True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[luchog]

Hm... I'm not sure you could classify his writings as atheistic, not really. There's no doubt he was strongly anti-Christian/Judaic; but I don't believe he actually declared that there is no deity. I could be wrong on that, though - If I am, I'd appreciate the correction... other than that one minor quibble, I find myself in agreement with you once again.

His belief system could be classed as "New Age". He believed in the Divinity of Man, and that through a process of guided evolution, humans could eventually achieve godhood. Much like the teachings of Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati, some branches of Freemasonry, and various German mystical secret societies that flourished around the turn of the century.

So, atheistic in that he didn't believe in the existence of a transcendent, animistic, or pantheistic deity; but religious insofar as he believed that man himself had the potential to become divine; once "regressive" elements were eliminated.

As I said originally, whether that would be considered truly atheistic is certainly debatable.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

luchog,

As ever excellent posts!

Please accept my apologies for misreading your intent in your post that I responded to - I think your latest point cleared it up for me - I think we pretty much agree that Bad Guys and Bad Deeds are bad, irrespective of what surface texture they claim to have. It is not the existence of religions that cause atrocities, but a few humans willingness to commit them for their own egos.

However, I still beg to differ a little bit: I contend that you cannot counter a claim by a religious person who seeks to excuse his atrocities by saying his God told him to do it - using deities and interpretations of holy scriptures as an explanation is unfaslifiable and to him unassailable, even if you and I disagree with him! Why let him have that excuse?

My point was that the same destructive social and psychological mechanisms can be applied under different banners. The particular problem I have with religion, or any other dogmatic notion, is its absolutism and self-serving 'We Alone Know The Truth' sentiment. Lack of dogma is not equivalent to holding (non)dogma, so I find there is still a fundamental difference by (litteral) atheism and theism, i.e. religion. Lack of faith is not a faith, as little as baldness is a hairstyle.

What I called the religious mindset is, to me, magical thinking and indeed intellectual laziness - so I think we also agree there. As you and other posters, jmercer for one, rightly point out, critical thinking and ridding oneself of magical thinking is an aquired skill. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be having this debate here and now! That's why education is so important - and education must rid itself of the dogmatic religious scriptures as Sources of Knowledge.

I'm not so sure that Christianity in itself inspired the birth of the scientific method as we know it (I haven't studied that aspect of history for more than a quarter of a century, so my memory may serve me wrong), but it seems inevitable considering the depth and breadth of the Christian Church's position in society and the minds of men that original thinkers of the time also happened to be members of the Christian church, like all the good examples you listed - how could they have been otherwise at that time and place in history and not been social outcasts and disappeared into obscurity? ISTRC, though I freely admit I cannot off-hand find sources to validate my point, that there has been, and still is, a tendency for Christian historians and apologers to down-play the conflict between free-thinkers, scientists among them, and the Church, and to actually claim credit for the development of the scientific and naturalistic world view; Christianity is to its core based on supernatural dogma, so I see religion and science as mutually exclusive. To my eye, it is Christian apologetic data-mining to propose that the 'fixed World' of Christianity is a parallel of or a precursor to what we now call physical laws or laws of nature - the former was based on "'cause God made it so, and so He said in The Holy Book", (because that was nice and conveniently simple for the religious leaders), where the latter is based on observation and experimentation - and scientific findings are ALWAYS PROVISIONAL. There is absolutely nothing provisional about the Holy Scriptures, but in order to retain some credibility in an ever evolving Real World, even the religious leaders (e.g. The Vatican) need to adjust the interpretation of their dogmatic scriptures from time to time; they are following, not leading - God of the Gaps, again - hence my contention that religion, almost per definition, counters human progress.

