|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 03:50:56 [Permalink]
|
To add to some of the points made, it is very possible for someone who believes something false and that goes against the evidence and be a skeptic. As long as they're willing to lose that belief. I don't recall hearing Bidlack calling it some fault that he'd like to lose. It's like asking if someone can be a skeptic and be a smoker. Of course they can, if they're willing to examine their false beliefs. That doesn't mean that you instantly get rid of all your false beliefs just because you attempt to be a skeptic. That's all we really can ever do is attempt it. If you think you've made it all the way to some kind of skeptic nirvana, then you've driven far off the path.
Edited also to say that there is no skeptic god at the end giving skeptic tests to see who's going to skeptic heaven. If Bidlack wants to call himself a skeptic, that's up to him. If others want to accept that, that's up to them. However, if he makes no attempt to rid himself of false beliefs, then he is not skeptical in that area at least. |
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 09/02/2007 04:01:40 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:21:48 [Permalink]
|
If Bidlack believed that there are aliens living in his pants talking to him because that belief performed some psychological need, how would that change this conversation? The difference seems to be that he really doesn't believe very much in the supernatural. It seems that that idea wouldn't affect the rest of his thinking. How can we be so sure, when his thinking in this area is based on wish?
|
It wouldn't change the conversation at all. If it filled a psychological need and it did not interfere with his processing of reality. As long as he did not practically apply the concept of aliens in his pants that talked to him to real world duties, responsibilities, and science.
|
Ignoring the hostility that seems to be the goal of the owners and moderators of this site, this is a good example of what seems to be the poor thinking that supports, well, poor thinking.
If it serves some imaginary psychological need to hate reality to believe in something, it's okay, as long as he doesn't really believe it. Again, I have to ask, where do you get off insulting religious people for your own psychological need. Religious people are not deficient as humans. They have no "need" to hate reatiy. |
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 09/02/2007 06:25:38 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:27:54 [Permalink]
|
Well, lets face it. Anyone who professes a belief without evidence isn't skeptical about that thing. Whatever it may be, religion included.
The reason why most skeptical people are not going to accept religious believer's claims of being a skeptic is pretty obvious, because religion is one of the most thoroughly examined thing out there and it's claims lack evidence.
If a person refuses to examine the evidence for something like religion, which makes clearly unfalsifiable claims (which allows you to reject those claims in any rational worldview), it is not unreasonable to suspect that they are not willing to apply skepticism to other things. It doesn't automatically follow that they will refuse, but you have to ask the question.
|
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 - 09/02/2007 : 06:29:37 [Permalink]
|
gorgo said:
| Religious people are not deficient as humans. |
That is a matter of opinion.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
gorgo said:
| Religious people are not deficient as humans. |
That is a matter of opinion.
|
That's a joke, I think, but I do think it seems to be true, and that's been my point all along. They believe they are, and they're not. That is somehow taken as an insult. Again, read what the Rabbi says. He basically says that reality is not good enough as it is, that we need to create something false that give life (his life) worth.
That seems to be Bidlack's case, and it is not a skeptical one.
There is no reason to think that those who have this imaginary "psychological need" to hate realtiy have some large chunk of their brain missing. I don't know why that isn't seen as an insult to believers. Someone else just wrote about this, I'll see if I can try to find it to see if they say it better. |
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 09/02/2007 06:49:17 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:45:22 [Permalink]
|
It was Dawkins:
I'm an atheist, but people need religion.
What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?
What patronising condescension! You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion. In any case, the universe doesn't owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn't make it true. The God Delusion doesn't set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo. I am pleased that the opening lines of my own Unweaving the Rainbow have been used to give solace at funerals.
