True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Bri]

But, if we are to stem the tide of "anything goes", surely we have to agree on what "valid" means?

Sure, you can argue about the validity of a belief. But that doesn't make it any less of a belief (which was the point of the thread). Belief in God is a belief, as is belief that there are no gods. These beliefs don't prevent the believer from being a skeptic.

I have powerful evidence of Fluffy The Navel Of Goodness. It was an experience only I had, that prooves Fluffy's existence.

This is (if I understand you) valid evidence for me to believe in Fluffy.

No, it's a valid reason for you to believe. It's not evidence of anything.

Where do we draw the line?

Belief is personal, and isn't always "right" or "wrong." When there is evidence, that evidence may very well disprove or even prove the validity of a belief. But if there is no clear evidence then a belief is just an opinion, and doesn't necessarily say anything about the veracity of the reasons are upon which the belief is based.

You also have to consider how useful a belief is when considering its validity. What does it explain? What does it provide the believer? One could come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations why a creature like an elf might exist if it was invisible and didn't effect the world at all, but then what significance would such a creature be?

To my horror - the link seems to be broken

It has an extra period at the end of the URL. Remove it and it will work. Very impressive work, by the way (I am in a similar field as your husband).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

That's a nice concluding statement. Certainly, it's understandable that personal experiences would not be convincing evidence to others. But I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that otherwise unexplanable personal experiences are convincing evidence to those who have them, whether they be related to the existance of God or the existance of psi and grant that people could believe that either are possible without violating the principles of skeptism. It is, after all, about how you come to conclusions, not about what conclusions you come to.

Yes, we are actually arguing the same side I believe because I have no problem with that.

Most psychics who believe that their ability is in any way "useful" also believe that they can predict events with a certain amount of accuracy, so this sort of psychic ability would be testable. Some claim to talk to the dead, which would also be testable. So many of the most common claims made by people who claim to be psychic are testable. That people who sincerely believe themselves to be psychic and have abilities that can be tested consistently fail when tested is compelling evidence that psi probably doesn't exist, in my opinion.

We must keep in mind that there is plenty of evidence against psi in general, so that must also be taken into account when one claims a belief in it. Their personal experience should be very compelling indeed to overcome the evidence against it.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

Yes, we are actually arguing the same side I believe because I have no problem with that.

Most psychics who believe that their ability is in any way "useful" also believe that they can predict events with a certain amount of accuracy, so this sort of psychic ability would be testable. Some claim to talk to the dead, which would also be testable. So many of the most common claims made by people who claim to be psychic are testable. That people who sincerely believe themselves to be psychic and have abilities that can be tested consistently fail when tested is compelling evidence that psi probably doesn't exist, in my opinion.

We must keep in mind that there is plenty of evidence against psi in general, so that must also be taken into account when one claims a belief in it. Their personal experience should be very compelling indeed to overcome the evidence against it.

-Bri

I don't have much to say at this point. I think we arguing the same side of the issue. However, I would like to add a pointer to this thread Is It Reasonable for Skeptics to Believe in Things We Cannot Prove? which deals with some of the same things.

Beth

P.S. Thanks for the kind words about Mark's artwork.

 

[Bri]

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.

You might have an argument if you consider some particular version of Christianity or Islam, for example someone who might understand the Bible completely literally. Otherwise, the basic premises of Christianity can (and likely do) form a coherent belief system for many, and a skeptic could choose to believe it or not to believe it based on the (lack of) evidence and their own personal reasons.

OK, then, I am an "untrue" skeptic. Howver I seek and "request"
evidence even for Christianity.

A belief that a god definitely does not exist would equally suspend critical thinking by your definition.

Where's the evidence that no version of a Christian God exists? By your logic, if you don't believe that it is possible for the Christian God to exist, you can't be a skeptic either.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I don't have much to say at this point. I think we arguing the same side of the issue. However, I would like to add a pointer to this thread Is It Reasonable for Skeptics to Believe in Things We Cannot Prove? which deals with some of the same things.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread. Your post there was excellent as well.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So where, then, is the compelling evidence for the existence of any deity? If it exists, it had better be top-notch and abundant, since the evidence supporting the hypothesis - or is it actually theory? - that the concept of deities is merely a human philosophical and cultural construct is, IMHO, absolutely overwhelming, near-impossble to refute and supported by falsifiable observation and theory (think of the Cargo Religion, for instance).

Undoubtedly, the evidence for the existance of any god is weak at best.

Please share this overwhelming evidence that no god exists of which you speak.

-Bri

 

[Robin]

A belief that a god definitely does not exist would equally suspend critical thinking by your definition.

Where's the evidence that no version of a Christian God exists? By your logic, if you don't believe that it is possible for the Christian God to exist, you can't be a skeptic either.

