True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
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 don't understand this argument. It might not exist at all.

Why must it be the case that "at the level of the ultimate, the rules themselves run out and whatever is left transcends the rules"? Current quantum theory has no answer to the question, "what are electrons made of?". But it makes quite satisfactory predictions by treating electrons simply as point particles that follow certain rules. It says nothing more about them, but that might well be because there just is nothing more about them to be said, rather than there being something more about them which, however, is for some reason "unspeakable".

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.

I agree that it's probably worth exploring, in the sense that then you'll be able to say, "hey, I've had this interesting experience that otherwise I wouldn't have had". But I don't see what sort of knowledge it will give you, besides simply the knowledge that such an experience is possible. What would it give you knowledge of? There's nothing "out there" that's causing the experience, if it's just due to some chemicals in your brain.

 

[Palimpsest]

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

And you're doing that here? In this forum? By either preaching to the choir or p***ing them off? Exactly what dangerous irrational beliefs are you confronting in this thread, or in any of the other threads you started?

Or is it your position that any irrational belief is dangerous?

 

[Pragmatist]

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.

Again, you are not asking a question, you're dictating an answer! What is there to address? Of course it goes without question that if such a thing happened, and if it happened under such circumstances then that person would obviously not be a skeptic. But that is just stating the obvious. What you haven't shown is that anyone we might otherwise reasonably think of as a skeptic has ever done such a thing! And you have to demonstrate that first before I for one would accept any of your other assertions. You have assumed that your hypothetical "skeptic" would make no other investigation at all - which is not the act of a skeptic. A skeptic might seek secondary evidence, or evidence of something else (i.e. that you had just escaped from an asylum! ) in support of whatever conclusion he chooses to make. It's totally unreasonable to start from the assumption that the alleged "skeptic" doesn't and wouldn't seek any form of verification other than taking someone's word for it.

In other words, you define your hypothetical "skeptic" as being a complete idiot and then use that to reach the conclusion that he's a complete idiot - well, duh! It doesn't work that way. You assume that any skeptic that believes in religion has to have suspended all critical thought. And then you use that assumption to justify the assertion that any skeptic who believes in religion must have suspended all critical thought. That is not logic, nor reason, nor critical thinking.

So we're back to square one, the real square one of skepticism - which is show me the evidence.

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.

I can safely say with complete certainty that Randi doesn't have a "jihad against psychics" and I'd bet he'd be the first to agree. Randi's "jihad" to the extent you can call it that, is against fraudsters who falsely pretend to be psychic. There's a difference you know...

Randi doesn't believe in psychic powers, neither do I. But I certainly wouldn't say there is no possibility whatsoever that someone might be psychic and I'm sure Randi wouldn't say that either, Randi would say, "I don't believe it but I'm open to evidence that proves me wrong" - I would say the same. Belief or lack thereof is neither a prerequisite for, nor a hindrance to, a fair and objective investigation. You do a great disservice to Randi by implying that he is not objective and fair.

As for the rest I really don't know what to say! I disagree with you absolutely. Frankly, without any insult intended, I would say that zealotry is a far greater danger than religion and that you are coming across as a zealot. It's not religion itself that is dangerous, it's the zealots who try to hijack religion to their own ends. I would say there is no greater calling for a skeptic than to investigate, analyse, learn and search for the truth, and that it is also great if a skeptic can also confront dangerous lies and definite misinformation. But that's just my take, I'll leave it to others to throw their own definitions into the pot.

 

[Soapy Sam]

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

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

The above is the OP. This thread has wandered far from the point.

The OP, in my opinion , is wrong because scepticism is not an all-or-nothing human characteristic and is not "corruptible" by the holding of one, or several unproven, unprovable or flatly wrong beliefs. There are no total sceptics.

Scepticism is a mindstate applicable to a problem , a question, an argument.
Example.
Rolfe, who describes herself as a Presbyterian, is profoundly sceptical about certain aspects of CAM and a devastating critic thereof.

Can Rolfe be both a Christian and a sceptic? Yes.
Case dismissed.

And HAL is an AIR Force Cop, fer Pete's sake!
A cop can't be a Christian, or can't be a sceptic?
I cry "Hogwash!" on the whole argument.

