True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Bri]

Those strong atheists? Forget God, I am skeptical about the existence of strong atheists. Do you have any examples?

I believe that several have already posted to this thread.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The chances of Santa Claus or elves or "God" or tooth fairies being real is extremely, extremely small. We have never seen any solid evidence at all for such things.

Oh, and we have seen solid evidence that they don't exist? Yet you still continue to believe it? Shame on you!

Aliens? Other intelligent life in the universe. Well we know FOR CERTAIN that intelligent life does exist in the universe, because we are it! Therefore, we have evidence for the phenomenon of intelligent life. We also know that organic molecules and the building blocks of life are easily produced everywhere in the universe, and that many stars have planets orbiting them.

And despite all this, there is no actual evidence of other intelligent life in the universe.

So it is much more logical to believe in the possiblity of aliens over Easter Bunnies or "Gods".

In your opinion, belief that there might be aliens is more valid than belief that there might be a god even though you have no evidence of either. That is your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it (we're all entitled to beliefs without proof).

And despite this, I still consider you are a "true skeptic!"

-Bri

 

[Robin]

Many atheists hold this position. It's called "strong atheism." The "other" non-theist position is one of agnosticism, which is not a belief at all, but rather a lack of a belief one way or the other about gods.

Well it depends, some define agnosticism as "we cannot know". But if there was a God we could know, so in this case agnosticism would not apply. My definition of atheism which most people use is that I don't believe in God.

But I still question if "many" atheists hold this position. I have never heard of any, not with the definition you give. Most atheists that say there is no God are referring to a particular subset of god beliefs.

I have never heard of the position that no god can possibly exist using any possible definition. Never. It is like saying that no Tchuich can possibly exist.

It is impractical to apply this in the case of anything that is unfalsifiable. You cannot provide evidence that there are no pixies, elves, or faeries. Does this mean that you cannot believe them to not exist if you're a skeptic?

But the belief that there are no pixies, elves or faeries is falsifiable. You would just need one pixie, elf or faery to falsify that belief.

How about aliens? Is it OK to believe that there might be aliens in the universe if you're a skeptic? Is there any evidence of that?

Yes, you can claim a "might be" without evidence, you can claim there might be a God without evidence. But if you claim there are life forms other than on earth you will need evidence.

I believe that several have already posted to this thread.

Then it should not be any trouble for you to give an example as I asked.

 

[Donn]

BTW, Donn ..snip... I had to take a break.

Welcome back! Word.


(You are just in time, my shift is tailing off.)

 

[Donn]

"To mysterious seem, obscure you must be." - Fluffy the Good.

Here is the Zen of Scepticism my tadpoles:
A chisel is made to chip away at rocks.
Scepticism was made to chip away at belief.
The two mix like oil and water - you are one or the other depending on your current hat.

You cannot be the rock and the chisel, grasshopper, no matter what Yoda says!

"Now go ye and contemplate your Navels!" - Fluffy.

Bri - To claim actual knowledge of something is different from claiming a belief or an opinion. A claim of knowledge requires overwhelming evidence; a belief or opinion requires only valid reasons.

Yeah, but a belief or opinion (BOO for short) cannot be left intact while you call yourself a Sceptic.

I reckon those that operate on BOO should be called "Acceptics"

Bri - The only "true skeptic" is an agnostic then (one who holds no belief at all)? The position of an agnostic is that if they cannot know something, then they must withold belief either way. Oddly, every belief and opinion in the world concerns something that cannot be known (otherwise it's not a "belief" or "opinion" but a "fact.") So by your reasoning, anyone who holds a belief or opinion cannot be a "true skeptic."

Sounds as though there are no "true skeptics" at all by your definition.

Not only can't true skeptics be religious, they can't exist!.

I think you've got it, and have reminded me.
Agnostic is a pure position. It's a declaration that a thing *cannot* be known with certainty.
When we descend into the real world, we are inclined to pick a side. A Sceptic will pick the side that leans towards having the most evidence (quality) but must always remind themselves that they do not *believe* this leaning, it's simply the most accurate interpretation at the moment.

