|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2010 : 21:07:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Now, in all fairness, the media is often full of crap. But isn't this broadcast a bit of evidence that some of the worries, like the one that Jeff expressed, just might have some merit? |
Wagg's complaint about the name is still silly: they could have called it Floobiecon and that news outfit would have reported the same thing.
Second, if the report had repeated (over and over) that skeptics had descended on the town to share their disbelief in God, that would have justified Wagg's worry. But I think I heard "skeptics" a total of three times, while they referred to the con as a gathering of atheists, agnostics and/or unfaithful more times than that, which is what Wagg wanted in the first place.
Hell, if you think about it, most people think of "skeptics" as nothing more than naysayers, and not scientific skeptics, anyway.
So the message was clear: a bunch of cynical atheists came to Springfield to say that God is dead.
Odds are that very few people who watched that particular newscast would associate that convention with any sort of skepticism we think of, despite the name. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 21:50:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
But I think I heard "skeptics" a total of three times.. |
Well, if you aren't discounting the times that "Skepticon" was flashed on the screen, you should have gotten six times.
| ...while they referred to the con as a gathering of atheists, agnostics and/or unfaithful more times than that, which is what Wagg wanted in the first place. |
No it isn't. What Jeff wanted was for an atheist convention, which apparently it was, to be called an atheist convention. Not "Skepticon."
| Hell, if you think about it, most people think of "skeptics" as nothing more than naysayers, and not scientific skeptics, anyway. |
Well, that newscast certainly did nothing to change that view. If anything, it reinforced it by conflating skepticism and atheism as one and the same thing.
| So the message was clear: a bunch of cynical atheists came to Springfield to say that God is dead. |
All the while using the words skeptic and atheist as meaning the same thing.
| Odds are that very few people who watched that particular newscast would associate that convention with any sort of skepticism we think of, despite the name. |
Ahhhh... So it just doesn't matter what the people watching think we as skeptics are really promoting. And that makes it okay for them to conclude that skepticism is primarily about the promotion of atheism. (Of course we are only talking about the very few who might have noticed the word "skeptic," which was used 6 times in the broadcast.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 22:18:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Ahhhh... So it just doesn't matter. Okay then... |
I've been saying that Wagg's complaint about the name is silly since I joined this thread.
That news report does nothing to change my mind, because they reported it primarily as an atheist gathering and most people already have "skeptic" wrong. Hell, most people don't even know what "con" means in context, and probably just gave a WTF reaction to the name, if they tried to parse it at all.
In other words, the idea that because of that report, some layperson is now equating the scientific skepticism of the JREF or CfI with atheism is absolutely ludicrous.
Edited to ask if the edited version make a difference?Originally posted by Kil
Ahhhh... So it just doesn't matter what the people watching think we as skeptics are really promoting. |
No, because the news report wasn't about skepticism, it was about a bunch of atheists.| And that makes it okay for them to conclude that skepticism is primarily about the promotion of atheism. (Of course we are only talking about the very few who might have noticed the word "skeptic," which was used 6 times in the broadcast.) |
I think the idea that even one of them will make such a conclusion is wildly optimistic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 22:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and this:Originally posted by Kil
All the while using the words skeptic and atheist as meaning the same thing. |
You think because they said "atheists and agnostics and skeptics," that those words will be interpreted as synonyms? I think the opposite will be true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 22:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Welp Dave. We didn't see the same thing I guess. I saw evidence for what Jeff was concerned about. You didn't. And even if you did, it doesn't really matter because it's a silly thing to worry about.
I have nowhere else to go with this... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 22:47:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
You think because they said "atheists and agnostics and skeptics," that those words will be interpreted as synonyms? I think the opposite will be true. |
But didn't you just say that nobody will notice anyway? And the opposite of synonyms is antonyms. So you think that the viewers (the one's who won't notice) will think that atheists and skeptics are opposite terms? Like that skeptics are theists or something? I'm not sure what to do with "agnostic." Maybe the opposite is "know it all?" |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 22:55:55 [Permalink]
|
I wonder how she found out that Jeff isn't rich? I really don't think that info is available on the intertubes. Not that I care but I think someone busted her out on that one. In any case, it was really the rest of what she said that was seriously messed up. Guess she must have dated him or something and was jilted by him and now holds a grudge... See. I can do that too.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 09:40:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
The issue is that some people want to exclude certain tactics and criticism of specific topics. The ones who want to exclude the use of harsh criticism, ridicule, and insult are often hypocritical since they harshly criticise, ridicule, and insult those of us who do. |
So, Jeff suggesting that Skepticon should be more correctly called Atheistcon (whether he is right or wrong about that) is what you have described above? And that's what he did in his blog? Interesting take...
|
No, since the thread is wandering around a bit, I was bringing up the DBAD people in response to what Ebone had said about labeling skeptics by "type". I have no idea what Wagg's position on the DBAD argument is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 10:18:38 [Permalink]
|
We should also take a moment to look at the bigger picture here. What would any of you say to a person who told you that they applied skepticism to religion and the conclusion they reached was belief in that religion?
| The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise. |
If they told you that they applied skepticism, critical thinking, science, and logic to their religion and the end result was acceptance of that religion....
