|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2007 : 16:32:14 [Permalink]
|
Faith is what you do when you do not have reasonable evidence.
|
Okay, which is it? "The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality" or "Faith is what you do when you do not have reasonable evidence?" These are two very different statements.
|
Thanks for this brilliant insight. There are different words in each sentence, so therefore they are two very different statements. Maybe you'd care to explain why you think people with religion are deficient. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/01/2007 16:43:54 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 17:01:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I see faith very differently than what most here are ascribing to deists. I have faith that the earth will spin and tomorrow the sun will shine on the plot of land I occupy. I have faith that the Cubs will not win the world series. 
Faith is an assured expectation.
|
Then you have already lost.
Chicago Cubs, 1908 World Series Camps.
Oh, and they're in first place, too.
Go Cubbies.
And your use of the word faith in the contexts you list are inconsistant within the same post. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 18:48:16 [Permalink]
|
I guess a lot of this religion vs. skepticism discussion comes down to how one defines faith. I see faith as an unevidenced belief--an unjustified expectation that the improbable is true.
So by definition "faith" and skepticism cannot ever be compatible, and I pretty much define religion as those things accepted on faith. So the point at which religion becomes compatible with skepticism is the point where it ceases to be religion, and vice versa.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/01/2007 18:48:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 19:38:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Faith is an assured expectation. |
You've already assured your place in history here, Jerome, for your insistence upon using one dictionary definition when another definition of the same word is more appropriate in the context of the discussion.
You really don't need to provide more examples. We get it. Honest. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 21:13:14 [Permalink]
|
dglas | I have already suggested taking every example of "God" in Bidlack's speech and replacing it with other woo words: bigfoot, greys, Sylvia Browne's predictions, pyramid power, angel night-lights, or whatever you happen to think is woo. The content becomes precisely the same, unless you assume some sort of special content to "God" for which there is no more evidential support than for the other ideas. I'll put this bluntly: God is woo. It is specifically stipulated to not admit of verification/refutation, by definition. |
First, God can be different from Bigfoot. Certain conceptions of "God" and other mystical or religious concepts are quite different from claims that are distinctly and purely about the natural world. Granted, many religious claims are in fact no different because they amount to being claims about the natural world – claims that can be and often have been disproved. (Biblical literalists are full of such ridiculous claims.) But other religious "claims" are not claims about reality at all, but rather use the poetic language and concepts of religion or spirituality to get at deeper truths in the same way that works of art reveal deeper truths that what can be merely said. Humbert at some point asked how this is different from intellectual or emotional because he couldn't see how those two didn't cover everything. But I don't think it is something that is outside of intellectual and emotional (if we are going to simplify the human mind with those two categories.) The point is, such "claims" aren't even defined well enough to be in conflict with skepticism. Such "claims" are in fact defined by what they are not. It is more like the koans of Zen Buddhism, aesthetics, transcendent experiences, that if you try to pin down just slip away. These "claims" aren't claims at all – they are the very contemplation of the mysterious in whatever form our mind's decide (usually based on what culture and religious/mystical symbolism we've been exposed to.) Of the people I've talked with about "God" enough to ask them specifically about it, the vast majority answer most of my specific questions about the literal nature of God, souls, afterlife, and other religious beliefs with "I don't know. Nobody can know that." And what is more skeptical than that!?
| What would we make of someone who claims to be a Christian, but who doesn't believe in Christ? Pretty obvious, eh? That person is not a Christian, straight up and by definition. |
There is a growing number of Christians today who don't believe in a literal Jesus. They are a tiny minority, yes, but they are there, and I'm not talking just renegade individuals, I'm talking people who are part of mainstream Christian infrastructure. That's why I'm always bringing up Episcopal Bishop John Spong – who is such a Christian – but nobody on this forum seems curious at all about this kind of religious belief that, at least in my experience, is incredibly common! Are you prepared to argue that a Bishop in good standing with one of the major sects of Christianity is not a really a Christian? I'm certainly not!
