True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Beady]

Because skeptics do not believe in extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence.

Do you have any evidence at all to back up this statement, or is it an article of faith?

It is becoming very, very difficult to not see you as a zealous, fundamentalist skeptic. That is, you appear to have morphed skepticism from a framework for thinking into a dogmatic, unthinking orthodoxy. In short, as I've said at least twice before, you appear to be guilty of the same sins that you scorn in others. Even worse, you appear to be blindly determined to deny it.

If you're not skeptical about your own rectitude, you're not a skeptic.

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist, good post. You should have made your own thread for all the hard work and thought you put into that.

Thanks, but it didn't need a new thread since it was aimed specifically at this one.

I am no way saying that skeptics should not have spiritual feelings and experiences. I hope they do. I do. What I am saying is that you cannot believe that these major religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are "true" or "real" and still be a real skeptic.

But you're missing my entire point. Religion according to my description isn't encompassed within rational constructs. Therefore the terms "true" and "real", which are verbal concepts which belong in the domain of the rational are completely and totally inapplicable. If someone were to say these things, then yes, they would be talking absurdities, but that doesn't make the religions themselves "invalid". One of the main problems is exactly how does anyone speak about the unspeakable? Ordinary rational language is useless in that situation, but there are other methods - for example, metaphor. Which is why religion is often heavily laden with metaphor. Of course if you insist on strictly interpreting all metaphors in a purely literal sense you will find them absurd - but as I just said in another post, that is not an honest way to proceed.

If someone believes in "Art", then does that make them a "false skeptic"? For example, would you care to explain to me whether the Mona Lisa is "true" or "false"? If everything can be simply classified as being true or false then surely that painting can be. I'd love to know whether it's "true" or "false" (but if it's false, don't tell the Louvre, I suspect they'd be upset about it! )

Most people are familiar with the fact that a particular choice of words in poetry or literature, used metaphorically can evoke a particular sensation in most people. But if you take a purely metaphorical poem and try to literally interpret it word by word, you'll find it's complete junk. So does that invalidate poetry as a medium?

Now, of course you will find actual people who call themselves Christians, Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever who insist that everything about their "religion" is literally true and is to be strictly interpreted in a literal sense. People like that are usually crazy - we recognise them as fanatical fundamentalists and we rightly challenge their assertions. But that doesn't by any means imply that everyone who claims to be a member of one of the above (or any) religion, is a crazy fundie. Therefore, why on earth would anyone want to make a sweeping assertion about the honesty and intelligence of any member of that religion based on the utterly false assumption that all its adherents are fundies?

But aside from that, what you propose looks very much to me like fundamentalism. The fundie says, "If you don't believe in God, you can't be religious". You say, "If you believe in a major religion you can't be a skeptic". Both premises are absurd and on the face of it, barely distinguishable. And both are claims which are not supported by any evidence. The reason why you are being challenged on here is because you are making claims, you are not offering any evidence, but you are insisting that we should accept your assertions at face value. Is that skepticism? In other words, it seems to me that what you are doing is trying to start a fundie "religion" of your own. I may of course be wrong, but I would say that what distinguishes a skeptic from a fundie is the fact that the skeptic is prepared to offer evidence in support of his claims and does not simply say, "It's true because I said so". So where is your evidence?

Religious claims are the most important and extraordinary of all human claims. Therefore they should be subjected -- if you believe in skepticism, critical thinking and the scientific method -- to the most extraordinary standards of evidence.

But what if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence? A religious person might say the evidence is there if you are prepared to make the effort to find it. Someone might say, "Give yourself to God and you'll see that what I'm saying is true". But if you then sneer and turn away, that doesn't constitute a failure of the evidence, but a failure by you to consider the evidence. And critical thinking and the scientific method are really quite useless in the domain of the irrational.

I'll tell you what, I'll give you some evidence. Try the Korzybski technique I mentioned before. Tell me the ultimate nature of anything without running out of words, concepts or arguing in circles. I will claim that you can't do it, and therefore that is evidence of the existence of "the unspeakable". If you accept then that "the unspeakable" exists then I maintain that you must also realise that it is not susceptible to critical thinking or scientific method etc. And then, if any thing exists which is not susceptible to critical thinking etc., then surely an insistance that everything has to be, is dishonest, isn't it?