When asked whether she believed in God, Golda Meir said: I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God. I recently heard a prize specimen of I'm-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: I believe in people, and people believe in God. I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives.
|
|
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 09/02/2007 06:48:10 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 06:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Gorgo
[quote]
You have only said that I have said logically suspect things due to their attachment of faith.
|
I don't recall saying that. I don't even know what it means. I think what you and Kil are both doing is probably viewing what is being said through your own emotional attachments.
|
I remember and have re-reviewed my past conversations with you where you found my statements to be logically suspect. They were all about religion.
|
I just got this. I think we all have emotional attachments, for lack of a better phrase, but it is my observation that beliefs in the supernatural often, if not always, turn those obstacles to reason into something sacred.
That doesn't mean that because you believe in the supernatural that you are always illogical. That means that you have built a wall around the emotional blocks that cause you to create a fantasy world to protect them. |
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
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 07:38:33 [Permalink]
|
gorgo wrote: | If it serves some imaginary psychological need to hate reality to believe in something, it's okay, as long as he doesn't really believe it. Again, I have to ask, where do you get off insulting religious people for your own psychological need. Religious people are not deficient as humans. They have no "need" to hate reatiy. |
More hating reality stuff. So how do you respond to the Fowles quote that I posted on page 3 specifically in response to your harping on this idea you keeping bringing up of hating reality?
See, I disagree with you adamantly. Some people, hell many people if not all at some point or another, do accept unsupported illusions that are harmful because they don't want to deal with something in life so yeah, they "hate reality". But you attribute this to far more than what I think qualifies.
Many people only have this condescending view of religion, such as Janeane Garfalo saying that religious is a crutch that some people need but that she doesn't. But religion doesn't work that way for tons of religious people. Many religious people use their faithful concepts as an inspiration and motivation to be more active, productive, orcompassionate. And some just use their faith as something to meditate about the mysteries of life on. For lots of people, faith is more of a feeling than a thought or claim, and in those cases there is no denial of reality so no hatred of reality is expressed. We use art in this way too, to tell a deeper truth about our limited perceptions of reality due to the faults of our senses, the fogginess of our memories. The filmmaker who made "The Lives of Others" was asked in an interview how he re-created the feel of East Germany in the 1980's so vividly and "accurately", and it turned out that he hadn't researched what it was literally really like very much at all! Instead he made a simple observation that certain colors were predominant and others were rare, so he completely got rid of the rare ones. Obviously this made the setting for the film less accurate in terms of the actual realitistic setting, but people who lived in EG at that time were blown away by how true it was to their own memories.
So often a religious concept expresses a deeper truth about the human perception of life. If people put those concepts and ideas into practical application or become obsessed they become a harmful denial of reality. But when they are kept vague and relegated to the realm of thought and emotion experiments, and personal, transcendent experiences, they serve the same good purpose that art can serve. Instead of being a denial of reality, they can even wake people up, make them aware of the falseness in our social and cultural practices. It has little to do with the ideas themselves, and everything to do with the individual people who think and feel about them and act on them.
|
"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 - 09/02/2007 : 07:50:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | (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.) |
I totally agree if we're talking about literal beliefs. But many religious concepts have little resemblance to literal claims about realty. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, but I was in college before I ever met anyone who literally believed in the Adam and Eve and flood stories from the Bible. And what about the Hindus who don't believe their gods are real, but they "worship" them and set up alters because they think the practice itself is useful? Or atheist and Buddhist and Christians Quakers all "worshipping" in silence together? (Worship is another term such as belief, faith, and God that is meant it many different ways depending on who is using them.)
I thought your quote from Massimo Pigliucci was interesting because it could be well-applied to both dogmatic and progressive religiosity. In the case of the former, there is no intermediate position between science and religion because they are competing to discover the literal truth about reality using totally conflicting methods. In the case of the latter, there is no intermediate position between science and religion because they are asking totally different questions (science wanting to discover facts about reality, religion wanting to find meaning and values.)
| 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. |
I agree with this too as it applies to most religious people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 07:59:23 [Permalink]
|
More hating reality stuff. So how do you respond to the Fowles quote that I posted on page 3 specifically in response to your harping on this idea you keeping bringing up of hating reality?
|
Already responded to it. How do you respond to my response?