Trouble is, however, that societies that have evolved without religion are rare, if not non-existent, so our baseline context for moral, ethics and altruism tend to rely on the very existence of religions. Non-religious society (and I'm not thinking of the Nazi or communist debacles here) is a very new concept in human history and it will take a lot of getting used to; most people, I think, simply cannot conceive of a non-religious set of moral and ethics - most people still need (unfounded) promise of Heaven and fear of Hell to be nice to their neighbours, it seems to me. One does not need to submit to an imaginary deity to be nice to other people, but that is a new concept to most of the Worlds population because most of the religious powers would have you believe otherwise. The fact that the religions have moral codes and the fact that some people behave morally (or otherwise) makes the proponents of religion claim that only they can be credited for morality. I just don't buy that, that's all.

jmercer,

Excellent posts - I don't disagree with you at all, I wasn't, however, trying to make a point about the same conflict. I do find it interesting, however, that in the power struggle between Church and King, it was always 'the common folk' who suffered - and I believe that the Kings were actually also believers and actually attended church! Let's not need the church as the only countering power to despotic kings - neither are any good!

 

[Beth]

The particular problem I have with religion, or any other dogmatic notion, is its absolutism and self-serving 'We Alone Know The Truth' sentiment. Lack of dogma is not equivalent to holding (non)dogma, so I find there is still a fundamental difference by (litteral) atheism and theism, i.e. religion. Lack of faith is not a faith, as little as baldness is a hairstyle.

Some people shave their heads bald, and in such a case, it is a hairstyle just as cutting it to some other length would be. Likewise some people choose to believe in atheism and skepticism with a fervor that deserves the label of faith. They believe in it as if it were a religion and they seek to spread their doctrine with the 'We Alone know The Truth' sentiment.

So, I agree with you that calling atheism (or skeptism) a religion seems just as accurate to me as calling baldness a hairstyle. But I think that such a label can be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

Beth

 

[BS Investigator]

luchog,

What I called the religious mindset is, to me, magical thinking and indeed intellectual laziness - so I think we also agree there. As you and other posters, jmercer for one, rightly point out, critical thinking and ridding oneself of magical thinking is an aquired skill. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be having this debate here and now!

Or couldn't it also be possible that we are having this debate because religion, supernatural beliefs, and other such leanings have stripped the powers of logic and reason from certain members of the population? Or that lazy thinking has kept some from even bothering to use their brains?

The human brain has evolved to incorporate logic, problem-soving, and the powers of reason into human consciousness. Religion asks followers to abandon logic, reason, and critical thinking (a more refined version of "thinking" in general), so followers can believe ludicrous teachings about voices booming down from the sky, men rising from the dead, and entire seas being parted magically, with the flick of a wrist.

Whether "critical thinking" is born or taught, no one can doubt that religions ask their followers to abandon such methods of thinking, at least in relation to their own extraordinary claims.

And back to the subject of Hitler and Stalin:

Seneca the Younger: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

 

[jmercer]

His belief system could be classed as "New Age". He believed in the Divinity of Man, and that through a process of guided evolution, humans could eventually achieve godhood. Much like the teachings of Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati, some branches of Freemasonry, and various German mystical secret societies that flourished around the turn of the century.

So, atheistic in that he didn't believe in the existence of a transcendent, animistic, or pantheistic deity; but religious insofar as he believed that man himself had the potential to become divine; once "regressive" elements were eliminated.

As I said originally, whether that would be considered truly atheistic is certainly debatable.

Excellent post - and with that clarification, I have to agree with your assessment.

I have to say, though, that it's got to be the height of irony to discover that a "New Age" type was responsible for one of the greatest acts of villany in recent years...

 

[jmercer]

And back to the subject of Hitler and Stalin:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seneca the Younger: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good quote, one of my favorites.

Now, about that evidence I've been waiting for...

 

[Robin]

I believe that the original "mad bombers" (they would set bombs off - not blow themselves up) were the so-called Russian Anarchists... who were intellectuals and most (if not all) were also self-professed atheists. As I recall, these people were the precursors to the Russian Revolution and were opposed the the Czarist government of the time.

So I think Robin might be on point about being able to make a good case for terrorist bombings having originated with atheists; just not suicide bombings. I should also point out that the atheistic aspect of this is incidental; the bombings were politically motivated.

