True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[crocodile deathroll]

Sure some people can be very skeptical and deeply religious at the same time. An old Scottish Bishop can be totally skeptical of the Loch Ness Monster but his professional status truly does indicate a person of very deep religious convictions..

 

[BS Investigator]

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

This seems like a very broad statement. Relativity and quantum mechanics are just theories, built upon previous theories. Perhaps a new theory will come along explaining an entire new paradigm in physics, which could operate outside the space-time continuum. Maybe some new demension, in which the laws of physics are totally different. Can you rule that out, 100%?

 

[BS Investigator]

Sure some people can be very skeptical and deeply religious at the same time. An old Scottish Bishop can be totally skeptical of the Loch Ness Monster but his professional status truly does indicate a person of very deep religious convictions..

He might be "very skeptical" about the Loch Ness Monster, but if he believes in the so-called "resurrection" or a guaranteed afterlife, or any of the other supernatural claims of his religion, no, I would not consider him to be "very skeptical" overall.

He lacks credibility, as a skeptic.

Don't you think a teetotaler who does whiskey shots on the side is lacking something as a teetotaler? He would not be a very credible teetotaler if he was slamming beers every Sunday, how would he?

To believe in outlandish supernatural claims with zero valid evidence goes against everything it means to be a skeptic.

 

[CaptainManacles]

This seems like a very broad statement. Relativity and quantum mechanics are just theories, built upon previous theories. Perhaps a new theory will come along explaining an entire new paradigm in physics, which could operate outside the space-time continuum. Maybe some new demension, in which the laws of physics are totally different. Can you rule that out, 100%?

It's broad, but so is the statement "existence exists". It's broad because it's ontologically true. If something does not interact with space time it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

Certainly, things can exist outside of space-time (how likely that is, not my area), but they have to interact with space-time. It's difficult to explain it any better, it's simply true by default, any other position would render reason and debate meaningless.

Imagine, as you said, if science discovered another parallel world that isn't space time. Well, how did we discover it? For that to be possible it would have to interact with space time somehow. Even if in some sense the two worlds didn't interact, and it was simply humans that could view both, that humans could take information from one to the other would be interaction. Imagine if we could sent probes into investigate this world, but they couldn't come back. How is this logically any different then simply being able to destroy the probes? If any information can get back, that's an interaction. In fact, on further thought, even sucking the probe up would be an interaction.

 

[Dogdoctor]

To believe in outlandish supernatural claims with zero valid evidence goes against everything it means to be a skeptic.

Ok so define outlandish supernatural and zero valid evidence. I am going to guess that if you ask all the members on the list here you will get a variety of answers to those definitiions. I however have no evidence just a clue about human nature. I also would go further and guess that every human or at least every functioning member of a society (eliminating idiot savants) is not skeptical about some aspects of their life no matter how obsessive compulsive they are about it. Again i have no proof but just an idea from years of observing human behavior. There just aren't enough hours in the day to debunk everything.

 

[BS Investigator]

Dogdoctor, sure. No one is perfect.

For example, I am in the strange and useless habit of "knocking on wood" whenever I say something I hope will hold true. Like, "Well so far everything is going great... knock on wood." Then I knock on something wooden.

But I do this stupidness in regard to small things, like who I hope will win a sporting event. Do I really believe it works? No.

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

Hoping to get a date is not extraordinary, hoping to live for eternity in "heaven," as you are serenaded by lovely winged angels, now THAT is extraordinary, and thus, it requires extraordinary evidence, or one should not believe it.

 

[Dredred]

Hoping to get a date is not extraordinary, hoping to live for eternity in "heaven," as you are serenaded by lovely winged angels, now THAT is extraordinary, and thus, it requires extraordinary evidence, or one should not believe it.

The claim that knocking on wood would help you get a date is also extraordinary, thus requiring extraordinary evidence. (I understand you don't believe it, don't worry.. Otherwise I'd start a new thread: "True skeptics can't believe knocking on wood brings good luck"}

 

[BillyJoe]

CM,

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)

No argument here.

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

Well, from a practical point of view, we can assume it doesn't exist.
I would say we don't hold a belief that it exists, rather than that we believe it doesn't exist. This is one of the subtle differences that makes us sceptics, don't you agree?