Thus, when you say: | It is not difficult to imagine a skeptic who doubts everything at all. Here I am - a pure skeptic, and hence reviled by Shermer and the other new-age scientistic "skeptics" who are trying to turn skepticism into a religion. To be a skeptic is to reject certainty. All that remains of certainty is the by-definition or the logically trivial sorts. This is not to say a skeptic is hobbled by a constant denial of everything, as the childish caricature would have it. Doubt is not denial, however much the dogmatic would like us to accept that expedient for them equivalence. To not affirm is not to deny. And this understanding puts paid to the initial quote. It is quite easy to "to imagine any human being being able to be totally skeptical about everything all the time" if you don't let the dogmatists disingenuously define your terms for you. |
My response is that progressive religious types do give everything a proper amount of doubt, even when they lean toward certain beliefs. You say that skepticism is about uncertainty. Bidlack is obviously not certain about his deism. That kind of tentative belief is compatible with the kind of skepticism that is about uncertainty. I'd say that it is the dogmatists who reject Bidlack and others like him as true skeptics.
| I am a skeptic. My private realm is subject to public discourse just as my public realm is. |
Bidlack has put his private realm into public discourse. He never said that deism shouldn't be questioned period. What he distained was proselitization. There is a difference between having a discussion that leads to the topic of personal belief and some asshole knocking on your door or handing you pamphlets in order to convert you to a different worldview. And there is a difference between open/respectful discussion of our thoughts on various worldview (polite disagreement) and the sort of preachy, self-righteous debates that lead to dehumanization of individuals.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 21:32:31 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: The default position of believing in the existance of a being where the probability of that being non-zero but damn near can be a valid holding as long as the person makes no practical applications of that belief.
I.E. faith and driving the car. Take the wheel, Jesus = bad, Taking full responsibility for piloting the vehicle while believing = inconsequential. |
And I totally agree.
Although I have been making things confusing by defending two different groups of believers at the same time. The believers that compartmentalize, who relegate their literal beliefs to that which cannot be disproved and which doesn't have an impact on practical interaction with the natural world, are one group. I suppose Bidlack is closer to this camp, if not all the way in it, although I still think he deserves the label "skeptic" since he's made pragmatic skepticism (the only ethically essential kind of skepticism) a major part of his life and has worked to advocate such skepticism. So what if he's not an absolute skeptic if he only opts out of skepticism on an issue which is vaguely defined and disprovable, having zero impact on real life? I mean, we can care for armchair philosophizing conversations, but it isn't as if such transgressions from pure skepticism are going to become a political, social, or ethical problem.
On to the second group… I think that there are people who identify as theists, deists, or just plain spiritual, but who are pure skeptics and do not need to compartmentalize their religious "beliefs" because they are not beliefs at all. As I mentioned in my last post, such people use religious concepts to give focus to meditations about the great mysteries of life. If you ask them if they think any of their beliefs are literally true, such people either say it doesn't matter, or they don't know, or straight out say "No." Asking someone with that kind of faith if they think God is really real is akin to asking someone who loves Monet if he was really a great painter. Monet is a great painter in the context of the human experience. It is not a universal or absolute truth to say his paintings are great. And to many spiritualists, mystics, and religious folks, the objects of their faith are not universal or absolute truths either. They only make sense in their cultural context.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 21:47:25 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: But that is not a claim. A personal belief does not equate to a claim.
I wasn't saying it is rational. Only that you are not irrational as long as you fully conceive that it is a belief based no evidence. I know it sounds weird, but I think there is rational, irrational, and an area in between of neither. |
I'm so glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:03:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
But that is not a claim. A personal belief does not equate to a claim. |
I justed wanted to comment on this again because it really is the basis of a lot of faulty thinking that I see on this thread.
