren't being a true skeptic according to your definition - you're taking the Cat's state on faith because you believe QM is correct.

And there you have it - a skeptic would be forced to commit an act of faith - unless they can prove QM is wrong. In the world of "True" vs. "False" as cited in the OP, that skeptic would then instantly be considered a "false" skeptic because they believe in something without evidence.

Originally posted by BS Investigator
Exactly.

I suggest that we embark on adding "True Skeptic" to the JREF wiki.

No.


(Edited to clarify a point)

 

[Palimpsest]

I didn't say that the science was irrational, I said that it can appear irrational given the present state of knowledge - the only reason I referred to Feynman was because he was an example of an excellent scientist who quite clearly said time and again that he was forced to accept the state of things as they were regardless of his own preferences in the matter. Which was in reply to El_Spectre's comment that it seemed like cheating to not try to understand it. Feynman frequently gave the advice to his students, "Don't worry about understanding it, just accept it". So I was saying that despite the fact that it might appear unsatisfactory, sometimes we get no choice in the matter.

Wait, wait. You might be taking that line out of context. This is advice Feynman was giving his students, ie "let's just go through the curriculum and not waste time with the perceived implications of undead cats, cos this ain't Philosophy 101." I very much doubt Feynman or any scientist would be giving his peers advice like that.

It is cheating to not even try to understand it, and doubly cheating to appeal to authority to justify it. That way lies woo.

And I was also simply pointing out that there is an inconsistency if someone claims that QM (which is in essence just a model) can be considered "true" despite having elements that don't immediately seem to follow what we consider to be everyday "common-sense" rules, whilst religion has to be considered false simply because it has elements that don't seem to follow what we consider to be everyday "common-sense" rules.

Irrationality doesn't mean going against common sense. So-called "common" so-called "sense" can be deeply irrational. QM has rules, despite looking to the layperson like freaky sci-fi. However, it's sci and not fi. It allows for testable predictions. Religion doesn't have any rules that 3 random people can agree upon. Therefore it is irrational and not just in appearance.

I was trying to demonstrate that there will always be a real practical limit and that it is not just a question of reaching the unknown, but actually reaching the unknowable. Of course whether one defines that as I did or in terms of time as you have done, the practical end effect is that there will be a point where we simply can't know any more, even if we have the will to do so. Anything that one way or another lies forever beyond the reach of our reason can be considered "irrational" - simply if only because we could never show that it is susceptible to reason.

But I didn't define anything as unknowable. I said that we would never be able to know everything, but all that means is there will always be a lot of unknown. Not the same thing at all. I don't believe we will ever reach a point where we can't know anymore. We can only say for sure that something is unknowable (by us) when our species dies and therefore stops investigating, before researching it. But saying that something is a priori unknowable? No.

Do you agree that if we try to break things down into smaller units, there has to come some point where we reach the most fundamental thing possible and that cannot be further analysed? If not, how would you reason otherwise?

No I don't agree. Lots of people have been predicting that sort of thing ever since Democritus (the guy who coined the term "atom"), but it hasn't happened yet. And there's no particular reason why it should.

Yes, that was my very point! I don't call something "irrational" just because we don't understand it, I call something "irrational" when there is no possibility whatsoever that we could ever understand it! Maybe "irrational" is the wrong word and maybe I should have said "unrational" or "non-rational" instead, but I thought my meaning was fairly clear.

If something is unknown, then obviously we can't presently understand it. But that doesn't mean we never will.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Furthermore, knocking on wood to in the hopes that a cute girl won't cancel a date is far different than believing in religions that demand you live your life according to their strict rules, so you "can go to heaven" after you die.

BS Investigator,
I look at religious claims and try to place them into two groups, those which can be tested (they have an effect on real life) and those which cannot be tested. For instance if I believe in god, that cannot be tested , but If I believe that god created earth and the universe in 6 days this might be testable or that god created all the life forms on the planet not via evolution, this is testable. Those which are not testable are of little importance and not so illogical as long as they did not arrive at them by themselves. For instance if ones religion is that invisible pink flying reindeer created the world which one came up with the idea them selves then that is a bit out there. If they are just following the dogma of an established religion in my mind that is not such a big deal. I guess I see traditions as being excusable beliefs as long as they are not testable. Hmmm you know I have never really talked to a bunch of skeptics before. Most of my life I have had friends who were definitely not skeptics. Time to air out my beliefs.

 

[CaptainManacles]

And there you have it - a skeptic would be forced to commit an act of faith - unless they can prove QM is wrong. In the world of "True" vs. "False" as cited in the OP, that skeptic would then instantly be considered a "false" skeptic because they believe in something without evidence.