A "True Sceptic" in the sense of doing Sceptical things properly - would interrupt their atheism/theism every now and then and run the reAppraiseAndUpdateWithLatestEvidence() function (which returns a new BOO).



pant - pant - pant - "Aaargh shiny thing hurts!" - relurking.

 

[Thomas]

So why can't someone be inclined to skepticism (i.e. doubt) concerning the existance of a god and still believe in that god? Many theists have some questions and even doubt about the existance of the god they believe in.

What I tried to show is how you easily can advocate both sides of the story depending on the definitions you use. When you use the A2 it really breaks down to how you define skepticism and what particular parts of your religion you're in doubt of. If you're a xian and in doubt concerning the ten commandments and the existance of god, are you a true Scotsman then?

The kind of religious person you place in the context seems to be essential as well. A person who believes in god because the bible has told him to, do imho display a lesser amount of critical thinking than the guy who believes in a personal god, or in a creator, due to testable evidence and common sense from modern science and philosophy. It's two very different kinds of persons who believes in a creator or god for very different reasons. Then there's all the other ones and all those in between.

I personally don't think that a person who believes in the word of a book full of contradictions, above evidence, is entirely qualified to call him,- or herself a skeptic towards the paranormal and supernatural. I would say that their skepticism is incomplete and slightly dishonest because it is used only at their pleasure.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry. Didn't mean to step on your toes there. Certainly, it's best to reduce/eliminate bias to the greatest extent possible. That's what scientific methodology is all about. But I think it's a serious mistake to believe that you can successfully eliminate all bias.

Well, I don't think you can find anyone in their right mind thinking that any person can be completely void of bias. I just didn't elaborate on that particular part because I perhaps thought it to be rather obvious. We should still strive towards that goal though, although it's unobtainable in theory. We're doing it right now, though.

 

[Bri]

Well it depends, some define agnosticism as "we cannot know".

"We cannot know" necessarily includes "we don't know." If you believe both, you are a "strong agnostic" while only the latter is a "weak agnostic."

I have never heard of the position that no god can possibly exist using any possible definition. Never. It is like saying that no Tchuich can possibly exist.

Perhaps someone with this belief will clarify it for you. The basic idea here is that it's just their belief -- it doesn't require proof. A "strong atheist" often believes that "weak atheists" are simply afraid to state an opinion.

But the belief that there are no pixies, elves or faeries is falsifiable. You would just need one pixie, elf or faery to falsify that belief.

The notion that there are pixies, elves, or faeries is unfalsifiable, which means that you cannot provide enough evidence that they don't exist to constitute proof. In other words, according to what you said above "It is like saying that no Tchuich can possibly exist" simply replace "Tchuich" with pixie, elves, or faeries.

You seem to have no problem taking the "strong atheist" view towards faeries, but you have a problem with it in reference to a god.

Yes, you can claim a "might be" without evidence, you can claim there might be a God without evidence. But if you claim there are life forms other than on earth you will need evidence.

So in order to be a "true skeptic" you are saying that you must be agnostic towards anything that cannot be proven one way or the other. You claimed that you believe that there are no faeries, which is not an agnostic view, but a "strong atheist" view towards faeries. So, you're not being a "true skeptic" in your beliefs in faeries by your own definition.

Then it should not be any trouble for you to give an example as I asked.

Well, you yourself admitted a similar view of faeries.

I don't want to speak for anyone, but here are some posts from people claiming a strong atheist position towards gods:

This one is from this thread.

This one is from another thread.

This one is from three posts from this one (I'm psychic).

-Bri

edited to include proof of psychic abilities

 

[Bri]

Re: "To mysterious seem, obscure you must be." - Fluffy the Good.

A "True Sceptic" in the sense of doing Sceptical things properly - would interrupt their atheism/theism every now and then and run the reAppraiseAndUpdateWithLatestEvidence() function (which returns a new BOO).