So give me the version number and I can tell you whether there is such evidence or not

There are probably millions of combinations of the various beliefs that comprise the Christian God. But as I have already said if the definition includes the infinitely loving, merciful, just, powerful God that tortures people for eternity if they don't believe in Him or believe in Him in the wrong way, then that is an internal contradiction and we can reasonably conclude that such a God does not exist. That takes care of quite a lot of Christians, C.S.Lewis style Christians for example. It takes care of the God worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church up until at least 20 years ago. It takes care of the God worshipped by the conservative faction of the Anglican Church. That is a fairly high proportion of the versions taken care of straight away.

So that leaves the 'Hell is a place to honour the choices of man' crowd and those who don't believe in Hell at all.

But of course you can't have evidence that some entity that is vaguely defined or not even defined at all does not exist. But then is it rational to believe in the existence of a vaguely defined or undefined entity?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Not hardly.

Whatever, if you don't want to admit religion is the primary source of definitions of god, then I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the issue to you.

Oh? So... if there is a God, S/He is the rough equivalent of an average, everyday human? Same general wants, needs, desires, thought-patterns, perceptions, skills, instincts, etc.? Nothing at all that is beyond the pale, in spite of being the creator of the universe, literally older than dirt, has powers that are supposedly unlimited... Please provide some justification for why an eternal non-human, all-powerful being wouldn't be "far beyond human".

That's not what I said. I'll let you reread the thread and figure out what we're talking about. If english is not your first langauge, I appologize. Otherwise, bite me.

Yep, it sure does. Let me know when you can show me some strong evidence about God's non-existence.

Already have about 3 times over the course of this thread, and within the last page.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Hmmm...I think I'm being misrepresented somewhat.

I don't recall having claimed that I could provide evidence for the non-existence of any deity: I can't prove a universal negative, and no-one has defined the god(s) they would like me to prove the absence of anyway.

The point I am trying to make, is that the believers have to provide the evidence for the existence of the god they define (claims of the supernatural must be supported by the claimant and all that).

I also freely admitted that I have chosen to believe, until swayed by any future compelling evidence to the contrary, that I do not believe in the existence of gods as defined by any of the religions I have ever heard of. From the evidence I have seen, I believe that 'gods' are a human philosophical and cultural constructs. I have reached that provisional conclusion based on the available evidence, which includes abundant flaws, contradictions and errors, both empirical and logical, in the 'god' definitions posited by the religions I have heard of. I also base my (provisional) conclusion on the viewpoint that 'gods' are patently unnecessary to account for what the human body of knowledge knows and can predict about the known Universe.

If that makes me an an 'un-true skeptic' I can easily live with that.

If I am to carry on the discussion from here, I first need to know what definition(s) of 'god' we are talking about. I was also primarily addressing the Judeo-Christian God-concept, simply because that was the one that was forced upon me in the culture I happened to be born into.

 

[Donn]

Bri - As warm and fuzzy as I find the notion of Fluffy to be, others might not take such comfort in the existance of the One Navel of Goodness. Of course, the establishment of a new god takes time, and there's plenty of competition these days. Fluffy might want to get a good agent.

That's amusing and I had a laugh, then I thought, hang-on - isn't this my point in some way? "The establishment of a new god takes time" is the line that got me.

People seem to think that because there are so many people who *experience* religion - that it has to mean something. Where there's smoke there's fire.
But I reckon that the Gods who we have today are merely the ones who have survived the long periods of "establishment". (Apologies to Mr Wilde)

It's all about branding, marketing and fear - modern ad agencies could not have done a better job. It's *not* about genuine experience with a common Divine Figure, it's about a genuine experience with your fellows. It's all that sociologist stuff.

Perhaps it's all held up by a very small set of people who did have an actual experience (long ago) - but those are wide open to critical assesments.

How do we really know that all today's religions were not started for the same reasons (of power and control and safety) that Hubbard started Scientology in modern times?

Where there is the tiniest splinter of doubt - how can there be belief?

Bri -
You also have to consider how useful a belief is when considering its validity. What does it explain? What does it provide the believer? One could come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations why a creature like an elf might exist if it was invisible and didn't effect the world at all, but then what significance would such a creature be?

Well, if the invisible Elf provides *stuff* to the believer then I guess (by your lights) it's a valid thing to believe in. God shares much with the invisible Elf.

Sure, Religion may have a use - even a real, practical one. Living in Africa, I often wonder how many people are kept honest by the Christian variants that grow rampantly here.

These same people sure as heck are not getting a proper education and even more surely, are not being exposed to critical thinking.
I know that the vast majority do not know what the internet is and then there are language barriers. So, into this picture comes Religion. Seventh-day. Catholic. Jehova's Wits. etc. etc. etc. And in a way, they are the only source of "morals" to millions of people who cannot think for themselves.