As I say I was remembering rather than reading this. My sources were Camus' 'The Rebel' and Emma Goldman's autobiography, where, I think, the claim was made that early anarchists regarded assassination as ethically defensible when the attacker was killed in the attack. I will try to get hold of the text sometime soon and check this.

I think that it is worth pointing out that if the body count argument is considered valid then the number of people killed for specific religious motives far outweighs the number of people killed for specifically atheistic motives, even without adjusting for populations, technology etc.

If Stalin's purges are considered to be atheist murders then you would have to also include things like Charles II of England's purges against the anti-royalists during the Restoration.

As it would be irrational to consider these religious murders then it is surely irrational to consider Stalin's purges atheist murders.

 

[Pragmatist]

And why 3 year olds are always climbing over the edge of cliffs...

As far as children being hard-wired to believe their parents, check out Sam Harris's ideas on this subject in THE END OF FAITH.

Do 3 year olds generally have unrestricted access to cliffs? Does a 3 year old who lives 100 miles from the nearest cliff take dad's car and drive there himself? I can't believe that you intend to argue that the claim that children are "hardwired to believe their parents" is justified by a new claim that "3 year olds don't fall off cliffs"? Talk about bizarre...!

How about a 6 year old? http://www.4ni.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?ID=43439 Does the "wiring" deteriorate in 6 year olds?

And why do 3 year old's get burned by frying pans etc.? Do you contend that their parents order them to burn themselves?

Aside from anything else, I would say that any real parent who has had a real 3 year old child knows perfectly well that the statement that children are "hardwired to believe their parents" is patently ridiculous.

And since you obviously rate Harris's opinion, what about this quote from Harris?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/542154/104-4875356-0246315

With respect to spiritual practice, however, the disparity clearly runs the other way. While Eastern mysticism has its fair share of unjustified belief, it undoubtedly represents humankind's best attempt at fashioning a spiritual science. The methods of introspection one finds in Buddhism, for instance, have no genuine equivalents in the West. And the suggestion that they do is born of a desperate attempt on the part of Westerners to make all religious traditions seem equally wise. They simply aren't. When a Tibetan lama talks about "nondual awareness" (Tib. rigpa) and the Pope talks about God or the Holy Spirit (or anything else), they are not talking about the same thing; nor are they operating on the same intellectual footing. The lama is using some very precise terminology (albeit terminology that has no good English equivalent) to describe what countless meditators have experienced after very refined training in methods of introspection; while the Pope is merely reiterating unjustified and unjustifiable metaphysical claims that have been passed down to Christians in the context of a culture that has failed--utterly--to find compelling alternatives to mere belief. Such alternatives have existed for millennia, east of the Bosporus. This is not to ignore the Meister Eckharts of the world, but such mystics have always been the exception in the West. And it is important to remember that, being exceptions, they have been regularly persecuted for heresy.

I presume you know who Meister Eckhart was?

Here's another interesting interview with Harris: http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001324.html

So he contends that "religion" is bad, but "mysticism" is good. I'm beginning to wonder if he's a true Scotsman...

The guy was born in 1285! Give me a break! This was before most of the scientific discoveries that would have made him think twice about how real religion was.

Well, no, we don't know when he was born, but it is believed that he was born sometime between 1280 and 1290. But please don't let facts confuse you!

And it doesn't make any difference whether he had access to scientific discoveries or not, either he was a critical thinker or he wasn't. It just so happens that he was... He was religious and opposed the church and its claims - you know, the one he is supposed to have obeyed without question because he lost his critical thinking faculties when he became religious... I suppose the evidence that clearly demonstrates that he considered deeply how real religious claims were, doesn't count?

By the way, if critical thinking is "hardwired" into us from birth, how exactly do we get to "suspend" it when we become religious?

And out of 6 examples I gave you, and one from jmercer, which dispute your claims, all you have to say is to make a spurious claim about one of them and ignore the rest of the evidence? I guess it won't make any difference to add another 7 to the list, will it? Someone who believes solely as a matter of faith won't be convinced by mere evidence...