Would you care to explain and demonstrate to me the correct application of skepticism and critical thinking to metaphoric poetry for example? I would like to learn how such a thing is done.

By the way, you said, "if you believe in skepticism" etc. Skepticism is a methodology, not a belief system. Can you see that representing skepticism as a belief system looks no different to what you accuse religious people of doing?

Those "skeptics" who know that there is zero valid evidence for religion, but choose to turn off their brain for that one thing, those are the people I am talking about. People who should know better.

Any skeptic, for example, who believes in an afterlife, to me is no skeptic at all. That is the most extraordinary claim possible, and there is not one shred of evidence to support it. Can we all agree on that?

Would you care to name these alleged skeptics who "know there is zero valid evidence" etc? Recognising that some things are not susceptible to rational analysis doesn't imply that anyone is "turning off their brain" - that is just insulting. As for an "afterlife", it depends on what you are referring to. If you are referring to the state of experience in the unspeakable which convinces some people that there is more to life than their current existence then your comment is meaningless and inappropriate, their evidence is not amenable to your tools of analysis. If you are referring to a rational concept of an afterlife then you are probably correct - but your argument is a straw man because many religious people don't simply accept the concept on a rational basis without some other experience.

I've noticed that throughout this thread you have made numerous assertions about the falsity of religion itself, but each time you have been challenged you revert to attacking claims made by some (allegedly) religious people. There is a vast difference between someone's belief and the claims of some others using the same label. You are conflating two entirely different things, but that doesn't come across as a good example of critical thinking - to me at least. It's incredibly easy to shoot down ridiculous fundie claims - shooting fish in a barrel. But if you then claim that you've shot down religion itself, you're not being honest. That is really the mother of all straw men.

 

[jmercer]

Great Googly-Moogly. We're going to have to start a Pragmatist
Fan Club after this second knock-out post!

Great, great, post!

 

[BS Investigator]

It is becoming very, very difficult to not see you as a zealous, fundamentalist skeptic.

I find this amusing. If the definition of "fundamentalist skeptic" is "A person who only believes extraordinary claims when they are backed by extraordinary evidence," then consider me guilty as charged.

 

[El_Spectre]

But you're missing my entire point. Religion according to my description isn't encompassed within rational constructs.

My problem with this is that it's creating an exception where one need not be. Making an 'irrational realm' because we don't understand something (be it awe, beauty whatever) instead of trying to understand it seems like cheating.

It seems like the whole "god of the gaps" thing, where god keeps losing ground to PhDs

Of course, it depends on your assumptions. I assume the world is rational and follows the rules... you say "religious experience", I say "chemical imbalance in the brain".

All that said, I'm glad to see the thread has turned more civil

 

[BS Investigator]

Thanks, but it didn't need a new thread since it was aimed specifically at this one.

Um, I could spend all day here refuting your assertions, but I'll try (unlike you) to make it brief.

First of all, you keep playing with the term "religion", but I have been pretty clear: I am talking about skeptics who believe in the extraordinary claims of religion - ie, resurrection, afterlife, and so on -- for which there is zero evidence. I really can't speak to your "unspeakable evidence." Most skeptics deal in reality.

What if I told you there are Dragons flying through the clouds who secretly rule the planet, and they demand that you live according to their NINE HOLY LAWS. I am the only one who can talk to the Dragons, so I actually wrote all the Laws down on a tablet. You have to live exactly according to Dragon Laws, or the Dragons will feast on your Soul for eternity. If you obey them, you and your family will have a wonderful afterlife in a Heaven resembling a Penthouse at the Trump Tower.

"Where is the evidence?" you ask. The evidence is all around you! Can't you feel the Dragons' energy? I mean, I had a "religious experience"... they even talked to me!

If you ask for evidence, sorry, but the Dragons are invisible. They operate outside the realm of physics -- they are above that. And besides, the only evidence for the Dragons' existence is "unspeakable evidence"... It cannot be tested. It cannot be viewed by those who rely on so-called "reality."

Now, if any skeptic believed my claims, and actually believed that invisible dragons were roaming the skies, and was looking forward to seeing his dead relatives at the Trump, what would you think of that skeptic's critical thinking abilities? Would you basically consider him/her a fool for believing such an outlandish claim with no real evidence at all?