And am I a believer? Not since very early days. I'll go you worse;
If God did exist, I would be interested solely in that it was the first proven extra terrestrial intelligence. Maybe I read too much Milton at an early age. I still lean towards the underdog...

 

[Beady]

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.

"I am writing you a long letter. If I had more time, I would write you a short letter." -- Blaise Pascal

 

[Beady]

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

Yes. You didn't allow for any exceptions, and your arguments throughout this thread don't allow for exceptions. However, I do notice that you've again moved the goalposts, deleting "extraordinary" from the proposal; whether by intention or sloppiness is unknown.

Never mind, we'll use the latest morph. Provide evidence (that's evidence, not philosophical arguments) that skeptics, without exception, require evidence, without exception.

I was reviewing this thread and your arguments last night, comparing them to Sagan, Shermer and a few others. For ease of reference, I refer you to Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit . Before you cry "Appeal to Authority," consider that these criteria were developed by people who have devoted a lot more time and thought to these matters than anyone else here. Personally, I have no philosophical or ethical problem with standing on the shoulders of giants. BTW, note that it costs $3 alone, or is free with any other purchase.

Anyway, I note that your central thesis, that true skeptics cannot believe in certain things, is described by several items in all sections:

Under Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, you have failed to obtain independent confirmation; you have not developed or considered more than one hypothesis; you have become *way* overattached to, almost obsessed with, a single hypothesis simply because it is yours; you refuse to allow falsification.

Under Shermer's 10 Questions for Baloney Detection, your reputation for reliability is still in doubt (and you're not doing it any favors); you have, I gather, made similar claims, although I haven't seen them, myself; your claim is not only unverified, it is almost universally refuted; you are not employing accepted rules of reason (you do, however, truncate them to suit your purposes); your argument is driven almost entirely by your personal beliefs and prejudices.

Under the 25 Fallacies of Thinking, your theory influences your observations; you seem to think that a bold statement equals a true claim, and you seem surprised that virtually none of us are convinced that it is; you have, so far, failed to meet your burden of proof, and seemed surprised that you are expected to meet it.

In general, your arguments are an appeal to ignorance ("you can't show that it exists, therefore it doesn't), and your central thesis is a combination of false dilemma (either - or) and slippery slope (if this happens, then that will surely be the result) . Your central thesis is, by at least half of the rules of Critical Thinking, baloney. If this were a class in Critical Thinking, you would get an "F".

I suppose your next step will be to point out that you could be right and everyone else could be wrong. Yes, that's possible, but it's not a good way to place your bets.

Edited because I'm anal about composition.

 

[CaptainManacles]

When you start into a discussion that revolves around simply defining words, you're setting yourself up for an exercise in futility. Just like asking, "What if up was down?" "Does existence exist?" "What would the universe look like if there was no math?" Asking, "Can a skeptic be religious?" is almost silly in it's absolutely profound lack of substance as a topic of discussion. The question relies entirely on how you define religion and how you define skeptic, and the answer after that becomes self-explanatory. So round and round we go for 6 pages never coming to any sort of agreement, because there's really nothing to discuss.

However, I think some interesting points have been raised over the course of this discussion. I feel the most productive definition of a skeptic is someone who understands and follows the rules of evidence; understands logic, argument, and how to properly identify logical fallacies; has prioritized the reliability of evidence from direct, objectively verified evidence as the most reliable, through many iterations down to anecdotal evidence where the source of the anecdote can not be determined; and understands that for an idea to be reliable there must be more evidence for it than against (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof).

Note that very few people's definition of being a skeptic includes being right all the time. Part of being a skeptic is learning methods that help eliminate bias, but god knows that never goes away entirely, and the unfortunate part of being unaware of your biases is that you are completely unaware of them. All of us, I'm sure, have a belief or two that are way way off base, and we don't even know it. Even consider if we could build a perfectly logical creature, with instant computation and infinite memory, it would still have some false beliefs simply because of the limited scope of its perception. False beliefs do not exclude you from the wonderful world of skepticism.