See, I disagree with you adamantly. Some people, hell many people if not all at some point or another, do accept unsupported illusions that are harmful because they don't want to deal with something in life so yeah, they "hate reality". But you attribute this to far more than what I think qualifies.
|
We all do it as I've said repeatedly. The point is, that skeptics, I would think, try not to do it. With religion, unless you're trying to quit religion, you're not being skeptical by definition. It is contradictory to skepticism. Again, I'm not talking about the vague religion you're trying to include in on the discussion where people don't really believe in anything supernatural, they're just there for the "art" or they might "believe" in the supernatural, but they don't really believe it. |
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
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 08:01:54 [Permalink]
|
So often a religious concept expresses a deeper truth about the human perception of life.
|
Religious concepts cloud reality.
If people put those concepts and ideas into practical application or become obsessed they become a harmful denial of reality.
|
In other words, believing in the supernatural is dangerous.
|
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
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 08:45:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Skepticism, if you hadn't realized it, uses the basic tools of science. |
Actually, this is sorta backwards. Science uses skepticism, critical thought and logic as its basic tools. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 09:12:52 [Permalink]
|
...takes a breath....
About the God-definition "problem..."
There is no problem here. It is not my business to define God. That is the business of the believer and the onus of responsibility lies with them as it does with all those who posit extraordinary things. All I need to note is whether the definition stipulated for God admits of verification/refutation in principle or not.
If it admits of verification/refutation then it is a matter for empirical study and any claims can and will be backed up by evidence. It is not NOMA at that point.
If it does not admit of verification/refutation then it is entirely appropriate to label it as woo and dismiss it as the nonsense it is. It is NOMA at that point.
For those who like to hide behind vague, poorly-defined metaphor I have this to say: piss or get off the pot. A descent into metaphor is another way of trying to cloud the issue so as to permit/encourage/facilitate/require unclear thinking.
To say that something can affect us without being real is only to say that we have not properly identified the subject of the discourse. Descents into woo as metaphor only put that failure under display in the harshest light. Metaphor is not a way of understanding; it is a way of failing/refusing to understand. We are not well-served by saying that God/religion affects us positively (a contentious claim at best). Instead, we use it to avoid facing the reality of our situation; we mystify it. Well, history more than suggests that we progress (in terms of gaining/creating choices and options) when we demystify things.
I am concerned with helping humanity develop and defend a way of thinking that promotes human efficacy. To be efficacious, we must first assume that we can be efficacious. Up until science gained a foothold in a real, material sense we were very busy and worked very hard at denying human efficacy - mystifying everything so that we were helpless pawns of fate at the mercy of powers we cannot (cannot, as in are intrinsically incapable in principle) comprehend. Central to this effort was the mystifying of the world and the promotion of unreal things to higher-than-real status. We actually had what we needed to progress (a philosophy of non-dogmatism), but denied it in favour of dogmatic mysticism. Much of what folks desperately cling to is a building upon that single critical failure on our part - that determination to helplessness.
Science and skepticism have nothing to replace all that spiritual stuff, some wail, as if there are no other possible ways of being, but there is really nothing to indicate that much of that stuff is nothing more than the carefully contrived, intricate elaborations of a hobbling, egotistical lie. Even on this score, however, the apologists are mistaken. There is something better than God. There is humanity and the future. We can understand the social nature of our species; we do not need to mystify it.
On Shermer and the "religion" of skepticism...
A method of doubt, and resolutely harbouring that last moment of uncertainty on any topic is what skepticism is. It is universally applicable, even to itself. A sure sign of dogma is the refusal to cast doubt on itself; to call itself into question. Once again, we must distinguish between doubt and denial - that distinction is critical to a coherent understanding of skepticism - an understanding sadly lacking in the writings of Shermer. I will illustrate; following is a portion of my post quoted from Skepticality about Shermer. Hopefully that will help clarify why I speak of Shermer the way I do.
Please allow me to quote Shermer.
"Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying sub-atomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber."