Thomas Hobbes

A "true" Christian!

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-b.html#CHAPTERXII

For these seeds have received culture from two sorts of men. One sort have been they that have nourished and ordered them, according to their own invention. The other have done it by God's commandment and direction. But both sorts have done it with a purpose to make those men that relied on them the more apt to obedience, laws, peace, charity, and civil society. So that the religion of the former sort is a part of human politics; and teacheth part of the duty which earthly kings require of their subjects. And the religion of the latter sort is divine politics; and containeth precepts to those that have yielded themselves subjects in the kingdom of God. Of the former sort were all the founders of Commonwealths, and the lawgivers of the Gentiles: of the latter sort were Abraham, Moses, and our blessed Saviour, by whom have been derived unto us the laws of the kingdom of God.

John Locke

Originally wanted to become a priest, became a theologist in later life

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm

Concerning God's existence, his proof is a cosmological-type argument. From the certainty of our own existence that of the existence of God immediately follows. A person knows intuitively that he is "something that actually exists." Next a person knows with intuitive certainty, that "bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles." it is, therefore, "an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something. And since all the powers of all beings must be traced to this eternal Being, it follows that it is the most powerful, as well as the most knowing, that is, God. Eternal ind alone can produce "thinking, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be" (Bk. 4:10). Locke here assumes, without question, the validity of the causal principle even beyond the range of possible experience.

Robert Boyle

Ardent supporter of religion and scourge of atheists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle

Besides being a busy natural philosopher, Boyle devoted much time to theology, showing a very decided leaning to the practical side and an indifference to controversial polemics. At the Restoration he was favourably received at court, and in 1665 would have received the provostship of Eton, if he would have taken orders; but this he refused to do on the ground that his writings on religious subjects would have greater weight coming from a layman than a paid minister of the Church. As a director of the East India Company he spent large sums in promoting the spread of Christianity in the East, contributing liberally to missionary societies, and to the expenses of translating the Bible or portions of it into various languages. By his will he founded the Boyle lectures, for proving the Christian religion against "notorious infidels, viz, atheists, theists, pagans, Jews and Mahommedans," with the proviso that controversies between Christians were not to be mentioned.

Isaac Newton

Religious, but there is scholarly dispute about his actual beliefs whether he was a literal Bible Believer or into Arianism

From: http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Isaac_Newton.html

Isaac Newton: "Affiliation: Anglican, Heterodox; Newton was born into the Anglican church and publicly conformed to it." At about age 30 he came to believe "that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. Newton held these views, very privately, until the end of his life. On his death bed he refused to receive the sacrament of the Anglican church." [Source: The Galileo Project] A detailed consideration of this subject is here: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no77/newton-b.html

Pierre Bayle

Protestant, religious.

http://www.lett.unipmn.it/~mori/bayle/biogr.html

Born in 1647, the son of a protestant minister, Pierre Bayle wrote his first philosophical text as a student in the Jesuit college of Toulouse, a few months after his conversion to Catholicism (1669), but he returned to the religion of his fathers as soon as he finished his philosophy year. He moved then to Geneva, where he remained until 1673.

Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat

Certainly a religious believer, took Catholic sacraments in later life

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10536a.htm

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/#4.5

Religion can help to ameliorate the effects of bad laws and institutions; it is the only thing capable of serving as a check on despotic power. However, on Montesquieu's view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society. Given these different aims, what these two sets of laws should require will often differ; for this reason religion "ought not always to serve as a first principle to the civil laws" (SL 26.9). The civil laws are not an appropriate tool for enforcing religious norms of conduct: God has His own laws, and He is quite capable of enforcing them without our assistance. When we attempt to enforce God's laws for Him, or to cast ourselves as His protectors, we make our religion an instrument of fanaticism and oppression; this is a service neither to God nor to our country.