Calling something a personal belief does not magically exempt it from having to make sense. If I said: "Human beings live by breathing only pure methane gas," then I would be wrong. If I said: "I believe human beings live by breathing only pure methane gas," then I would still be wrong. Adding the words "I believe..." doesn't suddenly absolve a person from having to validate the substance of the stated belief.
A belief is, for all intents and purposes, a claim.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I think that there are people who identify as theists, deists, or just plain spiritual, but who are pure skeptics and do not need to compartmentalize their religious "beliefs" because they are not beliefs at all. |
If they don't believe in some god(s), then by defintion they're not theists or deists. You seem to be forcing this to be a semantic argument.| If you ask them if they think any of their beliefs are literally true... |
Wait, you just said that they weren't beliefs.| Asking someone with that kind of faith if they think God is really real is akin to asking someone who loves Monet if he was really a great painter. Monet is a great painter in the context of the human experience. It is not a universal or absolute truth to say his paintings are great. And to many spiritualists, mystics, and religious folks, the objects of their faith are not universal or absolute truths either. They only make sense in their cultural context. |
The question isn't "do you think God is an absolute truth?" but only "do you believe in god?" If the answer is "yes," then they are making an existential claim - to themselves if nobody else - that whatever their conception of "god" does, indeed, exist.
It seems to me that nobody here is talking about the sort of "Christian" who says something along the lines of, "well, I don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, but I think the lessons presented in the Bible are valid and worthwhile to living life today," if such a person could be a Christian (by definition). Similarly for anyone who says, "pondering the question of the divine allows me to come to grips with the human condition and feel more connected with my fellow humans." Those sorts of faith aren't faith. Not, for example, anything like the faith that Bidlack has.
Really, marf, if you're going to talk about people who don't actually believe that some god exists, somewhere, then you're not talking about the same sort of faith that's not compatible skepticism - if you're talking about "faith" at all. I mean, the plain reading of the phrases "person of faith" or "belief in god" is that the referent is a person who believes that at least one god actually exists or existed. Bidlack does. |
- 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 - 09/01/2007 : 22:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Calling something a personal belief does not magically exempt it from having to make sense. If I said: "Human beings live by breathing only pure methane gas," then I would be wrong. If I said: "I believe human beings live by breathing only pure methane gas," then I would still be wrong. Adding the words "I believe..." doesn't suddenly absolve a person from having to validate the substance of the stated belief.
A belief is, for all intents and purposes, a claim. |
Frankly, this seems to be the same dispute that caused such a row between beskeptigal and Dude, except it was "in my opinion" instead of "I believe." I also remain unconvinced of any difference between a "personal truth" and an "absolute truth," when one steps into the believers' shoes.
Again, this isn't about proselytizing. Skepticism demands that we examine our own beliefs and opinions just as rigorously as we examine those of the conmen and the evangelical. If not more so.
So when someone else remarks that they believe something, or otherwise expresses their opinion on a subject, skepticism asks of us, "well, upon what evidence or argument would I also believe that same thing?" If the answer is that the belief or opinion seems wholly unwarranted, is there a good reason for us to not speak up, and at least ask how the person arrived at such a position?
After all, if they've got evidence or logic of which I'm unaware, then I want to know what it is. And if they don't, then were I in their shoes, I'd want someone to prompt me to reconsider my unevidenced belief. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:31:56 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote:
| You didn't, but you have defended religion on the grounds that it can provide these things. But so can other things, so it's a piss poor defense. That's why I said you can't just declare these things to categorically fall under religion's domain. It's like defending racism by saying that racists can make wonderful parents. Who cares if you can be wonderful parents and not be racist? |
Wow, comparing religious and spiritual beliefs to racism… lovely.