Assuming that quantum mechanics does hold such a view (I don't think it does, I'm pretty sure they dropped that idea) then you're not making a belief based on "no evidence". Quantum mechanics is based on observations of the world, and you're basing your belief in "number 3" on those observations. Maybe you have not observed the cat itself, but this is similar to believing the sun will rise tommorow, you do not have to look into the future to believe such a statement, and it's not "faith" just because you have not seen future sun.

 

[BS Investigator]

BS Investigator,
....if one's religion is that invisible pink flying reindeer created the world which one came up with the idea them selves then that is a bit out there. If they are just following the dogma of an established religion in my mind that is not such a big deal.

You think flying pink reindeer are "bit out there", but that people "parting the Red Sea," corpses "rising from the dead" and a guy living inside a whale's stomach for three days are not? To me they are exactly the same. That is to say, all of these outlandish ideas are total bullsh#t, with ZERO valid evidence going for them. Just because something has "tradition" behind it, in absolutely no way does that make it any more or less "true." There was a long tradition behind Zeus and Thor, but now we look at such mythical figments of our imagination as a joke. Now, I say pink flying reindeer and people living inside whales for 3 days is "total bullsh#t," but to get technical, I have to allow for at least a .00000000000001 percent chance that such claims are possible, because it is simply not possible for me to disprove them.

Anyway, Dogdoctor, we're glad to have you here with us, talking about these things. I learn new stuff about skepticism all the time here, and I will probably consider myself a noobie for some time to come.

 

[Dogdoctor]

You think flying pink reindeer are "bit out there", but that people "parting the Red Sea," corpses "rising from the dead" and a guy living inside a whale's stomach for three days are not? To me they are exactly the same.

To me they are the same as you knocking on wood. Part of my concern is that if you spend time and effort criticising people for things which have no effect on the rest of the world, you may not be in the best position to confront them when they do things which can affect you. Anyway I am glad to be here and able to communicate with someone who might even have an idea of what I am thinking.

 

[Donn]

I've had my say in this thread and I have tried to be fair to the Sceptics who may have a religious bent, but this idea of not addressing the 500lb gorilla in the room is more than a tad depressing.

I just watched a show on tv about this scumbag evangelical sh*thead who operates from his tv/radio empire. He fleeces people, sells them false hope and lies and does it all with a smile and a straight-face.
He claims loudly and confidently that he cures HIV and AIDS and he packs them in by their hundreds.

If we Sceptics (of all stripes) don't stop being polite about "religion" and "culture" and "tradition" and just call the thing as it is: Medieval Blackmail and Brainwashing, then we may as well just sign up for some auditing and a billion year contract to boot.

Damn pissed at the moment...

 

[luchog]

Again, I will state that god has evidence against his existence. Praying and not getting a response is evidence against his existence.

Or it's evidence that you did it wrong. Or it's evidence that you failed to recognize or accept the response that you did get.

Your "evidence" is only valid if you see G-D in purely mechanistic terms.

The problem with supernatural entities is that they do, by definition, exist outside what we know as space-time. Some are said to interact with our world to greater or lesser degrees, but ultimately if something is truly supernatural, then the normal mechanics of scientific investigation simply no longer apply. Some of the claims of fact made by believers can be verified; but not the ultimate object of belief.

 

[Donn]

Or it's evidence that you did it wrong. Or it's evidence that you failed to recognize or accept the response that you did get.

Your "evidence" is only valid if you see G-D in purely mechanistic terms.

The problem with supernatural entities is that they do, by definition, exist outside what we know as space-time. Some are said to interact with our world to greater or lesser degrees, but ultimately if something is truly supernatural, then the normal mechanics of scientific investigation simply no longer apply. Some of the claims of fact made by believers can be verified; but not the ultimate object of belief.

Then, if you can't dissect god with the tools of logic and argument and you cannot touch him with science - what can you do to reveal that the emperor has no clothes? What can you say to those being suckered out of money and limb?
At what point can you say "Look this is all bloody stupid."?
This is all fairies cut out of cardboard.
This is all smoke and mirrors.
There is no God.
There is no Xenu.
There are no Demons or Angels.
No elephant gods or six armed hellions.
No afterlife, no waiting room, no recycling plant.

Can anyone with the charisma and the stone-cold moxy simply start a religion based on the fluff in their navels and then expect no-one to be able to stop them?

Is religion really that immune?

 

[jmercer]

Assuming that quantum mechanics does hold such a view (I don't think it does, I'm pretty sure they dropped that idea) then you're not making a belief based on "no evidence". Quantum mechanics is based on observations of the world, and you're basing your belief in "number 3" on those observations. Maybe you have not observed the cat itself, but this is similar to believing the sun will rise tommorow, you do not have to look into the future to believe such a statement, and it's not "faith" just because you have not seen future sun.

Well, I'm reasonably sure that the Heisenburg Uncertaintly Principle hasn't been junked quite yet. The Cat is just a paradoxical thought experiment meant to show that QT and QM are incomplete; however, the uncertainty principle, wave collapse and quantum entanglement are alive and kicking.