I think many that claim that no one who believes in anything "paranormal" can be a skeptic don't understand how often crummy evidence factors into everyone's beliefs. Many other posters alluded to how often "faith" is used in our own lives, I don't know if I would characterize it as such, but we certainly base many of our decisions off of anecdotal evidence, gut feelings, and many other factors that any good skeptic would certainly recognize as "last priority" evidence. Most common questions of truth we deal with are based on so many thousands of factors that there is no way we could bring all of them into careful rational consideration, or truly be expected to be capable of getting a accurate result if we tried. For example, for all their collective intellect, perfect understanding of logic, fair treatment of the facts, skeptics are unable to come to any sort of agreement on what constitutes rational political positions. Many of the same types of evidence that go into determining political preference go into many other beliefs that you think are obviously objectively true.

However, I have found that people's position on god and rationalization for that position is often a wonderful gauge of how well they truly understand skeptical concepts. For some people it is not the case, but for most people, the ideas surrounding god are so entrenched in our culture that it's nearly impossible to see around them. Even very intelligent people have a hard time identifying the most obvious logic fallacies surrounding the issue. Many believe that concepts of god are not falsifiable, which is untrue, and arguments along this line tend to be of the "not a true Scotsman" variety. Yes, if you continually move the mark, you can never disprove god, but if you come up with a precise definition that isn't gibberish, than it's falsifiable. We've simply lived with the Scotsman trick so long we don't see it.

Another common mistake is being unable to tell the difference between absence of evidence and negative evidence, but only in the context of theological questions. For example, if someone were to claim they were holding a 6 foot red pole in their right hand, I could look at their right hand and see if it were true. How would you feel about the intelligence of a person who said, if it was pointed out that there was no such pole in his hand, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence"? Yet that is the same argument used by even otherwise intelligent people about god. Why does god not come to earth? Why can't we see him? Why doesn't he communicate? These seem like silly questions, but only because we've been saturated in a culture of theism. God doesn't answer prayer. He doesn't do miracles. This is not proof, but clearly evidence against the existence of god. That some can't recognize that is telling.

I'm wary about this next subject, as it always brings a lot of strife because everyone defines "belief" "lack of belief" "lack of evidence" "agnosticism" differently, but I wanted to carefully address the subject of applying agnosticism to any idea that has a "lack of evidence". I will say only this, an idea either corresponds to what we've currently observed about our universe or it doesn't, though both can be to varying degrees. If a person told me that if I worship their pink dragon, I get a million dollars in the afterlife, I, for all intents and purposes, would function as if that claim were totally untrue. I would not worship the dragon, and I would be wary that the person might be a con artist. If you want to define that as agnosticism, then you are defining agnosticism as the lowest level of belief possible. If you want to define my belief as “faith” then you are redefining faith to mean “A reasonable idea based on objective facts”.

 

[Beady]

God doesn't answer prayer. He doesn't do miracles. This is not proof, but clearly evidence against the existence of god. That some can't recognize that is telling.

Would it be correct for me to say that you don't exist because I have never encountered you? Or would it be more correct for me to say that, while I can't rule it out, I have never seen evidence of your existence?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are a corporeal being. If you are not visible in the room, that is evidence of your absence from the room because it conforms with your physical nature. Assuming the existance of God, of whatever persuasion, he is a non-corporeal being. If he does not manifest himself in the room, you cannot say "He isn't here."

Personally, I rather prefer to simply say that I have no need of the god hypothesis. I do, however, find it convenient for intellectual reasons to hypothesize an afterlife, and there is no evidentiary reason not to. Thus, I neither accept nor reject "God," while recognizing that others do both, and I have no trouble accepting an afterlife. Yet I consider myself a skeptic, and a true skeptic at that.

Edited because I have incredible problems spelling all the various forms of "hypothesis."

 

[Andrea]

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

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

I have been christened, confirmed and will get married in Church next year. If I have children, I will probably have them christened. I do not believe in mediums who claim they channel / communicate with the dead, or in psychics who claim to foresee the future. I do not believe in physical phenomena, angels or fairies.

My family have followed the Church of England, but none of us are religious (only attend church for the usual family ceremonies), and I am very open minded with regard to God / Heaven if you want to call it that. I am very skeptical towards mediums and psychics. These are my views, and just because I decide to leave a question mark where religion is concerned, this does not make me a "believer". One does not have to be an atheist, if they do not believe in the delusional claims of mediums and psychics, or other alternative practitioners.