Well, religion and Dragons have exactly the same amount of valid evidence going for them, which is to say, NONE.

 

[crimresearch]

Um, I could spend all day here refuting your assertions, but I'll try (unlike you) to make it brief.

First of all, you keep playing with the term "religion", but I have been pretty clear: I am talking about skeptics who believe in the extraordinary claims of religion - ie, resurrection, afterlife, and so on -- for which there is zero evidence...

How is using the dictionary (and the commonly accepted) definitions of skeptic 'playing with'?

It really does give the appearance that you have created your own special cases definition..which some folks might argue is hardly the sign of skepticism.
So far, it has been correctly pointed out that you are using fundy arguments, projection, sophistry, multiple fallacies, and other debate tactics...why would you think that no one here would notice, and/or call you on them?

 

[Palimpsest]

First of all, you keep playing with the term "religion", but I have been pretty clear:

Well, you're the one who's redefined Buddhism as "not a religion" early in this thread, so who's playing with the term?

I am talking about skeptics who believe in the extraordinary claims of religion - ie, resurrection, afterlife, and so on -- for which there is zero evidence. I really can't speak to your "unspeakable evidence." Most skeptics deal in reality.

What if I told you *snip*

Wow. That was a heck of a strawman there. Bravo. 7 out of 10[*]. Is that really how you see religious skeptics? Or even religious people in general? Please tell me it's not.

If the definition of "fundamentalist skeptic" is "A person who only believes extraordinary claims when they are backed by extraordinary evidence," then consider me guilty as charged.

Unless you're making the claims yourself?

[*] Had to take off a couple of points because the "invisible dragon" bit has already been done in The Demon-Haunted World [**]
[**] And 1 point because everyone knows there are Ten Holy Laws of Dragonkind

 

[Beth]

Great Googly-Moogly. We're going to have to start a Pragmatist
Fan Club after this second knock-out post!

Great, great, post!

Count me in. I'm impressed.

BTW, good answer to my previous post yourself jmercer.

Beth

 

[Pragmatist]

Great Googly-Moogly. We're going to have to start a Pragmatist
Fan Club after this second knock-out post!

Great, great, post!

Wait till you see what the membership fees are!

 

[Beady]

I find this amusing. If the definition of "fundamentalist skeptic" is "A person who only believes extraordinary claims when they are backed by extraordinary evidence," then consider me guilty as charged.

Nice try at a red herring, but it's not going to work.

You said, "Because skeptics do not believe in extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence."

And I asked, "Do you have any evidence at all to back up this statement, or is it an article of faith?"

You've been caught in an indefensible assertion with your evidence down around your ankles, and you're hoping no one will notice. We've been noticing all along.

The simple, demonstrable fact is that there are many examples of skeptics who believe things without evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. My mention of Martin Gardner was just one, although he is a premier example.

BTW, a fundamentalist skeptic, like a fundamentalist Christian, insists on a dogmatic and literal interpretation that allows for no individuality, or consideration or compassion for anyone outside the tight circle of "the faithful." "The Truth" is everything, it is not to be questioned or deviated from, and those who do not believe are damned.

The more I think about it, the more your attitude really does look like a religious belief. There's very little apparent thought behind it, and there's only a single mantra that you keep repeating, over and over again, as if to ward off some sort of evil. The really funny part is that you're perfectly aware it's not even the full mantra.

 

[Beady]

Wait till you see what the membership fees are!

Do you give discounts for sexual favors?

 

[Pragmatist]

My problem with this is that it's creating an exception where one need not be. Making an 'irrational realm' because we don't understand something (be it awe, beauty whatever) instead of trying to understand it seems like cheating.

It seems like the whole "god of the gaps" thing, where god keeps losing ground to PhDs

Of course, it depends on your assumptions. I assume the world is rational and follows the rules... you say "religious experience", I say "chemical imbalance in the brain".

All that said, I'm glad to see the thread has turned more civil

I understand exactly what you're saying, unfortunately however, regardless of what we individually like or think correct, the world is just what it is, and that usually translates to intractable and darned awkward!

