True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[jmercer]

Re: Oxymoron

Wouldn't the term "true skeptic" be an oxymoron or a bit paradoxical? Because skepticism in its most extreme form states that all knowledge is impossible at least for us humans and they should to reserve judgement for everything. that should also includes the merits of all philosophies including skepticism , so the expression "true skeptic" also cannot be known and therefore they can never be sure its true anyway.

Would it be better if you used the expression, extreme skeptic, or hard skeptic.

My goodness! I have to agree with ya, Croc!! Well said...

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Though I must admit that I haven't studied this thread in much detail, I would like to offer the following opinions:

1: I cannot see how one can define anyone as a true skeptic, as skepticism is a process and not a goal or a set of facts or a set of belief.

2: Well-considered as they are, I find Pragmatists descriptions of religion too broad - to me Pragmatist more or less defines religion as anything that is experienced and cannot be described or conveyed to another person due to the rational limitations of language. I get the impression that what Pragmatist tries to describe are some religious experiences, rather than religion as a concept. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pragmatist. I would limit 'defining' religion to that which deals with 'entities' or cncepts governing creation and destiny but which cannot be supported in any rational way.

3: Atheism is not a philosohy or a set of moarl or ethical rules in opposition to religion or theism. Atheism is merely absense of belief. Atheism is not counter to religion, although some religious like to point out the Soviet anti-relgious ways as defining atheism. But that is not to say that atheists do not argue against the claims of religions for numerous good reasons.

4: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Shrödinger create his cat paradox as a sort of parody to show the philosophical absurdity or meaninglessnes of some of the approaches to describing QM in macrocosmic terms? Wasn't he simply saying: We are simply not able to determine whether the cat is dead or not - we simply lack the necessary information to make the distinction, and it is absurd to think the cat is both.

Carry on.

 

[Moose]

I note that Shrödinger probably couldn't have been a cat owner, or he'd have known that there's simply no way to shut a cat into a box and not know the current state of that cat with it continuously yowling its head off to be let out.

 

[Pragmatist]

Ooh, loads been going on here since Friday, I'll answer earlier posts later (I seem to do that a lot these days - pressed for time! )

Though I must admit that I haven't studied this thread in much detail, I would like to offer the following opinions:

1: I cannot see how one can define anyone as a true skeptic, as skepticism is a process and not a goal or a set of facts or a set of belief.

Agreed.

2: Well-considered as they are, I find Pragmatists descriptions of religion too broad - to me Pragmatist more or less defines religion as anything that is experienced and cannot be described or conveyed to another person due to the rational limitations of language. I get the impression that what Pragmatist tries to describe are some religious experiences, rather than religion as a concept. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pragmatist. I would limit 'defining' religion to that which deals with 'entities' or cncepts governing creation and destiny but which cannot be supported in any rational way.

Sorry if I've confused anyone. I haven't tried to define religion, in fact I was trying to say that I don't believe that religion can be defined. Most of my comments were not specifically about religion. Let me summarize what I was trying to say:

1. I believe that religion is an example of a "non-rational" (I said "irrational" meaning the same thing) endeavour.
2. Since reason (and logic, and definitions and words) all belong to the rational, I believe they are all inapplicable to religion.
3. I tried to demonstrate independently that there are "non-rational" domains - places where reason, logic etc., simply don't apply, i.e. that there is an "unspeakable" facet to existence.
4. By demonstrating (3) I hoped to establish that it wasn't unreasonable to claim that religion (or anything else) could be considered "non-rational". They could be aspects of the "non-rational" domain.
5. The fact that something may be "non-rational" does not necessarily imply that the thing is crazy or undesirable (i.e. I consider art etc., to cross over into the "non-rational")
6. If (5) is true then it means that religion being "non-rational" doesn't necessarily have to be "crazy" - which does not in any way attempt to excuse the fact that some religions are "crazy".
7. I believe that genuine religion is a set of experiences not a set of claims or dogmas.
8. I consider myself religious but I don't accept stupid claims, I don't believe as a matter of faith or doctrine, I don't believe in gods, souls or afterlifes and I don't follow orders etc. Hence I believe the claim (of some) that all religious people have to be brainwashed morons who all believe such things by definition, is simply a straw man - not to mention offensive.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

3: Atheism is not a philosohy or a set of moarl or ethical rules in opposition to religion or theism. Atheism is merely absense of belief. Atheism is not counter to religion, although some religious like to point out the Soviet anti-relgious ways as defining atheism. But that is not to say that atheists do not argue against the claims of religions for numerous good reasons.