 

[BS Investigator]

When you start into a discussion that revolves around simply defining words, you're setting yourself up for an exercise in futility. Just like asking, "What if up was down?" "Does existence exist?" "What would the universe look like if there was no math?" Asking, "Can a skeptic be religious?" is almost silly in it's absolutely profound lack of substance as a topic of discussion. The question relies entirely on how you define religion and how you define skeptic, and the answer after that becomes self-explanatory. So round and round we go for 6 pages never coming to any sort of agreement, because there's really nothing to discuss.

However, I think some interesting points have been raised over the course of this discussion. I feel the most productive definition of a skeptic is someone who understands and follows the rules of evidence; understands logic, argument, and how to properly identify logical fallacies; has prioritized the reliability of evidence from direct, objectively verified evidence as the most reliable, through many iterations down to anecdotal evidence where the source of the anecdote can not be determined; and understands that for an idea to be reliable there must be more evidence for it than against (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof).

Note that very few people's definition of being a skeptic includes being right all the time. Part of being a skeptic is learning methods that help eliminate bias, but god knows that never goes away entirely, and the unfortunate part of being unaware of your biases is that you are completely unaware of them. All of us, I'm sure, have a belief or two that are way way off base, and we don't even know it. Even consider if we could build a perfectly logical creature, with instant computation and infinite memory, it would still have some false beliefs simply because of the limited scope of its perception. False beliefs do not exclude you from the wonderful world of skepticism.

I think many that claim that no one who believes in anything "paranormal" can be a skeptic don't understand how often crummy evidence factors into everyone's beliefs. Many other posters alluded to how often "faith" is used in our own lives, I don't know if I would characterize it as such, but we certainly base many of our decisions off of anecdotal evidence, gut feelings, and many other factors that any good skeptic would certainly recognize as "last priority" evidence. Most common questions of truth we deal with are based on so many thousands of factors that there is no way we could bring all of them into careful rational consideration, or truly be expected to be capable of getting a accurate result if we tried. For example, for all their collective intellect, perfect understanding of logic, fair treatment of the facts, skeptics are unable to come to any sort of agreement on what constitutes rational political positions. Many of the same types of evidence that go into determining political preference go into many other beliefs that you think are obviously objectively true.

However, I have found that people's position on god and rationalization for that position is often a wonderful gauge of how well they truly understand skeptical concepts. For some people it is not the case, but for most people, the ideas surrounding god are so entrenched in our culture that it's nearly impossible to see around them. Even very intelligent people have a hard time identifying the most obvious logic fallacies surrounding the issue. Many believe that concepts of god are not falsifiable, which is untrue, and arguments along this line tend to be of the "not a true Scotsman" variety. Yes, if you continually move the mark, you can never disprove god, but if you come up with a precise definition that isn't gibberish, than it's falsifiable. We've simply lived with the Scotsman trick so long we don't see it.

Another common mistake is being unable to tell the difference between absence of evidence and negative evidence, but only in the context of theological questions. For example, if someone were to claim they were holding a 6 foot red pole in their right hand, I could look at their right hand and see if it were true. How would you feel about the intelligence of a person who said, if it was pointed out that there was no such pole in his hand, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence"? Yet that is the same argument used by even otherwise intelligent people about god. Why does god not come to earth? Why can't we see him? Why doesn't he communicate? These seem like silly questions, but only because we've been saturated in a culture of theism. God doesn't answer prayer. He doesn't do miracles. This is not proof, but clearly evidence against the existence of god. That some can't recognize that is telling.

I'm wary about this next subject, as it always brings a lot of strife because everyone defines "belief" "lack of belief" "lack of evidence" "agnosticism" differently, but I wanted to carefully address the subject of applying agnosticism to any idea that has a "lack of evidence". I will say only this, an idea either corresponds to what we've currently observed about our universe or it doesn't, though both can be to varying degrees. If a person told me that if I worship their pink dragon, I get a million dollars in the afterlife, I, for all intents and purposes, would function as if that claim were totally untrue. I would not worship the dragon, and I would be wary that the person might be a con artist. If you want to define that as agnosticism, then you are defining agnosticism as the lowest level of belief possible. If you want to define my belief as “faith” then you are redefining faith to mean “A reasonable idea based on objective facts”.

Excellent post, CaptainManacles.