I recall Richard Feynman saying that there were many elements of quantum mechanics that just didn't seem "right" - they were crazy, absurd, an affront to common sense - but above all they were what they were and regardless of his personal feelings about it, he just had to accept things the way they are. So he was forced by circumstance to accept those things as an irrational realm (on the basis of the knowledge that he had). But nobody is saying that quantum mechanics has to be rejected because its findings appear to defy logic and common sense. So we have to ask why anyone should insist that religion for example has to be purely rational, while one of the most profound expressions of science appears to show some aspects of the world as being irrational (again based on current knowledge)?

Of course the logical conclusion is that once our knowledge expands we will know the answers and QM won't be "irrational" any more. But it also begs the question of whether there is a limit to rational knowledge.

For example, let me try a Korzybski exercise. I can say a chair is made of wood. What's wood made of? Well, chemical elements of course. So what are elements made of? Atoms. So what are atoms made of? Electrons, protons and neutrons... I could go further and say that protons and neutrons are made of quarks but let's look at the electron. What are electrons made of? Answer - we don't know. O.K. now we fast forward 200 years into the future and ask the question again. Someone now says, "why, electrons are made of electronium particles!". So we ask what "electronium particles" are made of and someone says, "Beetlejuice".

Follow the chain above and we always end up defining a new substrate at each stage. But what if the ultimate answer really is "Beetlejuice"? What do we say when someone asks, "What is Beetlejuice made of...?" There is no answer to that question. The only way the question could possibly be answered is to define another new substrate and define "Beetlejuice" in terms of it. And then someone will ask what that substrate is made of! The fact is, that there are only two real possibilities. We can carry on to infinity defining new substrates. But in the end we have an infinite number of substrates and the result cannot possibly be accommodated within ordinary reason or logic because ordinary reason and logic cannot handle an infinite number of anything (given that both reason and logic are the instruments of finite minds). The other possibility is that we reach some ultimate substrate which cannot possibly be defined in terms of anything else. But then that substrate is not susceptible to logical and reasonable analysis because the very word "analysis" refers to the act of breaking something down into more fundamental parts - and furthermore in the absence of analysis logic and reason just don't go anywhere. So however you work it, there is always a true limit to the capabilities of logic and reason, they are by definition finite.

Now enumerate the alleged attributes of "god". Immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite...and so on. You are dealing with quantities that transcend the capabilities of logic and reason. Therefore it follows that logic and reason are simply inappropriate when dealing with god(s). If you were to define religion as an experience of god, it would then follow that religion itself must also be transcendental.

On the other hand, let's reject the god thing and simply stick with the Beetlejuice. But there is little we can say about Beetlejuice itself. We can say that "Beetlejuice makes electrons" and so on. So we end up defining the world as the product of something fundamental which is not susceptible to any further analysis.

If someone now comes along and says, "Beetlejuice = God", then who is to argue otherwise? Regardless of whether you follow the path of faith or the path of science, logic and reason, when you reach the ultimate, anything you say about it will be inadequate. That will be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs for any rationalist, but what choice do they have but to accept it, if that really is the ultimate thing?


So what I'm saying is that I don't need to start from faith or make any unwarranted assumptions, using simple logic alone, logic itself tells me that it is finite and must have a limit - whatever lies beyond that limit is ineffable, and of course, irrational (since rationality depends on logic). On that basis I would argue that the existence of the ineffable is self-evident. Any name for it is more or less irrelevant, but its existence is reasonably beyond question. Therefore if someone says that is what god is, then who am I to argue with it? What rational argument is even possible?

So I'm arguing that my idea of religion is not that far off the mark. Religion always deals with infinities and imponderables therefore it clearly lies in the realm of the irrational. I didn't just make up "an irrational realm" as an excuse for my personal argument.

Now of course I agree that a "religious experience" may be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. But that doesn't imply that it isn't worth exploring, or that it cannot possibly lead to any greater knowledge or personal fulfillment. And of course, one can always start asking, "what chemical?" and "what is that chemical made of", and you will only end up right back at the same point!

So my final answer would be, if you assume the world is rational and follows the rules, where do those rules end? If you assume the rules are finite then at the level of the ultimate, the rules themselves run out and whatever is left transcends the rules. If you assume the rules are infinite, then it is not possible for the human mind to encompass them and we must therefore experience at some level, things that appear to transcend the rules we can contain. Either way, you are left with a field that could legitimately be called "irrational" - is it more skeptical to simply accept that it exists and that we can never fully know it, or simply to pretend it doesn't exist at all?

