True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Palimpsest]

I suppose you are right. I don't like or trust this use of the word "evidence", but I don't have a decent counter argument.

Well, it seems to me that in the case of God (and to a smaller degree, I guess, in the case of Nessie), this "evidence" is putting the cart before the horse. Anecdotes about God--visions, holy writing, etc... are explained by pre-existing beliefs in/about this entity. They're not evidence for anything except circular arguments.

 

[Beth]

Because you can objectively test the efficacy of dowsing and ESP. How do you test for the presence of God? How do you, for example, prove that you love your spouse, dream about chocolate every Friday night, or feel excruciating pain? For most things in life, anecdotes are all the evidence there is.

Okay, poor choice of examples on my part. Though I might quibble regarding the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" aspect of various test results for those phenomena versus the test results of various claims of religous miracles and divine intervention, I'd rather not. Instead. please allow me to substitute something more appropriate. How about the existance of other spiritual beings such as ghosts? They can't be objectively tested for but loads of anecdotal evidence and historical documentation of anecdotal evidence exists. Why accept such evidence as valid albeit weak for the existance of God but not allow it as valid albeit weak evidence for the existance of other spiritual beings.

Beth

 

[El_Spectre]

Well, it seems to me that in the case of God (and to a smaller degree, I guess, in the case of Nessie), this "evidence" is putting the cart before the horse. Anecdotes about God--visions, holy writing, etc... are explained by pre-existing beliefs in/about this entity. They're not evidence for anything except circular arguments.

I agree, but for pragmatic reasons was willing to concede the point above.

 

[Dogdoctor]

This is just becoming a debate for the existence of God which can neither be proved or disproved. It was supposed to be can a person be a true skeptic and be in a major religion. What you need is for someone to make a claim that can be tested. I bet if there are any skeptics who are part of a major religion they avoid posting about it since they will be sucked into endless debate with fanatic atheists on this list. Just pretend that I am religious and I say a Christian god exists. Can you prove I am wrong? You could say you have no good evidence for the existence of god. I could say that if there was no god, then why is there no great atheist societies in the world? What if I said I was about to kill my self one night. I was sitting in the bathtub with the radio in my hand about to toss it in the bathtub and suddenly there was a power outage and I am overwhelmed by indescribably good feelings and the thought that god loves me. The odds of the power going out at exactly that moment by accident are minuscule. Of course if you don't believe in god the odds that god created the power outage are zero but this person was raised with the belief and you can't disprove that god caused the outage. Some other claim needs to be made other than just the existence of god in order to call someone less skeptical.
Whatever evidence you provide for a natural world as opposed to a supernatural world, a believer might just say that god created everything including evolution and the principles of physics and chemistry. While this is a useless belief in so far as telling us anything about the world, it does not make any testable supernatural statements so is not dismissible. Again this thread is about if it were possible for a true skeptic to be a member of a major religion.
You could argue that the bible is full of fallacies and I could agree and say that people in those days lacked the knowledge and language to write about the the formation of the universe and evolution and while it may be the word of god it is written by fallible limited humans.
To be less than skeptical someone needs to believe in something that could be easily disproved and I am not sure if anyone is capable of that careful scrutiny of everything. Of course I am new to this board and maybe I need to just shut up , look and listen for a while and see who is the 'god' of skeptical thinking.

 

[El_Spectre]

Human experiences such as love, fear, pleasure, and simple daily events can only be expressed as anecdotes.

I'm gonna disagree and coldly define some of these in measurable terms:

Love: bonding between individuals to increase the likelihood of group and/or offspring survival. Measurable with chemical and behavioral changes

Pleasure: electrochemical response to stimulus, designed to reward behaviors that keep our genes going (sexual pleasure, tasty food, etc.). Easily measurable.

Pain: same purpose, inverse cause/effect

OK, so "seratonin levels climb 10%" isn't as romantic as a sonnet, but 'tis verily inne the realm of the observable.

 

[Beth]

Re: God Gene

Religion seems to be quite different from spirituality. When I read about the "God gene", and consider the theory that humans' spiritual belief is an evolutionary trait, I wonder if I pay a price by claiming myself an atheist. I will say that the times I've allowed myself to think there's a higher power to turn things over to, I'm much happier, and I enjoy my life more. If I'm spiritual, it's personal, and a blueprint for living that works. Whether there's a God or not.