It is not a piss poor defense at all. How any individual gets and maintains transcendent experiences and a sense of awe and wonder is personal to them. For some people it is more intellectual, philosophical and theological contemplation. Others get it through certain types of music or other kinds of art. Many people get it simply from being out and surrounded by nature. Some through strenuous physical activity. Some through drugs. Any of these activities has the potential to even turn into a productive career (even drugs – there are passionate beer brewers and coffee roasters), or on the flip side, a dangerous obsession that causes them to lose sight of other aspects of life such as family and other responsibilities. But the guy who gets deep satisfaction and sense of meaning out of Jazz can't just switch to wine tasting, and vice versa.
| Yeah, you've said it. Demonstrating it has been the problem. |
You don't accept my arguments and examples. I put more in my response to dglas. But I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, so whatever.
| For a skeptic, knowing that virtually every cognitive or perceptual error comes from uncritically accepting subjective experiences as valid, there should never be a time when one accepts one's personal experiences before meeting the burden of proof. |
I think you are being dogmatic about the philosophy of skepticism. Of course you will probably say that being more flexible amounts to diluting skepticism or even making it meaningless, as dglas said. I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree here.
| Doesn't matter what you call it. My point is that a skeptics should realize these "reasons" are in fact "non-reasons." |
They are not "non-reasons". If you think they are bad or false reasons, okay, but they are reasons.
MARF: You are demanding [skepticism] be applied absolutely...
HUMBERT: Yes! Finally I think you understand where I'm coming from. |
I know. And we disagree. People do that. 
| Look, I agree, ok? Nobody is saying that anyone should be booted out of some skeptics' club for not being perfect. I'm just saying that should be the ideal. That should be the thing we, as committed skeptics, strive toward. |
I do not share your ideals then. But for what it is worth, I think that where we differ is rather small.
| The "desired end" should be the truth. Skepticism, critical thinking, the scientific method, these are the only tools we have for determining truth. |
They are not the only tools we have for determining truth and when people speak of truth they commonly mean more than literal facts about the natural world. I don't even like your use of the word "truth" in this paragraph. I prefer facts since they specifically refer to literal truths about the natural world.
| I reject the idea that in an absence of knowledge one is free to make up whatever truth they choose. |
| I reject the idea that such shortcuts lead to ultimate happiness. |
I don't think I believe in ultimate happiness. Although I don't doubt that, just as many people have been inspired to do great harm because of their wacky beliefs, many people have also been inspired to do very benevolent and kind things because of their wacky beliefs. If we don't equally value ourselves and each other and the human experience itself just for its own sake, then whether we are closer to the truth or not will be inconsequential. Critical thinking must go hand in hand with humility, pluralism, and compassion.
| I see it as a tendency toward weakness which should be overcome. |
In no way can I view the faith of the likes of Ghandi, William Sloan Coffin, and Martin Luther King as "weak". All three seemed to be inspired by their beliefs that I do think were literally false. I don't think they had those beliefs out of fear or any weakness of character. All three had secular, shared values as their highest moral imperatives, and so all three were very rational in how they sought to achieve those goals. But their religious beliefs fueled their motivations by giving them the transcendent experience of being part of something greater than themselves. Not everyone needs this to be a great humanitarian, but perhaps some people do. People are all different after all.
| I believe that true happiness can only come from true things, that by definition false things can only offer false happiness. |
Given that happiness is an emotion or at most an longterm emotional experience, what does "false happiness" mean?
| As such, if you are really interested in people's happiness, then you should be interested in trying to get them back onto the only reliable track toward truth we know. |
This all strikes me as a rather narrow view of the human experience. Australian Aborigines who live in the outback are not benefited by a rejection of their traditional myths because the myths are tied to their very way of life. To convert that entire society to a contemporary modern worldview would require extensive cultural development to replace all the practical purposes that religion and ritual has in their lifestyle. How would we go about accomplishing such a pointless goal? Religion is not just literal beliefs by a long shot. People just converting willy nilly to whatever is a modern thing that happens in certain parts of the first world, especially America. That just isn't a practical option for most people since religion is interwoven with culture and lifestyle. All those old religious taboos all had practical purposes once apon a time, and many still do. If skepticism were to become a mainstream worldview, it would suffer the same corruption as every other great religion and philosophy in history, and people would not be any kinder, happier, or better off than they were before. Hell, skepticism is already popular enough that we're seeing dogmatic skeptics who are turning skepticism into a religion – as dglas mentioned. I think it makes far more sense to pick your battles, keep them practical and specific, and tackle them one at a time.