As a pragmatist of course I recognise that we should deal with things in terms of the reason we have and the (provisional) knowledge we have. It would be rather pathetic to just give up and say we can't know anything because "God did it". But at the same time I think it would be extremely unwise to pretend that our knowledge, reason and everyday experience is absolute. So in purely pragmatic terms I would tend to say lets apply logic, reason and skepticism where we can. Let's promote and engage in science. And as for the rest, let's just put that to one side and leave that for those who want to explore it, let's call that "religion". But let's also recognise them as distinct and separate entities, we cannot apply our reason to religion and we cannot apply religion to our science. They can exist happily side by side as long as we don't get them mixed up.

 

[Pragmatist]

Um, I could spend all day here refuting your assertions, but I'll try (unlike you) to make it brief.

First of all, you keep playing with the term "religion", but I have been pretty clear: I am talking about skeptics who believe in the extraordinary claims of religion - ie, resurrection, afterlife, and so on -- for which there is zero evidence. I really can't speak to your "unspeakable evidence." Most skeptics deal in reality.

What if I told you there are Dragons flying through the clouds who secretly rule the planet, and they demand that you live according to their NINE HOLY LAWS. I am the only one who can talk to the Dragons, so I actually wrote all the Laws down on a tablet. You have to live exactly according to Dragon Laws, or the Dragons will feast on your Soul for eternity. If you obey them, you and your family will have a wonderful afterlife in a Heaven resembling a Penthouse at the Trump Tower.

"Where is the evidence?" you ask. The evidence is all around you! Can't you feel the Dragons' energy? I mean, I had a "religious experience"... they even talked to me!

If you ask for evidence, sorry, but the Dragons are invisible. They operate outside the realm of physics -- they are above that. And besides, the only evidence for the Dragons' existence is "unspeakable evidence"... It cannot be tested. It cannot be viewed by those who rely on so-called "reality."

Now, if any skeptic believed my claims, and actually believed that invisible dragons were roaming the skies, and was looking forward to seeing his dead relatives at the Trump, what would you think of that skeptic's critical thinking abilities? Would you basically consider him/her a fool for believing such an outlandish claim with no real evidence at all?

Well, religion and Dragons have exactly the same amount of valid evidence going for them, which is to say, NONE.

Well I apologise for the length of my posts, but I believe that if something is worth saying, it's worth saying well. And the only way I know how to do that is to express myself in a longer post.

Your example above is facile. It is predicated on a whole host of assumptions, not least of which is that a skeptic would actually make claims of that nature, or that any skeptic would simply accept such claims without any investigation at all. Again, where is the evidence?. I don't accept your bare assertion that there are religious skeptics who run around making such claims - yes I am skeptical of your assertion. So once again I challenge you to show me real examples of skeptics who believe in religion making such claims about their religion. I've identified myself to you as a "religious skeptic" - can you show just one example of me making such claims? Or any other?

Your second assumption is that he wouldn't be able to show any evidence. Your whole premise rests on the completely unsupported assumption that no "religious" skeptic ever has evidence for his beliefs. Again, where is your evidence that this is the case?

Now, I've referred to evidence of the unspeakable - which, by the way, is not necessarily "unspeakable evidence". I've offered you evidence of the existence of the unspeakable when I described the exercise of Korzybski. You haven't refuted that in any way (or even addressed it). It's easy to refute if it's wrong, just define the ultimate nature of one single real thing in unambiguous terms without running out of words, concepts or arguing in circles.

I have not played at all with term religion. I have given the best description I can of what that word means to me. I accept that description is inadequate, but I also believe that is simply because any such description is inadequate. However, I believe that I have been pretty consistent in that description - please feel free to show me where I haven't been.

You on the other hand have not been consistent. You have moved the goalposts every time you've been challenged (and not just by me). You didn't start out by referring to ridiculous claims made by skeptics, you didn't even mention claims until your 5th post when you suddenly introduced dragons and asserted that "God has no basis in fact or reality".

Let me remind you of one of your first posts on here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1871025114#post1871025114

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

You did not refer to resurrection, afterlife, dragons or anything else. Your argument has morphed increasingly into straw men as the thread has proceeded. The evidence in support of that claim of mine lies right here in the thread.