It's all very confusing to me right now. It almost seems that it's the belief that matters, not the object of the belief.

I think you are right about this. It is having the belief and acting in ways consistent with that belief that matters, not whether the belief is objectively true. If the belief is unfalsifiable, such as the existence of god, then it's more easily sustained.

Beth

 

[IIRichard]

I don't mean to be a jerk, I really don't... but can you imagine how frustrating it is when y'all redefine 'proof', 'evidence' and 'argument' to fit a (to me) highly unlikely worldview?

It's even more frustrating because I canna argue against it. Ultimately I run up against the "It's a god thang, you wouldn't understand" defense. Argh.

Sorry if you feel I've blown you and other off. Frankly, my evidence for the existence of God wouldn't convince anyone who subscribes to these forums ("fora" ?) so I take the short way out and don't lay it out.

I do think the difference between "proof" and "evidence" needs to be pointed out once in awhile in this and other contexts. Mathematicians and logicians construct proofs with a set of axioms and rules of construction. Scientists assemble bodies of evidence, usually through experiment or observation, and fashion theories. The theory which best explains all the evidence is then provisionally accepted and more tests are made.

The existance or non-existance of God is susceptable neither to a logical proof (God have they tried, pun intended) or scientific examination.

My argument is fairly simple, there are interesting areas of the world that cannot be examined with either mathematical or scientific methods and rigor. Simply because I can't define worth, beauty or elegance doesn't mean that things of worth, beauty and elegance don't exist and can't be discussed.

I maintain that one can be a skeptic in the scientific sense and still believe in God for entirely non-scientific reasons. I freely admit I can't prove God exists and that my "evidence" is strictly personal and, yes, therefore anecdotal. But then so is everything I've written and believed about art and literature.

IIRichard

 

[El_Spectre]

This is just becoming a debate for the existence of God which can neither be proved or disproved. It was supposed to be can a person be a true skeptic and be in a major religion.

Kinda... but it's also about evidence, which is king to a skeptic.

I could say that if there was no god, then why is there no great atheist societies in the world?

We're working on that The real answer is that it's not self evident and people tend to take the easy way in life (not a condemnation... it makes sense to expend the minimum amount of energy, if you can.)

What if I said I was about to kill my self one night. I was sitting in the bathtub with the radio in my hand about to toss it in the bathtub and suddenly there was a power outage and I am overwhelmed by indescribably good feelings and the thought that god loves me. The odds of the power going out at exactly that moment by accident are minuscule. Of course if you don't believe in god the odds that god created the power outage are zero but this person was raised with the belief and you can't disprove that god caused the outage.

About 1 in a million (commercial) planes falls out of the sky. Significantly less likely than a power outage. Should we assume that god killed the passengers? Is it possible? Sure... but odds are some mechanic messed up.

If there is a god who made every evidence to hide its existence... well, then what the hell chance do we have?

I'd also argue that an invisible, uninvolved god is effectively a nonexistent god...

You could argue that the bible is full of fallacies and I could agree and say that people in those days lacked the knowledge and language to write about the the formation of the universe and evolution and

Sure, fair enough

while it may be the word of god it is written by fallible limited humans.

But it might also (and, might as well) be the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It MIGHT have been invented 1 year before your birth, with the world an elaborate conspiracy to fool you.

Until there is good reason to believe such a conspiracy, however, the skeptics will reserve judgement.

BTW, welcome to the forums.

 

[Moose]

(First off, let me add my welcome to the board as well.)

Just pretend that I am religious and I say a Christian god exists. Can you prove I am wrong?

Actually, since "I say a Christian god exists" is a claim, the evidentiary burden falls on you. We don't have to "prove" you're wrong, you have to support your claim with evidence.

Second, you'll notice that while I quoted your use of the word "prove", I did not use the same language in my rebuttle. This is because proof is a term that really only applies to mathematics (within a given number system) and formal logic.

The best one can do in the real world (and what scientists are supposed to do) is provide evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis to the baseline (or "null") hypothesis.

Now, you can get away with saying "I believe in a Christian god" without suffering legitimate grief. Your statement, on its face, has nothing to do with the existance of a god. Saying "I believe in god" only reports your belief in it. This is a mild claim that requires only a mild burden of proof, easily satisfied by nothing more than your anecdotal statement to that effect.