The bottom line here is simple. If you apply those methods to religion there is only one conclusion. You have to come away from it saying that there is no evidence for the fact claims of religion. If you continue to "believe" beyond this point, and I guess some people do, then you are believing something for which no evidence exists.
I think most people will say that the end result of skepticism when applied to religion is going to be some form of atheism.
If you have any curiosity left at this point you look at religion in human history. From ancient Mesopotamia to the Vedic traditions, to Chinese and Japanese beliefs, to Zeus, Odin, and Druidic religions of Europe, to the Native American religious practices, to the literally staggering variety of "christian" religions that permeate western culture today.... and it becomes self evidently obvious that all religion is an anthropological phenomenon.
(I'm bolding this question because I'd like an answer to it from anyone who disagrees)
Atheism is the conclusion reached when you apply skepticism, logic, and critical thinking to religion. If it isn't, then what is?
From a strictly skeptic point of view, with religion being the biggest purveyor of woo in the known universe, I don't see any conflict with having a skeptic convention dealing with mostly religious topics.
Jeff Wagg's complaints are ridiculous.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 15:55:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
(I'm bolding this question because I'd like an answer to it from anyone who disagrees)
Atheism is the conclusion reached when you apply skepticism, logic, and critical thinking to religion. If it isn't, then what is?
From a strictly skeptic point of view, with religion being the biggest purveyor of woo in the known universe, I don't see any conflict with having a skeptic convention dealing with mostly religious topics. |
You do know that not all atheists are skeptics, or even arrived at there atheism using critical thinking. Right?
So we have these two groups of skeptics. Maybe three. One group insists that it's very important to keep scientific skepticism out front and free from the burden of having to come to conclusions about those things that are not testable. They see that CSICOP brand of skepticism as the best way to go because the claims covered by sci-skepticism can be investigated and, if the claim fails the investigation, debunked. But more than that, on a practical level, they see it as the easiest “brand” to understand and use and to teach. Scientific skepticism can't say much about those things that can't be tested. But clearly, most scientific skeptics employ other methods of arriving at conclusions or there wouldn't be so many atheists among them. But they prefer to keep that separate from the brand that they promote because in their view once you allow those things that can't be tested in, you open skepticism up to opinions that can arguably be supported by however you decide to apply your critical thinking skills.
For example, when Penn and Shermer were arguing anti-AGW or libertarianism, they believed they were applying their skills as critical thinkers to arrive at their conclusions. They believed that they were being rational. By turning their backs on scientific skepticism, they made themselves open to political reasoning which may have seemed perfectly logical to them. But it was scientific skepticism that pulled them back, (even if only part of the way.) So the sci-skeptics pretty much think that the only reliable brand of skepticism is scientific skepticism. And they may be correct about that.
On the other side are those skeptics who come to conclusions based on an overriding sense of where logic and reason, and science when it applies, takes them. Lacking evidence, it seems safe to conclude that not only should belief (one way or the other) be withheld, but that it's safe to assume a conclusion because otherwise, any fairy tale can be thrown at them and they will be forced to only go as far as withholding belief, which scientific skepticism would demand, and which seems unreasonable to them. I have already mentioned that one way of dealing with this conflict is to do what Paul Kurtz did and that's to separate those two kinds of skepticism. He embraced them both, but he acknowledged that there was more than one kind of methodology going on and mixing those two things would just muck things up. In other words, the reliability of scientific skepticism would be put at risk if he blended the two brands of skepticism.
I think that most of us fall into this latter kind of skepticism to differing degrees. But there are those who still want to keep scientific skepticism as the brand "skepticism" for the reasons I have mentioned. Anyhow, these two sides are now fighting it out. The lumpers (for lack of a better word) and the purists. You, Dude and Dave and Humbert and I to a lesser degree fall into the lumper camp. I think that where we differ isn't so much how we come to conclusions about what to do with untestable claims so much as it is a disagreement over what the most practical way to proceed is.