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

Yeah, I was just taking the piss out of those other jerks.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Dredred,

Hey pussy-cat, looks you ran into the wall as the little mouse escaped through the hole in the skirting board!

BillyJoe

 

[Donn]

I also would go further and guess that every human or at least every functioning member of a society ..snip ... is not skeptical about some aspects of their life ...snip... There just aren't enough hours in the day to debunk everything.

Yes - "True Sceptic" is a very idealistic term.

Most of us here are Sceptical to the degree of being actively so. Some of us are new to the concept, some are still not skilled enough to get it right more often. The point being that we all try to approach things with a questioning nature.

Now, if you put the brakes on your Skeptical approach when you enter Church on Sunday, you must be at least be honest with yourself and admit that you are making an exception.
You should be aware that you are now participating in an activity that you have agreed not to question.

You should also be aware that your thinking about Religion will be clouded and you are likely to be making a lot of critical mistakes when you try to defend your involvement.
You should be honest with yourself and agree not to use faulty reasoning to uphold your Religion. (And, frankly, be suspicious of reasoning you regard as perfect!)

Sure, you are still a Sceptic - in other areas. You are still a human too But you should be honest with yourself and have the guts to say to other Sceptics, "I acknowledge my non-sceptical approach in this regard, lay off please."

As has been said often in this thread: Sceptic = Process.

To my mind it goes like this:
Sceptic = Process = Gradual questioning = Inevitable Agnosticism.
But that's just me

 

[Dredred]

Dredred,

Hey pussy-cat, looks you ran into the wall as the little mouse escaped through the hole in the skirting board!

BillyJoe

Oh yeah? Check out my new avatar

 

[Donn]

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

Hey lay off Cthulu - he guides my hand in the stygian darkness.. Oh er...

Here's the thing: I see art and religion as (to a large degree) facets of the same coin. ... snip ... 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?

I have to agree that art was tied to Religion when you put it like this.
It's also been cut loose in recent times - thankfully.
It's been used in atheistic pursuits too!

I was reacting to the suggestion that Logic and Rationality are somehow exclusive and divorced from Art.

I was also reacting to the suggestion that Art is some kind of mystical state - down in the eerie "wordless" realms of High Religious Experience. I think that's bunk.

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

I'm not saying all art is done this way, I'm saying that if Art was a product of some spiritual oogah-boogah then why would artists need to Storm Heaven in that way (drugs/booze)?

Simply because Art is soft and fuzzy and hard to define, does not grant it "non rational" status. It does make it bloody hard to get to grips with, which perhaps is part of it's slippery charm!

Put another way - I don't think you will find God in gaps like Art, Imagination or Creativity.

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?

Yeah - good take. Your "Reality Check" is what I mean when I say "Intellectual honesty". It's all about clearing the decks, laying down your suppositions and then looking at things afresh.

 

[Beady]

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

Work with me here, and pretend I haven't encountered you. Yes, there is evidence that there are people outside my sphere of acquaintance, but there is no evidence that you are one of them.

>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And negative evidence is not the same as absence of evidence.

You seem to think it is. No evidence means you have no evidence one way or another. There are no grounds whatsoever upon which to base a decision. For instance, there is no evidence that you are a real person; you could be a sock puppet (hey, it's happened). However, there is no evidence for either proposition. There is, however, a rule against having multiple accounts, so I have a reason to assume, pending the appearance of any contradictory evidence, that you are real.

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.

That's your opinion. I'm not bound by it.

 

[Beady]

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

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

If you've got a problem with me, put me on Ignore. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

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

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh yeah? Check out my new avatar

Poor little bird. Did he really deserve that?

 

[Dredred]

Poor little bird. Did he really deserve that?

It's a mouse, you *$# ... erm.... mouse

 

[jmercer]

Folks -

Skepticism is a methodology. (I think most of us agree on this.) The phrase "true skeptic" isn't an "idealistic" phrase at all - it's an absolutist phrase. And when conjoined with criteria (as in the OP), it becomes a test of membership to determine if you're suitable to be called a skeptic - or not.

Well, methodologies don't have members; they have practitioners. Religions and cults have members, and to be a member, you must pass muster from criteria chosen from their dogma.

Any attempt to define a "true skeptic" changes skepticism from a methodology to a dogma.