And as you say, this difference has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Christian god exists or not. It's about whether you can be a skeptic and make either of these statements.

I maintain that you cannot be a skeptic and claim that god exists, and yet it is possible to remain skeptical while saying that you are satisfied by what evidence exists (such as it is, IMO). This is not to say that you necessarily are a skeptic for saying so, but that it is possible to remain one.

Of course I am new to this board and maybe I need to just shut up , look and listen for a while and see who is the 'god' of skeptical thinking.

Oh heck no. Jump right in. The water's fine.

 

[BS Investigator]

Just pretend that I am religious and I say a Christian god exists. Can you prove I am wrong?

The onus is not on skeptics to prove your claims as false. Proving a negative like that is not possible. The obligation is on you to prove that your claim is true.

 

[BS Investigator]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you continually, almost religiously (ahem!), ignore the companion dictum that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I am not saying "I believe religion is false."

I am saying you cannot be a true skeptic and "believe that religion is true."

Two totally different ideas.

 

[BS Investigator]

If a person says "Prayer makes me feel at peace with the world," again, what's the point of applying skepticism to this?

....

When self-identifying skeptics attempt to apply their skepticism to a person's unverifiable beliefs, it reflects more on the skeptic than the believer.

When a skeptic tells other skeptics what they should or should not believe in their hearts, that too smacks of an inappropiate use of the critical tools of skepticism.

I don't care if someone wants to sit in their house and believe that Homer Simpson built the Hubble Telescope, if that makes them feel better. But I do not believe you can be a true skeptic and "believe that Homer Simpson built the Hubble."

There is zero evidence pointing to Homer's involvement, and what's more, we know he's a cartoon character. Just like we know that "God" is another in along string of "sky lords" humans have worshipped with zero evidence (Thor, Zeus, etc) before chucking them into the dustbin of history.

 

[Robin]

Depends. We accept scientists' unsupported word about the discovery of new species on a fairly regular basis, especially when there's no reliable way of confirming that they did or did not see a new/rare species of butterfly in some obscure corner of the world.

Really? Do you have an example? A new species declared on the basis of an uncorroborated sighting?

And, similarly, what's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for a claim like "God created the heavens and the Earth"? We can't ask for a specimen....

God can create the universe, but he can't provide evidence of his existence?

There are a host of ways in which the God as described by the majors could be evidenced. A successful double blind study on the power of prayer. Practical faith healing in a properly controlled hospital setting. If I heard the voice of God I would probably consider myself insane, but if that voice told me something I could not have found out in any other way then I could consider it evidence.

And yes, we could ask for a specimen. We could set up some bacteria in a laboratory and then pray for God to change its DNA in some specific way and then check if the requested changes happened.

 

[Moose]

Really? Do you have an example? A new species declared on the basis of an uncorroborated sighting?

I suspect the answer will be something along the lines of: "Not necessarily uncorroborated, just uncorroborated by you."

And yes, I can provide an example of a sort. There's been recent reports of sightings of a species of woodpecker previously thought to be extinct (somewhere in Colorado, wasn't it?) There has been a degree of corroboration among bird people, and I'm quite willing to accept their word for it, sight unseen.

I can contrast this directly with reports of bigfoot roaming around, whose sightings I have little (read "no") confidence in, because what evidence has been presented thus far has been shown to be erronious and/or fraudulent.

Now, that isn't to say that this means there necessarily isn't a sasquatch-like species wandering around parts of the west, but my threshold of belief is set a bit too high to have much credence in such a claim. I'm not convinced by the evidence, so I disbelieve.

This is the same reason I'm an atheist, BTW. The evidence simply doesn't meet my threshold. Should sufficient evidence come to light, however, (or fail to do so), I won't move the evidence bar to suit my expectations.

This is what it means to be a skeptic.

 

[El_Spectre]

This is the same reason I'm an atheist, BTW. The evidence simply doesn't meet my threshold. Should sufficient evidence come to light, however, (or fail to do so), I won't move the evidence bar to suit my expectations.

This is what it means to be a skeptic.

Well said, if we're ever in the same town, I owe you a beer

 

[BS Investigator]

And yes, I can provide an example of a sort. There's been recent reports of sightings of a species of woodpecker previously thought to be extinct (somewhere in Colorado, wasn't it?) There has been a degree of corroboration among bird people, and I'm quite willing to accept their word for it, sight unseen.