Agreed.

4: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Shrödinger create his cat paradox as a sort of parody to show the philosophical absurdity or meaninglessnes of some of the approaches to describing QM in macrocosmic terms? Wasn't he simply saying: We are simply not able to determine whether the cat is dead or not - we simply lack the necessary information to make the distinction, and it is absurd to think the cat is both.

Agreed again. The Schrodinger cat paradox isn't a realistic proposal and Schrodinger suggested it merely as an attempt to ridicule some ideas of the Copenhagen Interpretation (mainly Heisenberg's). I agree it's absurd to think of the cat as being in a state that is not either alive or dead.

However, a better example is the simple state of a particle, say the spin of a particle like an electron. According to some interpretations of QT its state is "indeterminate" until measured, and the state is "assigned" by measurement. This is part of the picture painted by Heisenberg who believed that things genuinely cease to exist and then only come into existence at the instant they are measured. This is of course a philosophical rather than scientific position. However, given that this position is accepted by some scientists (or at least was widely accepted in the past) I think there is an inconsistency between literal belief in something like this being "scientifically acceptable" and religion being "unacceptable".

Carry on.

Will do!

 

[Pragmatist]

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".

Well, you can either propose that the electron is something that happens to have certain properties, or you can propose that it is nothing that happens to have certain properties. The first is easy to follow but then begs the question of what that something is. But the latter introduces all kinds of ontological questions and issues and certainly does not seem like a more rational model. Remember that QT is just a model, and whilst it is certainly predictive (at least certain forms or parts of it are) a model of the behavior of something is not the same as the something. It's the old map and territory issue. QT is a map, it is not the territory. No matter how good, accurate, precise etc., a map you have, having a map is not the same as direct experience of the territory. The rules certainly apply (to the best of our knowledge) to our interaction with the territory - but the rules cannot predict our personal perception or "experience" of the territory. It is in that sense that I say that the rules do not apply. The predictions of the model also don't tell us why those things happen.

As I said before, pragmatically the best thing to do is to accept the model and certainly to try to expand knowledge to the best extent possible. But at the same time if we fail to recognise that (all) our knowledge is just a model, then I believe we're skirting dangerously close to the kind of dogmatism that religion is accused of.

Anyway, the map is knowable, the territory is experienceable but unspeakable - because you cannot pass the actual territory to someone via speech (or thought or reason), you can only pass a model of it that way. The two are separate and distinct.

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.

My point was not specifically that it would give you external knowledge, but it might give you some knowledge of your own mind or your own personal relationship to the world. I am saying that some people might consider the experience to be of value in and of itself. For example, you could say that the Mona Lisa is just some oil and pigment thrown on to canvas (i.e. a collection of chemicals) so it's value is simply the quantitative total of the cost of those materials. Others would disagree and insist that it's a great work of art and that its value is priceless. Who is to say that one judgement is superior to the other?

Plus of course has anyone shown any evidence that religious experience (in the most general sense) is a chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm not talking about wierd states of altered consciousness, I'm talking about everyday stuff.

My own view is that our "self", our consciousness and everything else we associate with being human is simply a set of chemicals and interactions. But, having said that, does anyone, even the most ardent atheistic skeptic, believe that we are not more than just the sum of our parts? Would it be legitimate for me to kill someone I don't like and simply dismiss the matter as a case of "disposal of waste chemicals"? And if not, why not, if all we're talking about is chemicals?

 

[geni]

And they are flat out wrong. There is ZERO evidence for the exsitence of "God" as defined by modern Ambrahamic religions. Zero.

There is a difference between "no evidence that I will accept" and "no evidence". There is in fact large amount of evidence. For example there is the Gathas. You or course will not accpet this evidence as enough to change your mind but it does exists and as succh your above stament is false.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Thanks for responding, Pragmatist. I think I understand your point better now; I think you pretty much summon it up yourself:

Originally posted by Pragmatist:
7. I believe that genuine religion is a set of experiences not a set of claims or dogmas.

I tend to interpret it that way myself, although it then begs a definition of 'genuine' versus' 'not genuine' - I have the impression that a very large percentage of the World's population by something approaching that definition practise something that may be termed 'not-genuine' religion - and that would include the vast majority of practitioners of the Abrahamistic religions as well as the Pope and the Vatican itself.