I agree with your post exicept for your definition of "true skeptic." I believe that some people are more or less skeptical, but as long as they question their beliefs (i.e. are skeptics) they are "true skeptics."

I would argue that what you refer to as a "true skeptic" is actually a "perfect skeptic" in which case I would agree that nobody is perfect. Furthermore, I don't think that being a "true skeptic" by your definition (which would necessitate being an agnostic on literally everything since nothing is known for certain) would simply make you a pansy of the worst kind (one who is afraid to give an opinion about anything).

The word "true" is a loaded word, and for one to claim that someone is not a "true skeptic" is the "True Scottsman" fallacy.

-Bri

 

[Ashles]

Those strong atheists who believe that it is impossible for any god to exist would also disagree with you.

...

Many atheists hold this position. It's called "strong atheism." The "other" non-theist position is one of agnosticism, which is not a belief at all, but rather a lack of a belief one way or the other about gods.

There appears to be some confusion here. Whilst a strong atheist might theoretically hold such a position, it is incorrect to say that this is the position of strong atheism.

From Wiki:

Strong atheism or positive atheism is the philosophical position that God or gods do not exist. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods, without the claim that God or gods do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible...

The strong atheist may also conclude on the basis of lack of evidence or other rational grounds that god or Gods do not exist, but concede that it is possible that they do, although extremely unlikely.

So whilst I am a strong atheist I do not claim that there definitely is no God or that it is impossible - merely that I believe there is not one. But I may, of course, be wrong.

Like Robin, I have not seen anyone claiming that "it is impossible for any god to exist".
Such a position would certainly be considered to fall within strong atheism, but one can certainly be a strong atheist without holding such a position.

So finding an example of a strong atheist around here is not too hard.
But I doubt you will find an example of "Those strong atheists who believe that it is impossible for any god to exist".

 

[Beth]

Well, this is only anecdotal, but I'm married to a strong atheist according to that definition.

Beth

 

[Bri]

What I tried to show is how you easily can advocate both sides of the story depending on the definitions you use.

Understood. I simply don't see any defintions that you've provided that would support the claim that a skeptic cannot believe in a god.

If you're a xian and in doubt concerning the ten commandments and the existance of god, are you a true Scotsman then?

No, but you're a "true" Christian. A Christian is simply "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" and has nothing to do with doubt concerning those beliefs. You're using the No True Scotsman Fallacy if you believe that a Christian who has doubts isn't a "true Christian."

The kind of religious person you place in the context seems to be essential as well. A person who believes in god because the bible has told him to, do imho display a lesser amount of critical thinking than the guy who believes in a personal god, or in a creator, due to testable evidence and common sense from modern science and philosophy. It's two very different kinds of persons who believes in a creator or god for very different reasons. Then there's all the other ones and all those in between.

I completely agree. Not all Christians are skeptics, but some might be. The title of the thread is "True Skeptics Cannot be Religious" which I would disagree with.

I personally don't think that a person who believes in the word of a book full of contradictions, above evidence, is entirely qualified to call him,- or herself a skeptic towards the paranormal and supernatural.

Not all "true Christians" take the Bible literally. I would disagree with your statement that a Christian cannot be fully qualified to call himself or herself a skeptic towards the paranormal and supernatural. In fact, one common Christian belief is to be skeptical of paranormal or supernatural claims (beware of false prophets and such).

I would say that their skepticism is incomplete and slightly dishonest because it is used only at their pleasure.

Then that's true of everyone who believes that there are no faeries.

All beliefs and opinions, by definition, cannot be poven (otherwise they're "facts"). Can you name one person who doesn't hold a belief or have an opinion about something?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There appears to be some confusion here.

...

So finding an example of a strong atheist around here is not too hard.
But I doubt you will find an example of "Those strong atheists who believe that it is impossible for any god to exist".