We are talking crushing poverty and hunger with BMW's driving past the slums. It's wonder that there is not even more crime than there is. I suspect Religion is the dampening factor.

So - that's a use, I have to confess.

Does it make it right? I say no, but millions disagree!

 

[Donn]

I also freely admitted that I have chosen to believe, until swayed by any future compelling evidence to the contrary, that I do not believe in the existence of gods as defined by any of the religions I have ever heard of. From the evidence I have seen, I believe that 'gods' are a human philosophical and cultural constructs. I have reached that provisional conclusion based on the available evidence, which includes abundant flaws, contradictions and errors, both empirical and logical, in the 'god' definitions posited by the religions I have heard of. I also base my (provisional) conclusion on the viewpoint that 'gods' are patently unnecessary to account for what the human body of knowledge knows and can predict about the known Universe

What he said.



It's all very well to acknowledge that last 1% of uncertainty, but it's practical to live your life as if the theories in Science really do work at 100%

For the same reason, it's practical to move from Agnostic to Athiest.

It might not make you a "True" Sceptic, but we have already dealt with that term sufficiently I think.

I am going to re-lurk for a while. I think the argument is moving into turf well-covered in the R & P forum. It's also taking me longer and longer to assimilate and post - and I'm kinda busy at the moment.

 

[m0nngis]

You might have an argument if you consider some particular version of Christianity or Islam, for example someone who might understand the Bible completely literally. Otherwise, the basic premises of Christianity can (and likely do) form a coherent belief system for many, and a skeptic could choose to believe it or not to believe it based on the (lack of) evidence and their own personal reasons.



A belief that a god definitely does not exist would equally suspend critical thinking by your definition.

Where's the evidence that no version of a Christian God exists? By your logic, if you don't believe that it is possible for the Christian God to exist, you can't be a skeptic either.

-Bri

Hi Bri,

I think what happened here is that Kathy is new to the forum and don't know how to use the quote function. The first part of her post is a quote from somebody else (BS Investigator?), which she answers to at the bottom of her post.

At least I think so.

 

[m0nngis]

Science currently has little evidence of free will, and plenty of evidence against it. The most-widely accepted scientific theory on free will is that it doesn't exist.

Oh, what scientific theory is this? Seems to me that I haven't heard about it. Last time I checked, the concept of free will was something that belonged in the realm of philosophy.

BTW: I agree with Anders W. Bonde. Perhaps we could have a beer next time I'm in Denmark -- it's on me!

Beer is so ridiculously cheap in Denmark compared to Norway, so that shouldn't be a problem for me.

 

[BillyJoe]

Flowers for Kathy.

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

m0nngis,

Last time I checked, the concept of free will was something that belonged in the realm of philosophy.

So something that has no basis in science but belongs in the realm of philosophy can be said to exist exactly how?

But seriously, it's not you talking out of your head, it's just that brain up there mouthing off!

Okay, well, it's difficult to be serious sometimes....

BJ

 

[Bri]

So give me the version number and I can tell you whether there is such evidence or not

I tend to be in agreement that many versions of the Christian religion may very well be irrational. Undoubtedly, many Christians are not skeptics, at least when it comes to their belief in their God. Because there are a million different versions of the Christian God, you'd really have to talk to an individual Christian to see if that individual is a skeptic or not, and to see whether you consider that individual's belief in God to be rational or not. And you'd have to remember that differences in belief are simply differences in opinion and the fact that you might consider their belief irrational doesn't necessarily it "irrational" to anyone but you.

But of course you can't have evidence that some entity that is vaguely defined or not even defined at all does not exist. But then is it rational to believe in the existence of a vaguely defined or undefined entity?

Frustrating as it may be, the notion that God is "mysterious" is actually an integral part of many religions. The very notion of God necessitates him being vaguely understood. Yes, belief in such a God can come about from rational reasoning and thought, and can therefore be rational.

BTW, nothing could be less understandable than quantum physics, but believing it isn't necessarily irrational either. I have heard quantum physicisits say that if you believe quantum physics as it is currently understood, then you obviously don't understand it.

-Bri

 

[jmercer]

Whatever, if you don't want to admit religion is the primary source of definitions of god, then I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the issue to you.

Sorry you feel that way. In general, the primary source for definitions of God come from people - not religions.

Religion is a codified method for worship, designed to control the worshippers and maintain a powerbase for the clergy; in fact, most religions tend to insist that God cannot be defined, is mysterious, and that mere man cannot truly understand God, etc. Some religions literally forbid any effort to define God.

That's why there is a clergy to begin with - they act as advisors and intermediaries between a mysterious God and the "common folk".

That's not what I said. I'll let you reread the thread and figure out what we're talking about. If english is not your first langauge, I appologize. Otherwise, bite me.