Regardless, it's not whether or not the Cat is still there that's being asked - it's the state of the Cat.

 

[BS Investigator]

To me they are the same as you knocking on wood. Part of my concern is that if you spend time and effort criticising people for things which have no effect on the rest of the world....

Religious belief has no effect on the rest of the world? Take a look at world history, or September 11th.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Religious belief has no effect on the rest of the world? Take a look at world history, or September 11th.

What I am saying is that beleif in Jonah or the parting of the Red Sea or god has no effect on us. Those who are responsible for 9/11 had other beliefs which are a concern. Think of it this way. Are you going to prove to anyone that god does not exist? That their religion is wrong? If you could would that help? I am not sure, I did once and my friend who was a strict Catholic went on to be come a heroin addict and die due to overdosage. So no big help there freeing his mind only resulted in him wasting it. You can get people afraid of you and despise you for your hatred of their beleifs, that is easy to accomplish. What I think is more important is to address those issues which do have an effect on us. Religion as a whole is not going away and there is no point in spending a lot of time running down religion as a whole and in fact from my perspective it is counterproductive.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Or it's evidence that you did it wrong. Or it's evidence that you failed to recognize or accept the response that you did get.

There are other explinations, but the fact remains that the observed phenominon reduces the set of scenerios in which a god can exist. Yes, if I look into the next room and do not see Suzy, she could be incoporeal or have invented cloaking technology. However, now the belief that she is, in fact, in the room, rests on a number of dubious assumptions: that she has lept ahead of the scientific world and hid her invention, or that incorporealness exists and suzy is capable of it. Certainly, lack of an answer to prayer doesn't stand by itself, but my original point doesn't require it to. That certain skeptics cannot even recognize this as evidence speaks volumes about their credibility.

Your "evidence" is only valid if you see G-D in purely mechanistic terms.

well, I had to go to quite a lot of effort to nail down what this statement means, I'm willing to bet it's just an empty statement on your part, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mechanistic
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Mechanical
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material

From these definitions I can surmise that mechanisitic means that I believe that things are made out of the things that things are made out of. In which case, yes, that is a logically true statement by default, or that I believe everything has mass, which is not a true statement, I think sceintists have discovered things which are not composed of mass.

If you have a better definiton, please share it.

>>The problem with supernatural entities is that they do, by definition, exist outside what we know as space-time.

Do they now? That's news to me, and many religions of the world. I would think those that believed gods lived on Mount Olympus certainly held super-natural beliefs.

Some are said to interact with our world to greater or lesser degrees, but ultimately if something is truly supernatural, then the normal mechanics of scientific investigation simply no longer apply.

Why? Define "truely supernatural"

Some of the claims of fact made by believers can be verified; but not the ultimate object of belief.

Well, an object is just an abstraction of a set of claims of fact. To say "this is a glass" states in a compressed manner a large number of facts, as does saying "god exists". Of course, the problem is further compounded by the blurry nature of the word god.

 

[BS Investigator]

Dogdoctor, religions teach humans very dangerous ideas. For one, it teaches that high authority (aka, "The Lord") must never be questioned. Religious followers are taught to turn off their critical thinking and follow orders blindly -- even the most outrageous orders ("God" telling Abraham to kill his own son). This is a recipe for disaster, because when a population cannot think for itself or question authority, it is easily misled by powerful leaders into wars of aggression or other horrible acts.

Beyond that, religion is extremely divisive. We need forces at work on this planet bringing us together as human beings, but religion divides us. "My sky lord is better than your sky lord!" "No, mine is the only true sky lord!" and so on. The major religions humanity is straddled with like Islam and Christianity, almost by definition, are divisive. They teach their followers that theirs is the only "true" religion, and many claim that everyone who does not believe their "true God" is going straight to Hell, unless they can be "converted," or in the case of literal belief, "slaughtered."

Actually, religion is far, far more harmful in a seething world armed with nuclear weapons, than something silly like dowsing. However, we try to educate the public about dowsing, because we want them to think critically at all time, in order to avoid the calamities I outlined above.

 

[BS Investigator]

No.

Yes.

http://www.jrefwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=True_Skeptic

 

[normdoering]

Dogdoctor, religions teach humans very dangerous ideas. For one, it teaches that high authority (aka, "The Lord") must never be questioned. Religious followers are taught to turn off their critical thinking and follow orders blindly -- even the most outrageous orders ("God" telling Abraham to kill his own son).

Not all of them. I don't think Gardner was like that.

But I get the feeling it's most religious followers.

Still, you can't make such a big blanket statement about religion -- the phenomena called religion is just too diverse.

Cut it up a little more, there are some ways of being religious that are worse than others.

Call what you've defined "authority based religion." ... or something like that.