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Other often-cited sources like this one state it differently:

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods -- making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

To admit that gods might exist, but then deny that gods exist could be a difficult position to defend.

Nonetheless, the definition of "strong atheism" you quoted doesn't change my argument at all.

If one believes that it is possible that gods exist, to then conclude that "no gods exist" is clearly a belief without proof. Furthermore, most who hold this belief do so because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, not because of any evidence for their position. So, if one is to believe that a theist cannot be a "true skeptic" because of a lack of evidence, then one must also believe that a "strong atheist" cannot be a "true skeptic."

For that matter, everyone who holds a belief or opinion (i.e. isn't agnostic) about anything at all isn't a "true skeptic" since by definition a belief or opinion is not a fact.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

And despite all this, there is no actual evidence of other intelligent life in the universe.

In your opinion, belief that there might be aliens is more valid than belief that there might be a god even though you have no evidence of either. That is your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it (we're all entitled to beliefs without proof)

-Bri

As I pointed out, there is evidence that "life" exists in the universe, because we are it. There is zero evidence for any "Gods" existing anywhere. Also, as I pointed out, the organic building blocks of life are made all the time inside of stars, and can be easily reproduced in the lab, with sparks and gases.

A good analogy are planets around other stars. Scientists speculated that other stars had planets for many decades, based on what we knew about how our own planets formed. All the building blocks seemed to be in place around other stars. There was no direct confirmation yet, but it seemed like a decent possibility, given all that we knew. Well, fast forward a few decades and sciene has now confirmed many planets in other solar sysems through direct observation.

The same could happen with SETI.

 

[luchog]

Re: "To mysterious seem, obscure you must be." - Fluffy the Good.

Here is the Zen of Scepticism my tadpoles:
A chisel is made to chip away at rocks.
Scepticism was made to chip away at belief.
The two mix like oil and water - you are one or the other depending on your current hat.

You cannot be the rock and the chisel, grasshopper, no matter what Yoda says!

That is not Zen. Zen does not accept compartmentalization of existence.

The Zen teaching here would be that you are the chisel and the rock, and the debris that results. The essence of Zen is that you are not separate from your action. There is no You that is not part of what you do or feel or are. You are the rock that is being chiselled into a shape of your chosing. You are the chisel that shapes the rock. You are the act of chiselling, shaping, and deciding on the shape. You are the debris that is left from the chiselling. You are that which stands aside and observes the process.

 

[luchog]

There is one thing about which I haven't even a sliver of doubt. That pink thing in your avatar is NOT a bunny! Nice moose head though.

Actually, it's a Ninja Pirate

Descartes spoke French, so the original statement was "Je pense, donc je suis" (I am thinking, therefore I exist) according to Wikipedia. Even that requires a modicum of faith.

No, since it is not possible to conceive of non-existence, since the very act of thinking denotes existence. It is the one undeniable axiom; and the only thing that is logically deduceable ex nihilo. No faith is required in one's own existence, since it is directly, universally observable, with no alternate explanation possible. For there to be thought, there must be a self that thinks.

Not all "true Christians" take the Bible literally. I would disagree with your statement that a Christian cannot be fully qualified to call himself or herself a skeptic towards the paranormal and supernatural. In fact, one common Christian belief is to be skeptical of paranormal or supernatural claims (beware of false prophets and such).

This is an integral part of the scripture; and one that few Christians really attention to. It's saddening how few Christians really understand what they believe, or what the Bible truly teaches. They simply pick and choose bits based on what they were taught as children, and what supports their own prejudices and preference.

Doubt is an important part of faith. "But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast." 1 Thessalonians 5:21
"DO not put faith in every spirit, but prove (test) the spirits to discover whether they proceed from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world." 1 John 4:1

People who do not doubt will believe any sort of crap that fits with what they want to believe, or which a suitably strong authority can convince them of. That's pretty obvious with some of the more whackjob "Christian" stuff out there; especially some of the fundie crap. Literal creationism simply doesn't fit scripture; which is clear to anyone reading with anything like a critical eye. The language and literary style simply doesn't support it. Yet millions of Christians believe it, because that's what they're told. I was lucky in that, though I was brought up fairly orthodox (not Orthodox) Christian, I was also taught the value of critical thinking and doubt. Christian author C.S. Lewis has some good stuff on the value of doubt (he's often referred to as the Apostle to the Skeptics).