I fully understand what we're talking about, CM, but you apparently don't consider the implications of what you write. When the implications are presented, you claim that people are talking at cross-purposes, or simply don't understand you. The obligation for clarity in your posts is on your shoulders, and not mine. If you can't take the time to post your thoughts fully and clearly, then you have no cause for complaint if they're misunderstood. You said:

"far beyond human" is a comparison. Please, don't start with this "it's undefinable" woo business. That's non-sense.

First off, "far beyond human" isn't a comparison; it's a classification. Secondly, what's the logical alternative to your statement?

If God isn't far beyond human, then God must logically be close to human. You can't have it both ways, so you need to pick a position. My response to the implication of your statement was as follows:

Oh? So... if there is a God, S/He is the rough equivalent of an average, everyday human? Same general wants, needs, desires, thought-patterns, perceptions, skills, instincts, etc.? Nothing at all that is beyond the pale, in spite of being the creator of the universe, literally older than dirt, has powers that are supposedly unlimited... Please provide some justification for why an eternal non-human, all-powerful being wouldn't be "far beyond human".

I find it reasonable that if there is a God - a creator of our universe, a being that predates the 10+ billion year existence of the continuum - that such a being would be so alien as to be essentially incomprehendible by humans. I see no logical reason to believe otherwise, because I cannot imagine what we would have in common.

That being the case, I also cannot imagine that the comprehension of people born before science was even a word (let along a methodology) would have the faintest chance of describing such a being with any degree of accuracy.

Already have about 3 times over the course of this thread, and within the last page.

No, you have not. All you've done is offer personal speculation and opinion based on a lack of evidence, and claimed that as proof.

 

[Bri]

Already have about 3 times over the course of this thread, and within the last page.

Admittedly, I didn't look back through the entire thread, but I looked through the last few pages, and the only bit of "evidence" I came across from you is this:

No consistant observable phenominon that could be, within reason, possibly attributed to god, such as answered prayer, miracles, communication, or physical presence. If god comes down to earth, says hello, explains how he created the universe, his explination matches the data perfectly and continues to explain new data and create new scientific horizons, he fires off a couple miracles, answers some of my prayers. Then yes, I would be a "believer". Seem unreasonable? Only if you can't see through your theistic culture. Imagine the same arguements for god applied to any other area of someone's life, and you'll see how silly it is.

I would completely agree that there is plenty of reason not to believe in a religion where an omnipotent God actually wants us to know of his existance but is powerless to provide evidence of it.

Of course, I can't name such a religion offhand.

Your "strong evidence" that no god can exist is that there is no proof that a god does exist. This assumes that all notions of God involve a God who wants us to know of his existance. If there is any notion of God where God might not want us to know of his existance (and there are plenty) then your evidence is weak at best.

-Bri

 

[NeilC]

Yes but it's not his evidence that is weak or indeed the issue.

He starts from knowing nothing. God is suggested as the answer to some questions. He considers this and eliminates the need for this God. So his original opinion is unchanged because of lack of suitable evidence. That is being skeptical.

Obviously one can invent any number of gods with varying powers etc that will explain everthing one cares to think about. But witout any evidence, a skeptic will surely put them aside pending some actual evidence.

So how can a true skeptic believe in god? - unless he has had a very convincing personal godly experience. And he would question even that.

 

[Ashles]

So how can a true skeptic believe in god? - unless he has had a very convincing personal godly experience. And he would question even that.

As has been explained several times in the thread - there is no such thing as a "true sceptic".
Everyone takes things on faith or belief every single day.

Nobody could function if they questioned literally everything.

Someone can believe in God yet display excellent scepticism in other areas.

All we can say is that a sceptic who believes in a God isn't applying scepticism to that particular area of their life.
But they are no worse a sceptic towards other claims because of this.

I am an Atheist - I believe there is no God. But I too have no evidence towards this view point, merely a lack of evidence.
That is compelling enough for me to have the belief I do.
It may not be for others.

And there are very powerful reasons to want to believe in a God.

Whenever we get into "Who is the bestest sceptic" arguments (which seems to be how this thread has developed at times) it invariably gets a little ugly.

Perhaps the confusion comes from calling someone a "sceptic".
It isn't a binary position. Sceptics come in different varieties.
Some sceptics may believe in God.
Some may refuse to step on cracks in the pavement.
Some may believe their partner when they say they haven't cheated even when it seems likely they have.
Some may think Oil of Ulay will reverse the ageing process...

It's a sliding scale.

But I think it is awfully dismissive to belittle a person and their ability to think critically about issues, just because there is an area of their life where they are not applying these skills.

So basically it is true that no "True Sceptic" would believe in a God.
But can we discuss real people instead?