I have to admit, being new to this forum and this type of internet debate, I failed to define "religion" and "true skepic" and several other terms up front in a way that would foster a good debate and preclude this endless back and forth over definitions and semantics. Next time, I will know better.

Pragmatist, I think you and me are just talking at cross-purposes now. I don't really have the time or ability to address your "unspeakable" ideas. We're basically disagreeing over definitions about what religion and skepticism mean. Seems to me that it would be productive to start some new threads on these subjects, or to revisit some that may be already be archived on this forum. I do appreciate your responses to this thread, and I admire you for mainly avoiding ad hominem arguments, though you did go after my motivations. Mainly, you argued against my arguments, and so I look forward to discussing other issues with you here.

As far as Beady goes, if you want to have a debate about whether skeptics always ask for evidence for extraordinary claims, and "do not believe" those claims if the evidence is lacking, I think that would be a great topic for another thread. Otherwise, I see your posts as mainly dealing with definitions and semantics and I find them to be lacking in logical coherency. You keep saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But no one is arguing that it is. I am not saying people who claim "religion is false" are right, I am saying that people who claim "religion is true" are wrong, because their is no valid evidence to support such a claim. Others have pointed this out to you as well.

 

[Moose]

BS Investigator, what I'd like you to answer is this. Do you see "Australia exists" and "I believe Australia exists" as being the same statement?

 

[Beady]

You keep saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But no one is arguing that it is.

Originally posted by BS Investigator
Because skeptics do not believe in extraordinary claims for which there is no evidence.

QED.

In your philosophy, and that's what it is, lack of corroborative evidence means lack of existence. To you, it does not mean unverified existence, it means lack of existance. These are two entirely seperate ideas which you insist on melding into one.

And you still refuse to confront the idea that you are preaching a religion of your own devising, complete with prophet (yourself) and dogma.

I see your posts as mainly dealing with definitions and semantics and I find them to be lacking in logical coherency.

Fair enough, but that's still only your opinion, based on your own prejudices and personal agenda. For my own arguments, flawed as they may be, I have at least made an effort to follow the principles of Critical Thinking. You have made no effort whatsoever to apply these principles, and you seem unwilling to even admit they exist, even though you've been given the references.

 

[BS Investigator]

BS Investigator, what I'd like you to answer is this. Do you see "Australia exists" and "I believe Australia exists" as being the same statement?

No.

 

[Donn]

Wow this is a tough thread to keep up with, as soon as I compose a post, another two pages have been added!

This is a bit of a rambling post - I have been reading the thread and scribbling comments into an editor. It's a really interesting topic, in itself and in the reactions to it.

Here goes:-

When you believe in a Deity, when you throw a lot of energy, time and money into that pursuit, when you stake your morality to the words supposedly uttered by It, when you follow the commands of the hierarchy that formed to support It - are you not making an error of (some kind of) logic?
Is your rationality and logic not being intentionaly subverted to allow you to have your Faith?

And even if it's not a "fundamental" Religion - is not the act of belief a fundamental thing? "I give myself to my God". Trust. Conviction. etc. Most Religions seem to aim for the "You can't be half pregnant" approach to Faith. In or out baby!

Are you, in fact, in that sector of your activities (your faith) being non-Sceptical? (Or at least non Rational)

When does being a Sceptic take you to the point of intellectual honesty? Of asking yourself about each of your beliefs and then changing your mind as the evidence and argument dictates?

Surely there is a single set of "what is correct" - if all humans processed information in a perfectly accurate way and went through all their surmises and quirks and beliefs one by one, would they not arrive at a comprehension of things that is in that one set? How can there be a reality that includes both rational thought and it's conclusions, as well as belief formed from non-thought?

I don't mean to insult. I am just as gobsmacked as BSI is on the whole subject.

It seems to me that once a crack appears in a vase, it must run until the vase it cracked wide open. A Sceptical approach and Rational thinking is that crack. The vase is your mind/outlook/culture/bias - your whole being.