I think one of the reasons for this thread becomming so long is due to people ascribing different meanings to the same words. If BS Investigator's opening post had read something along the lines "How can people who claim to apply a sceptical approach to learning about the World maintain belief or faith in religious claims that when examined sceptically turn out to be either unfounded or demonstrably wrong?" I would have answered along the lines of 'the usual suspects': I do not understand it myself, but I suspect fear, ignorance and vain hope being the main drivers - but that applies to sustained belief in any demonstraby fallacious ore unfounded claim.

To me, the interesting thing is why demonstrably fallaciuos and/or unfounded religious claims get a 'free ride' in many cultures. To me, bunk is bunk, whether it purports to be religious or cold fusion.

Maybe what we need is a new definition of the word 'religion'.

 

[Pragmatist]

We are saying, aren't we, that a true sceptic is someone who practices the methodology of scepticism in ALL aspects of their lives. This would be an ideal, wouldn't it, towards which a sceptic strives, however unsuccessfully?

Forgive me BillyJoe for I have sinned and it's been a hell of a long time since my last confession:

I have honestly tried to be a TRUE skeptic, I really have, but I must confess that I've encountered a few problems in applying skepticism to ALL aspects of my life.

1. Since I know that by definition a TRUE skeptic doesn't suspend his skepticism, I've been having a bit of trouble with movies. I've tried to do the right thing and not allow myself to actually follow the story line and not to suspend my disbelief, but it's hard. What is even harder is the reaction of the other poor deluded souls who inhabit movie theatres and who are not enlightened into the TRUE way of skepticism. For example they can get quite nasty every time I jump up during the movie and shout, "That's a logical fallacy!", or "That is a misrepresentation of fundamental scientific principles!". In fact, have you ever seen what it's like when someone gets stoned to death with popcorn? It's not pretty I can assure you...

2. Skepical Toilet Issues. I confess that I'm really not sure how to be a TRUE skeptic whilst using the toilet. I mean, when I want to pee, so far I've just stuck with the old "point and shoot" method, but I don't see much to be skeptical of. I have made a big effort to be skeptical that the toilet will actually flush when I pull the lever but so far it has flushed every time and unfortunately, the weight of evidence suggesting that toilets actually do flush when you activate the mechanism seems to overrule my skepticism. What can I do to get round this? Should I take a spanner and try to screw up the plumbing?

3. Skeptical Eating (and in particular, restaurants). This is a little more successful. I have managed to be fully skeptical that the prices in restaurants are actually a fair value for the food I'm getting, and I have even managed to be skeptical that the food I am served is actually what it claims to be. But again, the irrational woos who are not TRUE skeptics tend to obstruct my efforts. For example, just the other day when I confronted the manager of a restaurant and told him that I was skeptical that my Steak Tartare was actually beef, and that it was really ground up rat instead, he insisted on shouting at me, and threw me out of the restaurant. Of course I did get the last laugh when I shouted back that I was skeptical that he was actually a manager. But it's hard being a TRUE skeptic.

Anyway, as for eating, I have managed to remain skeptical that what I eat actually goes to my stomach, but I can't see much effect from it. By the way, what is the correct technique for skeptical chewing? Is it more skeptical to chew from side to side or up and down? How many chews do I need to give an item before I achieve TRUE skepticism?

4. Skeptical Sleeping. This one is really difficult. I've tried to be skeptical about sleeping but I keep falling asleep! And as for dreams, I've tried chanting before a mirror, "I will not dream of invisible pink unicorns", but unfortunately, to my eternal shame I must confess to having IPU dreams. Please forgive me.

5. Skeptical Driving. Also difficult. I tried to be skeptical about the idea that everyone should drive on the right and tried driving on the left on the freeway instead. I had terrible trouble dodging all the woos going the wrong way and some of them were really quite rude about it too.

6. Skeptical Shopping. Again those woos just make it difficult. I always challenge the cashier who gives me change and say, "I am skeptical that you gave me the right money". They usually do re-count it, which means there is some hope for humanity in general, but they get nasty when I continue to assert my skepticism. There was a particularly nasty guy in the 711 just the other day, in fact I'm skeptical that he was human, I think he was a gorilla - especially judging by the bruises I got. I get similar reactions when I am skeptical of the goods I have bought etc.

So whilst I try to be TRUE skeptic in every aspect of my life, it is really difficult. I have sinned and beg absolution.

 

[jmercer]

4: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Shrödinger create his cat paradox as a sort of parody to show the philosophical absurdity or meaninglessnes of some of the approaches to describing QM in macrocosmic terms? Wasn't he simply saying: We are simply not able to determine whether the cat is dead or not - we simply lack the necessary information to make the distinction, and it is absurd to think the cat is both.