François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)

Deist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

From: http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html

Voltaire: "His entire life was a parodox. He despised mankind and yet he was passionately fond of men. He ridiculed the clergy and dedicated one of his books to the pope. He made fun of royalty and he accepted a pension from King Frederick the Great. He hated bigotry and he was bigoted in his attitude toward the Jews. He sneered at the vanity of riches and he acquired a vast fortune (by means that were not always honest). He disbelieved in God and he tried all his life to find Him. He had no respect for religion and he created a new religion of laughter... His father was a Jansenist, which in itself was a paradox. For the Jansenists were a sect of 'Protestant Catholics.'... His father imposed his doctrine of abstract mysticism so vigorously upon him that Voltaire grew up with a rebellious thirst for concrete reality. He cordially hated Jansenism. But he grew up with another hatred--a hatred against the persecution of Jansenists. Against any kind of persecution."; Pg. 185: "He was not, as is commonly believed, an atheist. He was a deist. He believed in the existence of God. Indeed, 'if God did not exist,' he said, 'it would be necessary to invent him.' But Voltaire's God is not an exclusive king of a single ecclesiastical order. He is the world's 'supreme Intelligence, a Workman infinitely able'--and infinitely impartial. He has no favorite people, no favorite country, no favorite church. For the true worshiper there is but a single faith, equal tolerance to all mankind."; Pg. 186: "...he helped them in the preparation of the great Encyclopedia of Free Thought. The Encyclopedists accused him of being a Christian and the Christians accused him of being an infidel, and between the two parties he had his hands full." (Source: Henry and Dana Lee Thomas. Living Biographies of Great Philosophers, Garden City, NY: Garden City Books (1959); Other source: "Late in life Voltaire wrote considerably against religious injustice and was quite opposed to the Catholic Church and Christianity in general."

The evidence (for any) of all of your claims is distinctly, well... underwhelming...

 

[BS Investigator]

Pragmatist, you can quote religious believers until you are blue in the face. What does that have to do with anything?

And sorry, it is actually Dawkins who argues that natural selection has made children "hardwired to believe their parents."

From Richard Dawkins' UNWEAVING THE RAINBOW:

Children are naturally credulous... If your mother tells you never to paddle in the lake because of the crocodiles, it is no good coming over all skeptical and scientific...and saying, "Thank you, Mother, but I prefer to put it to the experimental test."... It is easy to see why natural selection -- the surivival of the fittest -- might penalize an experimental and sceptical turn of mind and favor simple credulity in children.... Parents and elders know so much, it is natural to assume they know everything and natural to believe them.

It's a much longer passage in the book, but I have already spent too much time digging this up and typing it, since the whole thing is basically off-topic anyway. Of course, you will probably contend that Dawkins is wrong, because, of course, you know more about evolution and skepticism than Richard Dawkins.

Harris, by the way, points out the dangers of this parental power by noting in THE END OF FAITH that, "...every child is instructed that it is, at the very least, an option, if not a sacred duty, to disregard the facts of this world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother's and father's imaginations."

 

[BS Investigator]

I said that Ockham was born in 1285 to make a point about the the time period in which he was born. Then you come back with...

Well, no, we don't know when he was born, but it is believed that he was born sometime between 1280 and 1290. But please don't let facts confuse you!

When you start pulling smug nonsense like this, don't be surprised if people don't want to discuss issues with you.

 

[jmercer]

Pragmatist, you can quote religious believers until you are blue in the face. What does that have to do with anything?

And sorry, it is actually Dawkins who argues that natural selection has made children "hardwired to believe their parents."

And does Dawkins support your contention that humans are critical thinkers right out of the womb?

Regarding Prag's posts - we have now collectively shown you over 14 instances of religious believers who are also critical thinkers and skeptics... and that - absolutely - has to do with everything you've argued in this thread to date.

Still waiting for proof that:

1) Critical thinking is "hardwired" from birth in humans.

2) Religion brainwashes critical thinkers into abandoning critical thinking.

3) The majority of the German and Russian people supported Hitler and Stalin because religion trained them to unquestioningly obey authority figures.