I understand that to not follow-through with widening the crack, to leave your old vase intact but have it partially cracked, is endearlingly human- I'm half cracked, at least

"But a "hardcore sceptic" is not the same as someone who is "versed in the ways of the scientific method and critical thinking". A lot of scientists believe in a God, but are also perfectly capable of carrying out rigorous scientific experimentation and drawing logical conclusions." - Ashles (pg 5)

So, if choosing a religion is okay and believing in it is acceptable, then at what point does the religion cross the line and clash with Sceptical Methodology? (by which I mean the gradual questioning of suppositions.)
How far and into what territory and in what way can Religion go?

The Sceptical method contains:
Rational thinking.
Logic.
Asking questions and seeking answers.
Being content with no answers; not leaping to conclusions.

Am I wrong?

To cling to belief (non evidence) in some God (or even a karmic wash-cycle) is to have leapt to a conclusion - ergo to not be sceptical *in that regard*. Sure other stuff can be poked and prodded, but not your very delicate sensitive religion. That's just off limits! How is this Sceptical?

Pragmatist:
Some free-flow responses to your many, eloquent posts:

What has a religion like Buddhism lead-to in terms of knowledge? I mean working, useful, real-world, does stuff-that-works knowledge. I ask openly, not with a guffaw of pre-conclusion!

What about the karma and the re-birth dogma? How does that fit into the wordless search for enlightenment? I know Buddhism is pretty flexible - from demons and Gods (Tibet) to still mirrors (Zen) but it has it's share of non evidence based belief too.

Just because things may get complex at very small and very large levels, does not mean that there is "God" or Religion or Enlightenment at that point.

The exercise of Korzybski:
What if the point you reach is the end of the chain and there is NO OTHER level lower down? Not an unspeakable one, not an unknown one: NONE, no level at all?
It could be like the universe wrapping in on itself - if you travel far enough, you come back to your starting point. It's natural to ask "what is beyond it?" but this is a mistake. Perhaps Korzybski is just plain wrong to suggest an ever decreasing granularity of things. My (very bad) understanding of QP is that things get to a 'quanta' size and then that's that. no smaller.
(Grain of salt alert - I have no great education, wrongness is my middle name.)

Originally posted by Palimpsest -"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.

Why are art and imagination lumped together with religion?
Why is art assumed to be non-rational?
Why is the appreciation of art thought of as non-rational?
I paint. I "switch off" my didactic, logical self when I do so, but this does not mean that I am painting in some religious fugue state, communing with Cthulu or some other Cosmic Cuttlefish.

Finally,
I think my confusion (and perhaps BSI's?) is that it's like being in a Monty Python movie: To have an avowed Sceptic slice and dice a ghost-hunter, outklass a UFO expert and carefully explain why dowsing is all an ilusion and then have them turn around and kneel down to their Deity (or chant to their Guru - whatever)!
It's a double-take moment.
It's surreal.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Would it be correct for me to say that you don't exist because I have never encountered you? Or would it be more correct for me to say that, while I can't rule it out, I have never seen evidence of your existence?

You have encountered me. Besides, even if you have not, you have evidence for the existence of people outside those that you have met.

>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And negative evidence is not the same as absence of evidence. This is why topics of god are such a good gauge of someone's skeptical abilities. Your ability to entirely ignore my arguements and let your personal bias completely blind you to reality is interesting.

>>You are a corporeal being. If you are not visible in the room, that is evidence of your absence from the room because it conforms with your physical nature. Assuming the existance of God, of whatever persuasion, he is a non-corporeal being.

Not neccisarily. Most religions believe their dieties are corporeal. Non-corporealness is something we've invented in recent history now that we are capable of telling that god does not live in the clouds. I'd be suprised if you could define it in any meaningful way.

>>If he does not manifest himself in the room, you cannot say "He isn't here."

I can say it's pretty good evidence. I am just as likely to be incorporeal as god. You have no evidence that I am not incoporeal, so by your own standards you cannot conclude that I am not. This is another example of someone making special exceptions to normal logic rules but only for theistic topics. Never would these rules of evidence hold up in the rest of your life. "Oh, CM ain't in the room he claimed to be in, he might be incoporeal, I have no evidence that he is not"

>>Personally, I rather prefer to simply say that I have no need of the god hypothesis. I do, however, find it convenient for intellectual reasons to hypothesize an afterlife, and there is no evidentiary reason not to. Thus, I neither accept nor reject "God," while recognizing that others do both, and I have no trouble accepting an afterlife. Yet I consider myself a skeptic, and a true skeptic at that.