Let me refer to another of your early posts:

Some of you are missing the point here.

I am arguing that a skeptic (a grown person knowledgeable in the "ways of skepticism" ) who consciously chooses to "believe in religion" is not a true skeptic, or is corrupting his or her skepticism.

I am not arguing that BS investigator "believes religion is false." I have no evidence either way.

The only way your statement above makes sense is if you assume from the outset that religion is false. Because if you did fairly allow for the possibility that religion might be "true", then how would a skeptic be corrupting his skepticism to believe in it? As usual you are begging the question. You assume religion is "false". You offer no evidence that religion can be encompassed within simple logic, and then you simply assume it has to be false anyway. Two completely unwarranted assumptions in one and not a shred of evidence in sight. So your statement that you are not arguing that you believe religion is false is demonstrably untrue. And is further reinforced by your later comments.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to argue that if you wish. But I for one would rather you did it using evidence and proper reasoning and not simply on the basis of blind assertion, shifting goalposts and straw men.

Now, I think you have some personal problem with religion or religious people. I asked you before why you started this thread and what you hoped to achieve with it. You didn't answer, so I'm asking again. Evidence that I have seen so far suggests to me that you want to start some sort of "jihad" against religion. But that isn't skeptical behaviour in my book, nor I suspect in many others. Some of your other posts in other threads include:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870997052#post1870997052

Good Questions to Trip up Christians?

If you could sit down with a top religious leader like Reverend Robert Schuller or Billy Graham, what questions could you pose to them about their religion that would really throw them for a loop and make them question their own faith?

Assuming they would keep an open mind (I know, this is a BIG assumption!!) I need really strong arguments or questions that could rattle them deeply.

Thanks!

WHY do you want to "rattle" such people "deeply" - why do you want them to question their faith? I'm no fan of Billy Graham etc., but is there a point to what you are trying to do beyond malice? I mean, I can understand why a skeptic may want to challenge ridiculous claims such people might make, but why would you want them to question their own faith? That implies that their own internal faith is offensive to you. It's quite legitimate to ask why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1871024649#post1871024649

The fastest way to end RELIGION?

Contact with other intelligent life in the universe would end modern religions faster than anything else. Human reverence, and hopes, would then be turned toward the heavens, and to the "aliens" themselves, who would undoubtedly be far, far more advanced than we.

Even if contact is not made any time soon, modern religions will eventually be replaced (in 50-100 years?) as science advances, possibly with a sort of quasi-religion based on interstellar space travel, the colonization other planets and systems, and the hope (legends? myths?) of meeting other intelligent life, or discovering stunning new truths about our origins and future.

Bet on it.

And more unsupported assertions.

I'm not trying to get at you, but can you understand why I might reasonably form the opinion that you "have it in" for religion and religious people, and that you are striking out at religion somewhat blindly (given that you haven't offered evidence in support of your assertions anywhere as far as I can see.)

I think I can safely say you would get a much warmer welcome on here from some us if you simply stopped trying to tell us what we should believe and started showing us some evidence instead.

 

[Pragmatist]

Do you give discounts for sexual favors?

I'd certainly give due consideration to appropriate offers...if you'd care to PM me your proposal....

 

[Moose]

You've been caught in an indefensible assertion with your evidence down around your ankles, and you're hoping no one will notice. We've been noticing all along.

Yeah, and he's shocking the children.

The more I think about it, the more your attitude really does look like a religious belief.

Agreed, especially looking at those other two threads he's started.

 

[Palimpsest]

I recall Richard Feynman saying that there were many elements of quantum mechanics that just didn't seem "right" - they were crazy, absurd, an affront to common sense - but above all they were what they were and regardless of his personal feelings about it, he just had to accept things the way they are. So he was forced by circumstance to accept those things as an irrational realm (on the basis of the knowledge that he had). But nobody is saying that quantum mechanics has to be rejected because its findings appear to defy logic and common sense. So we have to ask why anyone should insist that religion for example has to be purely rational, while one of the most profound expressions of science appears to show some aspects of the world as being irrational (again based on current knowledge)?