Any timeframe on when we can expect evidence for these claims of yours?

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist, you can quote religious believers until you are blue in the face. What does that have to do with anything?

Because the people I mentioned are not just "believers" - they are generally recognised as the key founders of the western philosophy of critical thinking! You don't think there is any inconsistency between your beliefs and the facts...?

And sorry, it is actually Dawkins who argues that natural selection has made children "hardwired to believe their parents."

It's a much longer passage in the book, but I have already spent too much time digging this up and typing it, since the whole thing is basically off-topic anyway. Of course, you will probably contend that Dawkins is wrong, because, of course, you know more about evolution and skepticism that Richard Dawkins.

No, I don't claim to know more about evolution and skepticism than Dawkins. But as a skeptic I don't simply accept what Dawkins has to say on faith. If what he says is manifestly at odds with my experience (and I would argue that of most parents) then I go with the evidence.

Besides, Dawkins (in that part at least) isn't saying that children are "hardwired to believe". He says they are naturally credulous, which is a different thing entirely. But I accept that he did say that because I know independently that he did. However his claim was that "natural selection preprograms children to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it". When asked about this in an interview he said:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,6000,892495,00.html

"Gosh! I suppose if you look back to your early childhood you accept everything people tell you, and that includes a heavy dose of irrationality - you're told about tooth fairies and Father Christmas and things."

He supposes... On that latter point, you might be interested in another quote of Dawkins:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/quotes.shtml

"Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have rigorous controls to eliminate spurious effects. And statistical analysis eliminates the suspicion (or at least measures the likelihood) that the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone.

O.K. so where is it? The publicly checkable evidence I mean...

Here is another interview of Dawkins where he expands on the claim:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins1.htm

McDonald: So voting intentions you wouldn't put into that bracket. What about religious practices?

Dawkins: Well, that's a better example. It doesn't spread, on the whole, in a horizontal way, like a measles epidemic. It spreads in a vertical way down the generations. But that kind of thing, I think, spreads down the generations because children at a certain age are very vulnerable to suggestion.

They tend to believe what they're told, and there are very good reasons for that. It is easy to see in a Darwinian explanation why children should be equipped with brains that believe what adults tell them. After all, they have to learn a language, and learn a lot else from adults. Why wouldn't they believe it if they're told that they have to pray in a certain way? But in particular -- let's just rephrase that -- if they're told that not only do they have to behave in such a way, but when they grow up it is their duty to pass on the same message to their children.

Now, once you've got that little recipe, that really is a recipe for passing on and on down the generations. It doesn't matter how silly the original instruction is, if you tell it with sufficient conviction to sufficiently young and gullible children such that when they grow up they will pass it on to their children, then it will pass on and it will pass on and it will spread and that could be sufficient explanation.

Now it has morphed into a new claim that children at a certain age are very vulnerable to suggestion, and they tend to believe what they're told, and then the rest is part of a "Darwinian explanation". It's pretty clear this is one of Dawkins' pet theories.

Harris, by the way, points out the dangers of this by noting in THE END OF FAITH that, "...every child is instructed that it is, at the very least, an option, if not a sacred duty, to disregard the facts of this world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother's and father's imaginations."

Which is false, because I have a child and firstly I don't believe in god and secondly I haven't instructed my child in any such thing. I would be very surprised if anyone else on here (skeptic) who has children has instructed them in that way either...

By the way, what do you think of this quote of Dawkins, particularly in relation to your proposal to separate "skeptics" from "TRUE skeptics"...?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...s/Work/Articles/2001-12-30morris_letter.shtml

One of the more frightening aspects of human nature is a tendency to gravitate towards 'Us' and against 'Them'. Worse, Us versus Them disputes have a natural tendency to reach down the generations, leading to vendettas of frightening historical tenacity. Where labels are not provided to feed our natural divisiveness, we manufacture them. Children separate out into gangs, often with distinguishing labels. In certain districts of Los Angeles, a young person innocently sporting the wrong brand of trainers is in danger of being shot. Experiments have been done in which children, with no particular reason to sort themselves into gangs, are provided with, say, green or blue labels. In short order, enmities spring up between the greens and the blues: fierce loyalties to one's own colour, vendettas against the other. These can become surprisingly vicious.