| And, Marf, because I know you love to think the worst of me, |
If you have gotten this impression, I apologize because it is not the case.
| People, yes, but not skeptics, which is the focus of this discussion. |
Skeptics are never forced by circumstances to make a decision based on intuition because of not enough info? Huh?
| But even if a person is unable or unwilling to abandon their irrational belief, explain again why I can't at least point out that it is irrational? Where is it stated that I need to go along with the same charade someone else relies on to get them through the night? Where does this idea come from that religious beliefs should be beyond criticism? |
Once again, I never said beyond criticism. Bidlack specifically talked about being harassed, even handed pamphlets. I'm talking about unsolicited proselytizing.
| Faith just never has. Ever. It has a long losing track record. It's a bad approach to truth. |
I agree that when faith is used to find facts about reality, it is ineffective. But more often than not that is not its purpose, and with many people it is never used for that purpose.
| And now you're just twisting my words totally out of context. In that discussion we were focused only on Bidlack's theism, and on that question he is not a skeptic. |
It sounded very much to me as if you were saying that Bidlack is not a skeptic. If I misinterpreted you, I humbly apologize.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:56:49 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: | Me, I find it weird that anyone can compartmentalize like that. It does strike me as something like a kind of cognitive dissonance. Not that it makes them bad or mad in itself, but it certainly makes them inconsistent, dangerously vulnerable to manipulation, and, I think, at odds with themselves. |
There is no evidence which shows that religious people are more inconsistent or vulnerable to manipulation. And I don't see how the kind of compartmentalization we've been discussing makes someone inconsistent. Someone like Bidlack is rare in that he's a believer with an extremely logical and clear personal vision of his own worldview. Actually, it's a little too specific, but I guess he's been driven to spell it all out in really clear terms given the company he usually keeps. Anyway, what usually makes people inconsistent is emotions, not beliefs. You might have a nice, neat, purely skeptical worldview, but when something happens to provoke extreme emotions in you, you will react regardless of your rational mind. Thank goodness for compartmentalization so that we don't rationalize true foolishness. Bidlack might believe in really dumb and specific religious beliefs instead of totally vague, harmless, and even inspirational ones were it not for his strong skepticism which relegates his belief to that which is not provable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 22:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | If they don't believe in some god(s), then by defintion they're not theists or deists. |
The concept of "god" has always been a pretty elusive thing when we're talking about it in general rather than with regard to a specific religion which happens to have a very spelled out concept of god. You say I'm forcing a semantics debate, but I'm the one here using these words the way people actually use them. Bishop John Spong seems to be an atheist if you look at what he denies, add it up, and see what's left over, but he adamantly rejects that label in his writings. Mystical contemplations are simply not the same thing as claims of literal fact. There is a difference between the claim that I was abducted and probed by aliens last night at 3:30AM and saying I believe in some kind of something which I might call "God" but if you try to pin me down on a definition of that or get me to name any of its qualities, I say I can't. It is comparing apples and oranges. So if you really need to pin it down with words, I suppose we could say that many people who call themselves theists are literally more like agnostics or atheists, but that just doesn't seem accurate either given how people actually use these words.
| The question isn't "do you think God is an absolute truth?" but only "do you believe in god?" If the answer is "yes," then they are making an existential claim - to themselves if nobody else - that whatever their conception of "god" does, indeed, exist. |
Okay, but how meaningful is that when their concept of god is so vague that it amounts to nothing more than a poetic contemplation of great mysteries of life and existence? I just see that, particularly in its relationship to skepticism and critical thinking, as profoundly different from saying that the Biblical flood really happened or that there really is a giant Loch Ness Monster.