Erk. *twitch*

Sorry, having painful flashbacks to "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

Okay, seriously, you just lost me. It's been a while since I formally studied quantum physics, but just because the philosophical implications appear absurd and/or counterintuitive doesn't mean the science itself is. This analogy's been used too many times to justify irrational beliefs. It is not a good analogy.

Of course the logical conclusion is that once our knowledge expands we will know the answers and QM won't be "irrational" any more. But it also begs the question of whether there is a limit to rational knowledge.

Does it? Below, I agree there's a limit to knowledge, but I don't agree it follows from QM.


*snipforbrevity. Also, you've said "Beetlejuice" more than three times! *

But in the end we have an infinite number of substrates and the result cannot possibly be accommodated within ordinary reason or logic because ordinary reason and logic cannot handle an infinite number of anything (given that both reason and logic are the instruments of finite minds). The other possibility is that we reach some ultimate substrate which cannot possibly be defined in terms of anything else. But then that substrate is not susceptible to logical and reasonable analysis because the very word "analysis" refers to the act of breaking something down into more fundamental parts - and furthermore in the absence of analysis logic and reason just don't go anywhere. So however you work it, there is always a true limit to the capabilities of logic and reason, they are by definition finite.

Our capacity for knowledge is finite in practice since we only have a finite amount of time to explore the mysteries of the universe. There will always be more unknown than known. But who's to say how far reason could take us, if we had the time and resources?

Now enumerate the alleged attributes of "god". Immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite...and so on. You are dealing with quantities that transcend the capabilities of logic and reason. Therefore it follows that logic and reason are simply inappropriate when dealing with god(s). If you were to define religion as an experience of god, it would then follow that religion itself must also be transcendental.

It would. But it would beg the question of what this "god" is. You've defined "religion" in terms of "god", but you have not defined "god" except by giving it alleged (and possibly inconsistent) attributes.

*lilsnipforbrevity*

Regardless of whether you follow the path of faith or the path of science, logic and reason, when you reach the ultimate, anything you say about it will be inadequate. That will be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs for any rationalist, but what choice do they have but to accept it, if that really is the ultimate thing?

If. Problem is, I disagree with your reasoning that it is the ultimate thing.

*snip*

Now of course I agree that a "religious experience" may be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. But that doesn't imply that it isn't worth exploring, or that it cannot possibly lead to any greater knowledge or personal fulfillment. And of course, one can always start asking, "what chemical?" and "what is that chemical made of", and you will only end up right back at the same point!

Ah, but not necessarily. By studying neurochemistry we gain greater understanding of how we think, how we perceive, and therefore of ourselves. It's not wasted time at all.

So my final answer would be, if you assume the world is rational and follows the rules, where do those rules end? If you assume the rules are finite then at the level of the ultimate, the rules themselves run out and whatever is left transcends the rules. If you assume the rules are infinite, then it is not possible for the human mind to encompass them and we must therefore experience at some level, things that appear to transcend the rules we can contain. Either way, you are left with a field that could legitimately be called "irrational" - is it more skeptical to simply accept that it exists and that we can never fully know it, or simply to pretend it doesn't exist at all?

I disagree that it could be called irrational, just because we don't understand it. If it's irrational, doesn't that mean it could never be understood rationally?

As a pragmatist of course I recognise that we should deal with things in terms of the reason we have and the (provisional) knowledge we have. It would be rather pathetic to just give up and say we can't know anything because "God did it". But at the same time I think it would be extremely unwise to pretend that our knowledge, reason and everyday experience is absolute. So in purely pragmatic terms I would tend to say lets apply logic, reason and skepticism where we can. Let's promote and engage in science. And as for the rest, let's just put that to one side and leave that for those who want to explore it, let's call that "religion". But let's also recognise them as distinct and separate entities, we cannot apply our reason to religion and we cannot apply religion to our science. They can exist happily side by side as long as we don't get them mixed up.

Well, there we agree. Irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing, and it has its place. Art, imagination, and religion are part of the human experience, after all.

 

[BS Investigator]

You on the other hand have not been consistent. You have moved the goalposts every time you've been challenged ...
You did not refer to resurrection, afterlife, dragons or anything else. Your argument has morphed increasingly into straw men as the thread has proceeded.