 

[Pragmatist]

I said that Ockham was born in 1285 to make a point about the the time period in which he was born. Then you come back with...

When you start pulling smug nonsense like this, don't be surprised if people don't want to discuss issues with you.

So tell me, what kind of skeptic is offended at being corrected on facts? I'll admit it can be irritating to be corrected on trivial things, but if factual errors are part of a larger pattern of making claims without evidence, and actively avoiding producing evidence when repeatedly challenged, I think it's relevant to point them out. However, I will accept that you didn't intend to be sloppy if you wish.

That aside, do you think that someone who keeps making claims without evidence deserves to be called a "TRUE skeptic"?

And while we're at it, what would it take to convince you that your ideas about skepticism and religion are wrong?

 

[Robin]

Richard Dawkins:
Now, once you've got that little recipe, that really is a recipe for passing on and on down the generations. It doesn't matter how silly the original instruction is, if you tell it with sufficient conviction to sufficiently young and gullible children such that when they grow up they will pass it on to their children, then it will pass on and it will pass on and it will spread and that could be sufficient explanation.

I have always been skeptical of this one of Dawkins speculations (I don't think he pretends it is otherwise). Partly because of my experience that it is pretty difficult to get my kids to believe anything I say (just when is that age when they are gullible and open to suggestion?).

I always apply the Santa Claus test, because Santa is usually given as an example of children's gullibility. But when a child wants something for Christmas, who do they tell? Santa? Or their parents? I think it is clear that kids really know where the presents come from. And do kids really think that their plastic talking robot comes from the workshops of magic elves? Of course not, kids just like make believe, especially when there is a profit in it.

 

[BS Investigator]

Because the people I mentioned are not just "believers" - they are generally recognised as the key founders of the western philosophy of critical thinking! You don't think there is any inconsistency between your beliefs and the facts...?

So what? They were working with less information than we have now. Most of the people you have pointed out were people born many centuries ago, before modern science.

But it doesn't matter. If anyone believes in religion, then no, they are not true skeptics.

My OP states clearly, that "true sketpics" cannot believe in extraordinary religious claims, because there is no valid evidence supporting those claims.

Whether people are born or taught critical thinking is of secondary importance, and will get us into another endless debate over definitions. My point is that religions ask their followers, and train their followers, to suspend critical thinking, for their ludicrous claims. This is self-evident because:

A) Religions have no valid evidence to back up their extraordinary claims

and

B) Followers are asked to "have faith" in the "truth" of these claims.

As far as the Ockham birthdate goes, whether he was born in one part of that decade or another has zero to do with the point I was making, so I was trying to tell you, in not so many words, that you are acting like an *******, and I don't usually spend my free time sitting around talking to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Is that clear enough?

 

[BS Investigator]

1) Critical thinking is "hardwired" from birth in humans.

This will lead to another endless debate regarding the definintion of "critical thinking", so I will just say instead that humans are born with the ability to think and use logic. Okay?

2) Religion brainwashes critical thinkers into abandoning critical thinking.

See my post above. Can there be any question?

3) The majority of the German and Russian people supported Hitler and Stalin because religion trained them to unquestioningly obey authority figures.

Do you want me to write a PhD thesis right here on randi.org? Anyway, that sentence is of your writing, not mine. Do I think that religion teaches people to be sheep? Sure. That's obvious. Again, see my above post .

 

[AOK Tiger]

BS Investigator,

You know I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

However I think you will find that many people here who have long ago decided the notion of “god” is ridiculous will remain apologists for those that they like/love/admire who do still hold deist views.

I do it myself.. I love my Mum and Dad.. they are highly intelligent critical thinkers. Yet they are very religious. Do you think I am going to rail at them for abandoning their critical thinking when it comes to god.. no way.. my relationship with them is too important.