Some of us don't want to have a whole convention about a single skeptical conclusion because to our minds it's the method or even methods that rule. Jeff wasn't arguing for scientific skepticism in his blog so much as he was arguing against a whole con with the label "skeptic" on it devoted to one conclusion. Even if it’s a skeptical conclusion which atheism often is. The worry is that people outside of our community, or n00bs, or just some angry atheists who wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it hit them in the head will conflate the method with the conclusion. Numbers don’t mean much if the n00b “skeptics” don’t know what skepticism is. And that can be damaging to both brands of skepticism.
But yeah, bring it on. Invite Myers and Dawkins to a skeptic convention. Talk about religion. But don’t make that convention about one conclusion. Because that invites the conflation of method and conclusion even if it’s unintended.
It’s not all about this forum you know. It’s not all about purity in skepticism. (Well… I take that back. For some it is.) We are not the one’s doing the heavy lifting in our community. There’s skeptical outreach to be considered along with the politics of skepticism itself. And let me also make myself clear about this. I have no problem with the promotion of atheism. My problem, as I keep saying, is that the line between method and conclusion should not become blurred.
And I’ll tell you the truth. I wasn’t so sure that the evidence would support Jeff’s assertion until I saw the newscast that Dave has waved away as not important. I really jumped into this thread to explain the other sides perspective while trying to get a handle on it myself. And in truth, I’m still trying to sort this mess out…
So now I suppose we can all happily disagree and that’s that. No?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 17:08:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
We should also take a moment to look at the bigger picture here. What would any of you say to a person who told you that they applied skepticism to religion and the conclusion they reached was belief in that religion? |
As a skeptic I can not be sure until I have taken the opportunity to actually study a given religion. Making a sweeping pronouncement about all religions (ever were, are, or will be) is not employing self criticism, but appears to me to be employing hubris and prejudice/bigotry. I know of at least one excellent skeptic who follows Taoism, and there are certainly Buddhist skeptics. So there are at least two religions that I know good skeptics to follow.
Conversely I have met atheists who arrived at their belief in the same way that most religious do. Through dogma and doctrine, and not through rational self discovery. YOu may want to say that is not a scotsman, but you will open a can of worms if you allow that special pleading.
Originally posted by Dude
(I'm bolding this question because I'd like an answer to it from anyone who disagrees)
Atheism is the conclusion reached when you apply skepticism, logic, and critical thinking to religion. If it isn't, then what is?
|
Well no, the true "A" word for this would be areligious, not atheist. And as shown above it is not necessary to abandon religion to keep your critical thinking credibility. I assume you meant "god" not religion in this sentence. And there is a pickle for you, you cant make a general and sweeping pronouncement of every god concept (ever were, are, or will be) while keeping your critical thinking cred intact. That is called prejudice and can only be arrived at through hubris, not critical thinking...that is unless you fully research every specific description of a god, and are prepared to research every new one. You can of course say it is not up to you to provide the research it is up to others to provide the evidence, but you will still be making a leap of faith to dismiss all based on the few. At best you can only claim (as the ancient philosopher did) to not know enough.
I do know of several Deists, and Panetheist who have reached their conclusions about god without needing to (at least from what I can see) abandon critical thinking to arrive at their conclusions. I also know many who have arrived a the conclusion of agnostic through their own critical thought on the subject of gods.
You only reach atheist if you use a kind of reverse no-true-scottsman and call all those who do not ascribe, but of which you need them to to fit your hypothesis, also atheist.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 11/23/2010 17:19:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 18:27:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
And there is a pickle for you, you cant make a general and sweeping pronouncement of every god concept (ever were, are, or will be) while keeping your critical thinking cred intact. That is called prejudice and can only be arrived at through hubris, not critical thinking...that is unless you fully research every specific description of a god, and are prepared to research every new one. You can of course say it is not up to you to provide the research it is up to others to provide the evidence, but you will still be making a leap of faith to dismiss all based on the few. At best you can only claim (as the ancient philosopher did) to not know enough. |
Baloney. Inferences from best evidence are perfectly acceptable as tentative conclusions which may change upon learning of new evidence. The best evidence we have right now supports the conclusion that every god-concept ever discussed has been derived from human imagination, and not from any real deities. That's not prejudice, hubris or a leap of faith.