Well, I thought my original post was clear: I was talking about skeptics who believe that religions like Christianity and Islam, along with their extraordinary claims, such as afterlife, the parting of the Red Sea, and so on, "are true" and real. Being new to the forum, I didn't realize my definition of "religion" was going to get picked apart to pieces, so I have been playing catch up, bending over backyards to make my position clear.

By the way, you did not address my direct question about the Dragons. Please address that scenario. Why is that any different from religion, when neither have even one shred of valid, scientifically scrutinizable evidence for or against them. In my opinion, then, due to the utter lack of evidence, belief in religion (as defined by me), is just as foolish and unskeptical as belief in dragons. They are exactly the same, because the only objective measuring stick -- evidence -- rates them the same: ZERO.

Now, I think you have some personal problem with religion or religious people. I asked you before why you started this thread and what you hoped to achieve with it. You didn't answer, so I'm asking again. Evidence that I have seen so far suggests to me that you want to start some sort of "jihad" against religion. But that isn't skeptical behaviour in my book, nor I suspect in many others. Some of your other posts in other threads include:

You are right. I see religion as the greatest danger facing humanity's survival. As far as my jihad against religion not being "skeptical behaviour," I disagree. Do you claim that Randi's jihad against psychics is "isn't skeptical behaviour"?

There is no greater calling for a skeptic than to confront dangerous irrational beliefs.

 

[BS Investigator]

Nice try at a red herring, but it's not going to work.

You said, "Because skeptics do not believe in extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence."

And I asked, "Do you have any evidence at all to back up this statement, or is it an article of faith?"

You've been caught in an indefensible assertion with your evidence down around your ankles, and you're hoping no one will notice. We've been noticing all along.

You want evidence to back up the claim that skeptics require evidence??

 

[Pragmatist]

Erk. *twitch*

Sorry, having painful flashbacks to "What the Bleep Do We Know?".

Okay, seriously, you just lost me. It's been a while since I formally studied quantum physics, but just because the philosophical implications appear absurd and/or counterintuitive doesn't mean the science itself is. This analogy's been used too many times to justify irrational beliefs. It is not a good analogy.

Does it? Below, I agree there's a limit to knowledge, but I don't agree it follows from QM.

Maybe I expressed myself poorly, please dont think for one moment that I would condone "quantum woo", I've spent enough time on here fighting it! 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. 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. In other words, to boil down the argument, I don't see that the superficial appearance of irrationality can be considered a solely valid criterion for judging something invalid. And of course I'm not referring to obvious, testable claims. Is that clearer?

As for the limit to knowledge in QM what about the Uncertainty Principle? Doesn't that represent a real limit to knowledge? Anyway, I'm not going to labour the point given that you agree that there is a limit.

*snipforbrevity. Also, you've said "Beetlejuice" more than three times! *

Yikes!

Our capacity for knowledge is finite in practice since we only have a finite amount of time to explore the mysteries of the universe. There will always be more unknown than known. But who's to say how far reason could take us, if we had the time and resources?

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.

It would. But it would beg the question of what this "god" is. You've defined "religion" in terms of "god", but you have not defined "god" except by giving it alleged (and possibly inconsistent) attributes.

But that was my very point. "God" is something that cannot be defined. The best you can hope for is to list some of his/her/its (alleged) attributes. Note that I don't personally believe in god or the alleged attributes, my argument is purely rhetorical.

If. Problem is, I disagree with your reasoning that it is the ultimate thing.

Well that I don't understand. I defined the thing I was referring to as the ultimate thing so I thought I was justified in assuming it to be so! 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? I can't think of an alternative - which doesn't of course mean there isn't one, and I would be interested in any counter argument. Remember that I said we could possibly list some of its attributes but we wouldn't be able to analyse it further.

Ah, but not necessarily. By studying neurochemistry we gain greater understanding of how we think, how we perceive, and therefore of ourselves. It's not wasted time at all.

You misunderstood me, I never said it was a waste of time, and I don't believe I even implied that. I was rather under the impression that I actually said the very opposite. What I did try to say was that both the study of the neurochemistry and the experience is worthwhile - provided we don't get the two confused.

I disagree that it could be called irrational, just because we don't understand it. If it's irrational, doesn't that mean it could never be understood rationally?

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.

Well, there we agree. Irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing, and it has its place. Art, imagination, and religion are part of the human experience, after all.

Quite.