 

[Ashles]

If one believes that it is possible that gods exist, to then conclude that "no gods exist" is clearly a belief without proof. Furthermore, most who hold this belief do so because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, not because of any evidence for their position. So, if one is to believe that a theist cannot be a "true skeptic" because of a lack of evidence, then one must also believe that a "strong atheist" cannot be a "true skeptic."

That is what I have been saying.

If you make any assumptions and reach personal decisions or beliefs in the absence of evidence then, yes you are not a "true sceptic".

And as I have been saying all along, no-one really is a true or perfect sceptic.

Which was my issue with the OP. It implied that those who had a belief in God weren't capable of being sceptical, and those who didn't believe in God were the only ones allowed to call themselves sceptics. Which is of course nonsense.

Scepticism is applied inconsistently by everyone to varying degrees every day.
Nobody is sceptical about everything and conversely no-one believes [/i]everything[/i] they are told in any situation.

It is a sliding scale, not something that you either have or don't have.

To admit that gods might exist, but then deny that gods exist could be a difficult position to defend.

That would be - but it wasn't what was being stated.

I don't deny that Gods exist, I say that I believe that Gods don't exist. And I would have to concede that I may be wrong about this (I even hope I am), but that doesn't change what I believe.
It's an important distinction. If someone at work says they believe in God I wouldn't respond "God doesn't exist" because I don't know that. I would say "I don't believe in a God".

(N.B. Thanks for the link.
It appears there is some discrepancy about the definition of "strong atheism" - I always took it to be as defined in the Wiki. I wouldn't describe myself as a strong atheist according to the link you posted. Strange that the two definitions appear to differ quite markedly)

 

[Donn]

Re: Re: "To mysterious seem, obscure you must be." - Fluffy the Good.

That is not Zen. Zen does not accept compartmentalization of existence.

I was talking about True Zen.

 

[Bri]

As I pointed out, there is evidence that "life" exists in the universe, because we are it. There is zero evidence for any "Gods" existing anywhere. Also, as I pointed out, the organic building blocks of life are made all the time inside of stars, and can be easily reproduced in the lab, with sparks and gases.

You mischaracterized my statements. I said that there is no evidence of other intelligent life. That the universe is teeming with the "building blocks" of life and yet we have no evidence might be evidence that there is no other life, but it certainly isn't evidence that there is.

I never claimed that there was evidence of any gods existing anywhere, although the fact that we can place the necessary ingredients in a petri dish and get no intelligent life might be considered evidence to some that we are more than the sum or our parts, which would indicate something that science cannot even begin to explain but could be explained by the existance of a god.

The same could happen with SETI.

Of course it could, but there is no evidence to indicate that it will. If you believe that it will, then your belief is without evidence, just like a theist's belief in God.

Therefore, by your definition, a belief in intelligent life on other planets would prevent you from being a "true skeptic."

-Bri

 

[Bri]

This is an integral part of the scripture; and one that few Christians really attention to.

Although I'm not a Christian, I know of several who would disagree. In fact, if you can show me two Christians who agree on exactly what constitutes "an integral part of the scripture" and what doesn't, I would be very impressed.

It's saddening how few Christians really understand what they believe, or what the Bible truly teaches. They simply pick and choose bits based on what they were taught as children, and what supports their own prejudices and preference.

That some Christians do this is undoubtedly true. But they're still Christians.

Doubt is an important part of faith.

Many religions encourage (even require) doubt in a way that Christianity doesn't. Even so, I would argue that it is possible to be a "true Christian" and a "true skeptic."

Excellent post, by the way!

-Bri