The most you can say about a skeptic who is deeply religious is that they are inconsistent about applying skeptical thinking; if you wish to be skeptical aobut it, then the most you can actually say is that they appear to have been inconsistent about applying it.

When you invoke absolutism in anything, you have to be extremely wary; absolutes are very rare, particularly when people and their interactions with the world are involved.

 

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

(Don't say you haven't noticed. I can see you looking through those blinking beady eyes of yours. )

Work with me here, and pretend I haven't encountered you. Yes, there is evidence that there are people outside my sphere of acquaintance, but there is no evidence that you are one of them.

I don't get it! Could someone please explain this to me?
Anyone?

You seem to think it is [negative evidence = absence of evidence].. No evidence means you have no evidence one way or another. There are no grounds whatsoever upon which to base a decision.

This is not always true.
If no evidence is forthcoming after an extended period of time of seriously searching for it, and depending on the circumstances, you might just lean ever so slightly towards believing that the thing doesn't exist. For example, don't you lean, at least ever so slightly, towards believing that the Yeti does not exist?

For instance, there is no evidence that you are a real person; you could be a sock puppet (hey, it's happened). However, there is no evidence for either proposition. There is, however, a rule against having multiple accounts, so I have a reason to assume, pending the appearance of any contradictory evidence, that you are real.

No, I don't get it!
Please, someone explain this to me. Explain why this paragraph is not a tangled mass of self-contradictory contradiction.

That's your opinion. I'm not bound by it.

I think that is not his intention - for you to be bound by it. I think he wants you to move beyond the bounds of it. Oh wait.....no.....he has in fact given up on you. Now, that is very bad news. It is exactly the hard cases that need all our considerable help.

BillyJoe
(I think I am probably on ignore now. )

 

[BillyJoe]

It's a mouse, you *$# ... erm.... mouse

Don't bother yourself about the ignore button, Beady, I'm out of here!


(wrong animal and wrong direction, but hey....)

BJ

 

[CaptainManacles]

Work with me here, and pretend I haven't encountered you.
Yes, there is evidence that there are people outside my sphere of acquaintance, but there is no evidence that you are one of them.

Okay, pretend you haven't encountered me, define me.

Regardless, the analogy is flawed, god is more like a specific claim about a person, where they live, what their name is, that they hang out at the pub tuesday at 2 o Clock. We've checked the address and there isn't even a house there, we looked in the public records and no one by that name has a birth certificate, we go to the pub at the appropriate time and no such person is there. Yes, it's possible that it's simply a homeless man from a foreign country and he owns a cloaking device, but the chances are low.

You seem to think it is.

A claim that you have not backed up with evidence. I provided examples which I felt were evidence against the existence of god. You provided reasons why you felt one of the pieces of evidence was invalid. I refuted your reasoning, and you have not responded.

No evidence means you have no evidence one way or another.

I'm aware of the axiom of identity.

There are no grounds whatsoever upon which to base a decision. For instance, there is no evidence that you are a real person...

But I believe there are grounds on which to base a decision. You have to refute those claims, not make irrelevent tautological statements.

By the way, what exactly is the difference between evidence and "a reason to assume"?

Again, I will state that god has evidence against his existence. Praying and not getting a response is evidence against his existence. It's like checking a room to see if the person claimed to be there is really there. If we don't see anyone, that's evidence against the claim. Not praying would be absence of evidence. It's the equivelent of not checking the room at all. How much weight you give to this evidence is more subjective. It depends on how likely you think it is that an incorpreal being can exist. I might add though that saying "We cannot see god, but he might be incorpreal, so we must reserve judgement on the matter" is no better then saying "I didn't see suzy in the next room, therefore she might be incorpreal, and we must reserve judgement as to weather she is in the room."

There are certainly more examples, but I'm not going to repeat them just because you chose to ignore them.

That's your opinion. I'm not bound by it.

I had the pre-edit statement in my quote block, but I'll let it slide. I'll give you some credit, as much as we disagree, it's not like we're argueing over the existence of transition fossils. Compared to some of the stuff one has to deal with in other forums, even someone I feel diametrically opposed to on this forum is, in the grand scheme of things, basically on the same page as me if they're not a woo. In the grand scheme of things, we might as well be argueing over the best flavor icecream, for all the impact our arguement would have on our lives. As long as we both agree that homeopathic solutions are not a good cure for cancer or aids.