I can contrast this directly with reports of bigfoot roaming around, whose sightings I have little (read "no") confidence in, because what evidence has been presented thus far has been shown to be erronious and/or fraudulent.

This goes back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An extinct woodpecker is still around? Cool, but it's not that outrageous of a claim, so I would agree the threshold of evidence is not nearly as high as that which would be needed for "Bigfoot."

 

[Mercutio]

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

Yes. There is no way for someone to go through life without ANY understanding of the regularity of nature, the existence of suffering, or the existence of magical, fictional characters in stories. These are all basic facts that are available to anyone and permits them to draw the rational conclusion - if they are not brainwashed by their parents or suckered into an argument from ignorance.

And if they are "brainwashed by their parents"? Or rather, taught by their community? Your claim that "there is no way for someone to go through life..." is challenged not just by me, but by LostAngeles and Abdul Alhazred (perhaps others, I did not look that carefully). How many white crows do you need before you will admit that not all crows are black?

Your claim that she was lying to me...do you have any evidence for that other than your incredulity? Of course not. Why does that not stop you from making such an absolute claim?

No... but because you have no justification for the nonsense you're saying. There are plenty of people who disagree with me and say reasonable things. Saying that a person in a modern society might not have the information needed to be an atheist is imbecilic.

No justification? Your failure to understand my justification is not necessarily a lack of justification on my part. It might be, of course. I could be wrong. It has happened once before.

But I do not think so, in this case.

WTF ? I guess the arrogance comes with being moderator.

Nah, arrogance is, as mentioned above, independent of mod-ship. In my case, my apparent arrogance comes from being right.

 

[El_Spectre]

This goes back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An extinct woodpecker is still around? Cool, but it's not that outrageous of a claim, so I would agree the threshold of evidence is not nearly as high as that which would be needed for "Bigfoot."

Why, exactly? The same objections would exist: No large breeding populations of the bird have been seen, we don't have a corpse, etc.

I'm not saying I believe in ol' sasquatch (I used to, until I learned about the problems with tiny gene pools), but it's a very similar situation.

Now, if you'd gone for ghosts, ESP or something like that, I'm with ya.

Giant primates are not particularly impossible, just decidedly unlikely.

 

[El_Spectre]

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

In my case, my apparent arrogance comes from being right.

My father has a great T-Shirt... in HUGE letters it says "I Apologize", the in tiny letters: "I'm sorry I was right"

 

[jmercer]

Not that I disagree with you (I don't), but it seems to me that the same type and caliber of evidence is available for other phenomena. For example, there are plenty of testimonials and historical documents testifying to the efficacy of dowsing or the existence of ESP. Why would you consider such evidence weak but valid for the existence of God but not for the other phenomena? Or am I mistaken about how you regard such evidence for things like ESP or dowsing.

Beth

Hi, Beth - I see Beady replied to you, and you replied to him, but I think I should reply to you as well. Does that make any sense?

Anyway... Setting aside the dowsing because it's testable, let's focus on the UFO issue. (Since we really can't test for UFO's, making the example closer to the God thing.)

I believe in UFO's.

Unidentified Flying Objects exist because they're flying, unidentified, and some kind of object. That doesn't mean they're alien spaceships, etc. It simply means what it says - it's something spotted flying, and no-one knows what it is - or at least, not at the time they observed it.

The anecdotal evidence is just as strong for UFO's as it is for God; the problem is when people start drawing conclusions based on weak evidence. However, groups of anecdotes are valuable in the sense that they identify that something is happening - and the more people who report similar events lends increasing credibility to the view that there is a phenomena occurring.

Can that phenomena turn out to be be psychological in nature? Absolutely. Perfectly mundane and natural? Of course. Exotic, but still natural? Yes.

But dismissing the evidence just because it's anecdotal is wrong, as I said. How about a short list of real things that were thought to be fantasy because for the longest time because only anecdotal evidence was available... but were eventually researched and confirmed?

1) White waves (also called freak waves)
2) Ball lightning
3) St. Elmo's Fire
4) The "green flash"

And probably others that I'm too tired to recall right now. But even individual anecdotal evidence has value. I'll leave you with this thought - doctors, dentists, etc., utilize anecdotal information to assist them in diagnosing issues. In fact, if they did not, they'd be very poor at their profession and patients would suffer. Just a thought.