I wouldn't consider you a skeptic, at least not a very good one. You have shown an ability, over the last 5 pages, to very selectively apply skeptical princibles.

 

[Palimpsest]

Why are art and imagination lumped together with religion?
Why is art assumed to be non-rational?
Why is the appreciation of art thought of as non-rational?
I paint. I "switch off" my didactic, logical self when I do so, but this does not mean that I am painting in some religious fugue state, communing with Cthulu or some other Cosmic Cuttlefish.

Maybe not, but I bet some artists do, or would describe it that way. Except without Cthulhu, I guess.

Here's the thing: I see art and religion as (to a large degree) facets of the same coin. Or outcomes of similar processes in the mind. People needed to first imagine Tjukurpa, or Tiamat, or Sedna, and then weave those images into stories or other works of art to communicate to other people. Religions and mythologies are lies; they are fiction, fables, metaphors, symbols, that too many people (a) get lost in, or (b) take too literally. But how is that not art? Hackish and derivative art for the most part, yes; some of it inspiring, some of it demeaning; but still, it's there, and taken as a whole it's incredibly rich. There are stories out there that have been circulating for thousands of years; paintings and sculptures tens of thousands of years old. What was the inspiration for those works of art? The natural world? The spirit world? Or maybe to the Cro-Magnons, there wasn't a lot of difference. Religion would not exist without art; but without the kinds of minds that are able to imagine gods and spirits and magic, what kind of art would we have left?

Being human, we tell ourselves (and each other) stories all the time, about our place in the universe, where we come from and where we're going. It could be big stories, like "We are the pinnacle of evolution", or little stories, like "That co-worker is totally out to get me because he's jealous." That's not a bad thing in itself. The trick is that we (collectively and individually) need to be able to take a step back and do a reality check and not just go along with stories that sound good and feed our egos. That's what skepticism is all about, am I right?

 

[BS Investigator]

To cling to belief (non evidence) in some God (or even a karmic wash-cycle) is to have leapt to a conclusion - ergo to not be sceptical *in that regard*. Sure other stuff can be poked and prodded, but not your very delicate sensitive religion. That's just off limits! How is this Sceptical?

Word. Well said Donn.

Oh, and, CaptainManacles, thanks for handling Beady. I just don't have the patience to continue with him/her.

 

[BillyJoe]

CM

When you start into a discussion that revolves around simply defining words, you're setting yourself up for an exercise in futility...... Asking, "Can a skeptic be religious?" is almost silly in it's absolutely profound lack of substance as a topic of discussion. The question relies entirely on how you define religion and how you define skeptic, and the answer after that becomes self-explanatory.

For example, if you define scepticism as belief in proportion to the evidence; and religion as belief without evidence, then it seems a sceptic cannot be religious. On the other hand, you could equally say that such a person is a sceptic but not in relation to religion. This would solve all our problems and we could move on to another thread. Or not. I suppose I now have to define belief and evidence - although CM does a pretty good job below.....

I feel the most productive definition of a skeptic is someone who understands and follows the rules of evidence; understands logic, argument, and how to properly identify logical fallacies; has prioritized the reliability of evidence from direct, objectively verified evidence as the most reliable, through many iterations down to anecdotal evidence where the source of the anecdote can not be determined; and understands that for an idea to be reliable there must be more evidence for it than against .

Part of being a skeptic is learning methods that help eliminate bias, but god knows that never goes away entirely.... All of us, I'm sure, have a belief or two that are way way off base, and we don't even know it.....False beliefs do not exclude you from the wonderful world of skepticism.

Which brings us back to the point that, although we might regard ourselves as being sceptical, if we have false beliefs (beliefs without evidence), we are not sceptical in relation to these beliefs and, in a sense, we would have to say that we are not true sceptics.

.....we certainly base many of our decisions off of anecdotal evidence, gut feelings, and many other factors that any good skeptic would certainly recognize as "last priority" evidence. Most common questions of truth we deal with are based on so many thousands of factors that there is no way we could bring all of them into careful rational consideration, or truly be expected to be capable of getting a accurate result if we tried.