This piece of deliberate nonsense is in "Why People Believe Weird Things" and in every issue of "Skeptic" magazine, which is why I don't buy the magazine, and don't buy Shermer.
It is so terribly wearying listening to people who present themselves as skeptics confusing doubt with denial and then putting forth dogmatic garbage like the above.
I guess I have nothing to say; I am a "pure skeptic" and thus excluded from the club and must be so excluded, since I cannot, with any intellectual honesty or integrity, restrict the application of doubt. For me, consistency counts.
Strangely though, my "intellectual cloud chamber" (whatever the **** that example of fluffy rhetorical nonsense is supposed to mean) is doing just fine, thank you very much. I have no "decaying sub-atomic particle[s]...uncoil[ing]and spin[ning]...off [my] viewing screen" (again, whatever the **** that is supposed to mean). I don't have that problem, since I don't equate doubt with denial.
By positing skepticism itself as being immune to its own method of examination, Shermer basically presents another "Unmoved Mover" construct - a dogmatism. The word of Shermer is true because the word of Shermer is true. Bulls*hit! |
Skepticism is, by definition, non-dogmatic, since it is self-correcting against that particular failure. This assumes, of course, we don't go limiting its scope to exclude itself as Shermer clearly attempts to do. Playing along with Shermer's sillyness here merely leaves us open to the same critiques that apply to religious dogma, since it effectively attempts to turn skepticism into one. Skepticism is the philosophy that is different from the rest for precisely the same reason that science is the method that is different from the rest - self-correction by calling its own findings into question.
This is why I make the only too apt comparison between those who wish to change the definition of skeptic to exclude the primary characteristic that makes it anti-dogmatic and those who attempt to redefine science to admit of "faith-based evidence" thereby removing the primary characteristic of science that provides its efficacy.
And before anyone starts: this is not a "No True-Scotsman Fallacy" since we are not talking about an error in properly assessing the primary characteristic of the issue in question. I offered the non-believer example earlier, but, of course, the first instinct is to immediately confuse the issue with redefinitions of Christ qua metaphor so as to exclude Christ from Christianity (I answered that earlier). Please allow me the clarify with another example I used on Skepticality.
"I am a carbon-based life-form," claims the space alien.
"How much carbon is in you?" we ask.
"None, whatsoever," replies our space friend.
"Ummm. Then you are not a carbon-based life-form," we reply.
Now our space friend could reply that it was speaking metaphorically, suggesting (perhaps) that it merely wanted to suggest a desire to relate to us in a metaphorical sense. In a very real way, we might accept such a friendly (non-varelse) alien after we have properly identified the real matter at hand (the intent and meaning), but it would not alter the simple, unequivocal fact that our newfound friend is not a carbon-based life-form. This is clear to us because we are not, as yet, explicitly carbonocentric; carbonocentrism is a non-issue (so far, at least  ) and has no emotive content.
Now to finish the thought, because I'm sure someone will have asked the obvious question. Why can we not say that Bidlack does, in fact, harbour that last shred of doubt with respect to his fire & forget (deist) God and, hence, that he is a skeptic and not just selectively skeptical? Precisely because he presents/constructs it as a belief that does not admit of verification/refutation. I have had the opportunity to chat (online) with Hal and a more amiable, good-humoured and likable person you are unlikely to encounter (at least online). His intent in presenting himself as a "skeptical believer," if I understand him properly, is a very well-intentioned one (an attempt to broaden the community and promote inclusiveness), but I cannot subscribe to it for reasons of internal consistency, because the very feature that makes skepticism the only non-dogmatic philosophy is negated by belief of the sort a NOMA God requires (even a seemingly innocent fire & forget one). |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 09/02/2007 09:20:01 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 09:58:28 [Permalink]
|
On Shermer and the "religion" of skepticism...
|
I thought the same about Shermer, although he does have a lot of good things to say. He seems to be mostly a showman.
As far as his skepticism, the guy is a libertarian party type.
Need I say more?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVJZJ4MSic |
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 09/02/2007 09:59:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