You're correct - with the added admonishment that a part of his purpose was to show that QT is an incomplete theory because it allows for an apparent paradox. At the time Shrodinger (How do you get those dots above the o? That's cool!) was dealing with a community who were suggesting that QT might be the "ultimate theory" for describing the universe.

Good post in all regards, not just number 4.

 

[Moose]

(How do you get those dots above the o? That's cool!)

On a windows box, you hold down your left Alt key and type in the four (decimal) digit unicode value of the character you're looking to display. In this case: 0246.

You'll find the (lowercase) western special character set spread out between values 0199 and 0260 (roughly.)

You can also use the three-digit extended ascii value, but that's pretty much limited to western text. The unicode trick works with any character your font is aware of.

There are other ways, but they depend on keymappers which are highly implimentation dependant.

 

[jmercer]

Thanks, Moose - too much work for me, though, so I'll just continue on, going dotless...

 

[songstress]

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.

Sounds like you want to turn scepticism into a religion.

 

[Donn]

Ok - this thread is starting to repeat.
Good points have been made on all sides, but perhaps it's time to move on.

I think it's fairly clear that the term "True Sceptic" is not roundly supported - it's up there with "Bright".
I also think that anyone who feels they are "Sceptical" and "Religious" should have a good Sceptical look at that situation.

It's a Physician heal thyself sorta thing.

That said, a confession: I don't think of myself as a good Sceptic. I am definitely a Scewbie! (Sceptic Newbie who is a little Skew! )
I have a bunch of irrational notions that I cannot shine a light on right now - for fear and sanity and life reasons. I hope to one day and I certainly don't push them onto anyone else (I hope).

BSI - I agree with your OP. I tend to think in extremes but fail to live up to them.

So, let's put this to bed. We are all humans here, absolutes are for machines and ideals.

Whaddayasay?

 

[Moochie]

Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

There is no true sceptic.

Every single person makes assumptions every day and operates on beliefs.

When your partner says they fed the dog yesterday, do you question that?

I'd check with the dog.


When your boss says a new job may be opening up soon, do you doubt them?

Damn straight! Wouldn't be the first time they've lied.


When you buy a cereal that says it contains 7g of fibre per 100g do you ask to see evidence?

Of course! Don't you?


As my granny used to say, "I don't know much about art, science, or religion, but I know what I like."

 

[Moochie]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, ES, but I must. Anecdotal evidence (which is subjective in essence) is indeed evidence, albeit weak, unreliable, etc. If millions of people claim they experience spiritual rapture and contact God on a subjective level, that's evidence.


Hmmm... Aren't you talking about evidence of a feeling?


Help me, I'm trying to understand.


Moochie

 

[Moose]

Hmmm... Aren't you talking about evidence of a feeling?

Yup. A witness account, including impressions, is considered evidence. Arguably the weakest, most unreliable form of evidence, but evidence just the same.

 

[jmercer]

Thanks, Moose - exactly correct.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I would challenge this. Not believing there is a God, or believing there is no god, does not require hatred, any more than not being a UFOlogist.

It is true that many skeptics do hate and scorn both believers and UFOlogists, but that's bigotry, not skepticism.

Atheism is not skepticism and from my perspective if you get a bunch of atheists together they rant and rave irrationally about how bad religion is, yet if atheism had great advantages for the masses everyone would be an atheist. Yeah bigotry would describe it.

 

[jmercer]

I am a Christian, albeit one in transition to a more general deism and possibly agnosticism.

I have been welcomed and respected by athiests in these forums; I have observed no higher incidence of bigotry amongst atheists than I have seen among the general Christian community. Fundamentalists of all religions, however, display bigotry almost as a hallmark of their identity, and I have been far more frequently insulted by fundies than by anyone else.

Bigotry is a human issue, not a philosophical or religious one.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I am a Christian, albeit one in transition to a more general deism and possibly agnosticism.

I have been welcomed and respected by atheists in these forums; I have observed no higher incidence of bigotry amongst atheists than I have seen among the general Christian community. Fundamentalists of all religions, however, display bigotry almost as a hallmark of their identity, and I have been far more frequently insulted by fundies than by anyone else.

Bigotry is a human issue, not a philosophical or religious one.

I am glad to hear it and hope you can speak more on this matter since I am not religious. I am new to the list and I don't really mean to step on anyones toes but my guess is most skeptics have callused toes anyway except for the newbies. I have had these thoughts for some time with no one to talk to. Forgive my enthusiasm and realize the words that appear on this forum do not reflect my emotional state accurately.