Yes, throughout evolutionary history, decisions have had to be made on the run. A living creature, who sits down to logically work through the options, is eaten by his predator. The successful predator, however, increases his chances of continuing survival further if, between contests, he sits down and applies some rational analysis to the intuitive reactions that he made on the run.

Even very intelligent people have a hard time identifying the most obvious logic fallacies surrounding the issue. Many believe that concepts of god are not falsifiable, which is untrue.....if you continually move the mark, you can never disprove god, but if you come up with a precise definition that isn't gibberish, than it's falsifiable.

Perhaps a theistic God might be an exception here, being totally outside of spacetime (and therefore totally non-interactive with it).

Another common mistake is being unable to tell the difference between absence of evidence and negative evidence, but only in the context of theological questions.

Funny thing that, isn't it Beady?

....I wanted to carefully address the subject of applying agnosticism to any idea that has a "lack of evidence". I will say only this, an idea either corresponds to what we've currently observed about our universe or it doesn't, though both can be to varying degrees. If a person told me that if I worship their pink dragon, I get a million dollars in the afterlife, I, for all intents and purposes, would function as if that claim were totally untrue. I would not worship the dragon, and I would be wary that the person might be a con artist. If you want to define that as agnosticism, then you are defining agnosticism as the lowest level of belief possible. If you want to define my belief as “faith” then you are redefining faith to mean “A reasonable idea based on objective facts”.

I could perhaps suggest a CM appreciation society but that would be stooping down to the level of that undignified circle-jerk I came across earlier in the thread.

regards,
BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

Originally posted by Beady
Would it be correct for me to say that you don't exist because I have never encountered you?

Depends what you mean by encountered. Some would say that you have indeed encountered CM. Right here on this site. The evidence - you are responding to him with your very post.

Originally posted by Beady
Or would it be more correct for me to say that, while I can't rule it out, I have never seen evidence of your existence

Oh, I think you have the evidence. Not 100% proof of life but pretty good evidence nontheless.

Originally posted by Beady
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh dear!

Originally posted by Beady
You are a corporeal being.

That's better. Seems you must have evidence after all.

Originally posted by Beady
Assuming the existance of God, of whatever persuasion, he is a non-corporeal being. If he does not manifest himself in the room, you cannot say "He isn't here."

Now we are assuming the existance of God. And I thought we were looking for evidence.
We can't see him. But he is invisible, so of course we can't see him. Therefore that is no evidence against him? Well, I guess it isn't, but it's certainly no evidence for him. And, if I cannot detect him by any means available to me, I certainly will conclude that "He isn't here" - unless and until such evidence becomes available.

Originally posted by Beady
Personally, I rather prefer to simply say that I have no need of the god hypothesis. I do, however, find it convenient for intellectual reasons to hypothesize an afterlife, and there is no evidentiary reason not to. Thus, I neither accept nor reject "God," while recognizing that others do both, and I have no trouble accepting an afterlife. Yet I consider myself a skeptic, and a true skeptic at that.

That may be so but what this means is that you are agnostic with respect to the existence of God and non-sceptical with respect to the existence of an afterlife.
Anyway, I find the following phrases interesting:
" I find itconvenient for intellectual reasons to hypothesize an afterlife"
" I have no trouble accepting an afterlife"
I mean I don't mind what tickles your fancy, but you are being neither logical nor sceptical with respect to the existence of an afterlife.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[CaptainManacles]

Which brings us back to the point that, although we might regard ourselves as being sceptical, if we have false beliefs (beliefs without evidence), we are not sceptical in relation to these beliefs and, in a sense, we would have to say that we are not true sceptics.

I guess it comes down to how you define false. In other terms, I guess what I'm saying is it's possible to have much evidence in support of an idea, but that idea still could be wrong, though it's unlikely. Skeptical concepts help increase the rate at which one is correct, but it's still possible to be wrong, even if you are being perfectly rational in all regards. It's why the self-correcting proccess of science is never ending. (it's also possible to come to correct conclusions using unsound means, it's just less likely)

Perhaps a theistic God might be an exception here, being totally outside of spacetime (and therefore totally non-interactive with it).

If something doesn't interact with spacetime, then it don't exist.

I could perhaps suggest a CM appreciation society but that would be stooping down to the level of that undignified circle-jerk I came across earlier in the thread

I'm quite happy just to be appreciated, no gay geometrical formations are required.