| It seems to me that nobody here is talking about the sort of "Christian" who says something along the lines of, "well, I don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, but I think the lessons presented in the Bible are valid and worthwhile to living life today," if such a person could be a Christian (by definition). |
There have been ex-clergy who've admitted to having those beliefs (closet as they were) for years, and I'm sure there are many more clergy who think this and keep it quiet because they think the cultural structure of their religion is ultimately beneficial and gives the lives of its adherents a profound sense of meaning and community. And I have two friends who call themselves "Christian" and go to church, but in more deep conversations with me have admitted that they don't believe in the stuff literally and that they think other religions and atheism are equally good paths if taken in a way that doesn't contradict empiricism and values humanity first.
| Similarly for anyone who says, "pondering the question of the divine allows me to come to grips with the human condition and feel more connected with my fellow humans." Those sorts of faith aren't faith. Not, for example, anything like the faith that Bidlack has. |
I s |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 23:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally by dglas
The content becomes precisely the same, unless you assume some sort of special content to "God" for which there is no more evidential support than for the other ideas. I'll put this bluntly: God is woo. It is specifically stipulated to not admit of verification/refutation, by definition. |
Huge problem in arguing about God is the lack of a uniform definition, and uniform expectations about what "God" even means. Ignostics focus on this. Can't have a meaningful discussion (argument) about existence until it's clear what that existence would look like & what evidence would be necessary & sufficient (& reliable, etc).
When it's convenient, this idea that God can't be verified/refuted pops up, though amazingly enough that part seems to vanish when someone believes their own idea of what constitutes evidence.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that God were defined as that for which no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence can be shown (that for which existence or nonexistence cannot be proven). (There can be more to the definition, as long as the existence/evidence clause isn't superceded or contradicted by another part of the definition.)
Then the skeptic could, and should, question (a) this definition of God, and (b) others' claims of evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God.
But questioning the existence of God on the basis of lack of evidence would be fallacious.
Edited to add: marfknox posted while I was composing, also addressed the "no one definition of god" problem... |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 09/01/2007 23:14:27 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 01:24:22 [Permalink]
|
A bit late to this thread, been crazy busy the last week. To address the question in the thread title I'll borrow a quote from Massimo Pigliucci. Well, this may be a paraphrase, but he is the source.
| There is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion. |
Skepticism, if you hadn't realized it, uses the basic tools of science. No, we don't conduct double blind studies or run particle accelerators... But we use the basics of the scientific method. We require evidence that can be tested, examined, and show to be consistent. We apply critical thinking.
Also, as others have said, everyone isn't consistently skeptical about every aspect of their lives. Personally I try to be, but even the most hardcore skeptic probably has at least one silly idiosyncrasy that they know is silly, but they do it anyway.
Can a person be a good skeptic and be a believer in some deity? Maybe. It depends on what you want them to be skeptical of. Can a fundamentalist christian be rationally skeptical of the claims made by people like Kevin Trudeau? Absolutely. Can they be rationally skeptical of their religion? No, probably not.
If we apply strict logic and skepticism to the question of religion, the only answer you can get back is that claims made without evidence are rejected. They literally have no value or meaning. They are broken arguments that rest on premises that are not verifiably true. Therefore all claims for the existence of a deity are rejected. Equally, all claims for the definite non-existence of a deity are rejected.
(off topic, but: In the case of human religion you can make a reasonable argument that all gods described by humans do not actually exist based on the descriptions and accounts of their behavior. There is a strong case, with some evidence, that all our gods are nothing but human constructs.)
So a religious person can be a good skeptic, just probably not about their religion. If they were, then they would likely not be religious in the first place, because they would apply the basics of science like critical thinking and standards of evidence. I don't doubt that a religious person can be a fine skeptic on other topics though.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