But that said.. You are right.

Any person who has the ability to think critically MUST abandon that ability to retain a belief in God. (especially one of the mainstream idiot Gods)

It is ridiculous to argue “well you are not a true sceptic if you don’t accept the possibility of a God” .. as has been iterated here over and over again.. things that are ridiculous “Pink unicorns”, “Easter Bunnies” “Gods” can be relegated into the DON’T EXIST category with logical and clinical ease !

Others..

I think BS is just looking for us to admit those sceptics (or critical thinkers) that retain a belief in God KNOW they are deluding themselves.

Either that or they are outright lying or are failures at critical thinking.

 

[Pragmatist]

So what? They were working with less information than we have now. Most of the people you have pointed out were people born many centuries ago, before modern science.

But it doesn't matter. If anyone believes in religion, then no, they are not true skeptics.

My OP states clearly, that "true sketpics" cannot believe in extraordinary religious claims, because there is no valid evidence supporting those claims.

And as I have pointed out, it is irrelevant whether they were born many centuries ago and whether it was before modern science (and it ignores the fact that several of them were distinguished scientists). You now try to switch attention away from your more recent claims and refer back to the OP. Let me remind you of this post, on this very page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1871035260#post1871035260

Or couldn't it also be possible that we are having this debate because religion, supernatural beliefs, and other such leanings have stripped the powers of logic and reason from certain members of the population? Or that lazy thinking has kept some from even bothering to use their brains?

If that was even remotely true then how is it possible that the greatest and most significant critical thinkers of all time - the very founders of critical thinking managed what they did when they were also religious? You are proven wrong.

And besides that, you assert in effect that religious people (like me) are "lazy thinkers" who can't even bother to use their brains. Then you get upset and start throwing insults because I correct your errors of fact! I'm sorry but you are acting like an ignorant, arrogant, woo.

Whether people are born or taught critical thinking is of secondary importance, and will get us into another endless debate over definitions. My point is that religions ask their followers, and train their followers, to suspend critical thinking, for their ludicrous claims. This is self-evident because:

A) Religions have no valid evidence to back up their extraordinary claims

and

B) Followers are asked to "have faith" in the "truth" of these claims.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, my religion for one doesn't do anything of the sort. And just one counterexample blows your entire specious argument out of the water because it proves you are wrong.

Besides which, you have made these assertions time and again and despite numerous challenges you have NOT shown any evidence to back them up. Skeptics try to back up their arguments with evidence. If they are specifically asked for evidence they at least answer that request - whether they can provide evidence or not. What they do not do is simply ignore it and carry on making claims. The kind of person who does that is what some of us call a "woo".

Now, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, what do you think we ought to call it?

As far as the Ockham birthdate goes, whether he was born in one part of that decade or another has zero to do with the point I was making, so I was trying to tell you, in not so many words, that you are acting like an *******, and I don't usually spend my free time sitting around talking to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Is that clear enough?

Yes, it's clear enough. Argumentum ad hominem. Another hallmark of the woo.

 

[BS Investigator]

If that was even remotely true then how is it possible that the greatest and most significant critical thinkers of all time - the very founders of critical thinking managed what they did when they were also religious? You are proven wrong.

Oh boy, we've got a live one here.

...Argumentum ad hominem. Another hallmark of the woo.

LMAO at the utter irony of these two sentences.

Pragmatist, sorry, but I have no more time for you.

 

[BS Investigator]

BS Investigator,

You know I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

...

Any person who has the ability to think critically MUST abandon that ability to retain a belief in God. (especially one of the mainstream idiot Gods)

....

I think BS is just looking for us to admit those sceptics (or critical thinkers) that retain a belief in God KNOW they are deluding themselves.

Either that or they are outright lying or are failures at critical thinking.

Exactly. That is the point of the whole thread. Any skeptic who knows about skepticism and the scientific method, but then chooses to put those methods on hold so he/she can continue to believe in the extraordinary claims of their religion, this person is no true skeptic in my book.