In other words, an inference that all swans are white is acceptable until one learns about a non-white swan. Only if one refuses to change one's conclusion at that point can one be derided as unskeptical.| I do know of several Deists, and Panetheist who have reached their conclusions about god without needing to (at least from what I can see) abandon critical thinking to arrive at their conclusions. |
How did their critical thinking lead them to accept the conclusions that a god exists (excluding the Pantheist, of course)? If they didn't use critical thinking to reach such positions of faith, then yes, they abandoned it.| I also know many who have arrived a the conclusion of agnostic through their own critical thought on the subject of gods. |
In popular parlance these days, "agnostic" means "wishy-washy about the existence of god," which is a subjective definition. Is Dawkins' 1.43% uncertainty about the non-existence of any gods enough for him to qualify as agnostic, or does it need to be closer to 50-50? Who gets to draw the line, and where is it currently drawn?| You only reach atheist if you use a kind of reverse no-true-scottsman and call all those who do not ascribe, but of which you need them to to fit your hypothesis, also atheist. |
Or you can criticize the notion of atheism being a proper skeptical conclusion by using a bad (but popular) definition of "atheist," like the one found in most dictionaries. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 18:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Some of us don't want to have a whole convention about a single skeptical conclusion because to our minds it's the method or even methods that rule. |
What if the convention is about the methods that lead people to that one conclusion? I can think up dozens of skeptical panels and talks on the sociological, biological, climatic, geographical, evolutionary (etc.) methods used to conclude that bigfoot doesn't exist, more than enough to fill a weekend. Religion is open to a much wider variety.| And I’ll tell you the truth. I wasn’t so sure that the evidence would support Jeff’s assertion until I saw the newscast that Dave has waved away as not important. |
Thanks for characterizing my explanations of why I think that report will be taken by noobs as being about atheists doing atheism as hand-waving.
It just occurred to me that this would be a great opportunity for Wagg and the other splitters purists to gather data in support of their hypothesis. Play that clip to a bunch of noobs, and ask them what they think. It'd have to be a carefully designed study, of course, but I can see its value. The purists' conclusions seem to lack empirical support. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 19:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
]In popular parlance these days, "agnostic" means "wishy-washy about the existence of god," which is a subjective definition.
Or you can criticize the notion of atheism being a proper skeptical conclusion by using a bad (but popular) definition of "atheist," like the one found in most dictionaries.
|
Funny how in the one definition you use something you appear to have pulled from your own ass, and in the other, the common use definition is wrong. Are we to proceed on all future argument being restricted to the dictionary of dave w?
I will add: if that is the popular parlance of agnostic please show me which dictionaries (who's job it is to collect, collate and codify popular use) has subscribed to this definition of yours?
As to the validity of inference as "good evidence" for a conclusion it seems that all of philosophy disagrees. While as a pragmatist might say, the inference makes us act as if we know something, it does not allow us to exclude other possibility.
Indeed (without getting into flavors of gods) many believers in gods use both inference (correctly) and personal experience (personal revelation) to determine their own position on god or no god. They can (not to say they always do) do so without failing the critical thinking test as long as they are claiming only a personal belief and not a universal truth. Hal Bidlack did so exceedingly well in his noted TAM presentation.
He did not make any claim of fact or special knowledge, but rather a detailed thought process that led him to believe there was something with intention rather than random vacuum fluctuations that started the universe. INdeed the amount of evidence for any position on that is equally non existent.
Critical thinking can get us far, but only so far. This is the same as the value judgements you have spoken of before. About Hitchens smoking or similar. I may think the way I drive into the city on a given trip is the best possible way, but even if we could run a simulation of all possible routes and scenarios eventually that "best" route is going to take in many value positions that may be exclusive. The scenery, the speed, the toll, the location of things that interest one. It is indeed hubris if I proclaim that my way is the only way, that there are not multiple paths towards the approximate and value ridden truth. If I begin to claim I have the answers for everyone...well. BUt that does not mean I have to abandon my own beliefs and hunches or else I have not considered them critically.
The new Atheists do want to claim the field as their own. Dave I have seen you tell me that I am an agnostic just because I am a coward. In doping so you have abandoned your own critical thinking skills and have claimed a high ground you can not possess. Thus abandoning your own critical thinking iun favor of bigotry and hubris.
Have fun at it, I really don't care, as a gay, an expatriate, and an agnostic I am used to being ridiculed by small minds..what is one more more or less? I had planned on not posting here anymore, but the amount of unreason in many of the posts is sometimes enough to spur me to try to interject some reason. I am back to where I was last. Indeed I have avoided this and other topics because of the nonsense I see here.
However I do think the site should certainly change its name from Skeptic Friends Network, as it does not appear to do much in the way of skepticism, or networking and is not very friendly...perhaps Cold liberal atheists knitting circle is more apt?
With that - Mgoi Mai Dan...that is to say, webmaster cheque please. I would like to be removed from the rolls of this forums membership with all haste I am certainly not deemed worthy by your members, and I find them largely unworthy of their judgement.
Seriously please delete me as a member.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Too many atheists?
