|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 09:59:12 [Permalink]
|
A quick note on logic.
Logic does not indicate truth. It only indicates internal consistency.
Truth is extra-system.
This is rather important.
;) |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
 |
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2007 : 10:16:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
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
|
Ouch!
To be counter-intuitive is to be true now? 
So ... much ... to ...say ...
But different topic for a different thread...
Must ... not ... !  |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 10:17:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
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. |
Honestly, I don't care how vague or elusive the god-concept is. If someone's conception of god involves an intentional being which exists, as Bidlack's does, then if they say, "I believe in god," they're saying that they believe that god truly exists. Because there is no evidence for such a being, we can say without hesitation that such a belief is incompatible with skepticism.
Any other sort of mystical belief must be examined upon its own premises. Throwing them in with existential god beliefs and then saying, "some faith is compatible with skepticism," is disingenuous at best, as it conflates the common, everyday meaning of "faith in god" with some esoteric, hair-splitting, new-age-ish stuff.| 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. |
Honestly, marf, how many people would answer "yes" to the question, "do you believe that a poetic contemplation of great mysteries of life and existence exists?" Most, it seems to me, would stutter in confusion - even the ones who understand the concept - because the question becomes malformed when applied to things which are not deities.
Look, if you walked up to someone on the street who had such a god-concept and simply asked, "do you believe in god?" and they simply replied, "yes, |
- 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 - 09/02/2007 : 11:52:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
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
|
Yes, you need to say more. I don't agree with Shermer on this but should we now drum him out too?
There are a lot of libertarians who happen to be skeptics. So what are you saying with that "need I say more" remark? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 12:17:40 [Permalink]
|
My political thought would most closely be related to libertarianism; and I am the ultimate skeptic: I am skeptical of skeptics!
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 12:42:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My political thought would most closely be related to libertarianism; and I am the ultimate skeptic: I am skeptical of skeptics!
|
I'll see your skepticism of skeptics and raise you a meta-level.
Infinity +1! So there! Nyah!
 |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 12:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My political thought would most closely be related to libertarianism; and I am the ultimate skeptic: I am skeptical of skeptics!
|
I'll see your skepticism of skeptics and raise you a meta-level.
Infinity +1! So there! Nyah!
|
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 14:51:53 [Permalink]
|
There are a lot of libertarians who happen to be skeptics. So what are you saying with that "need I say more" remark?
|
I'm not drumming anyone nor do I want to drum anyone. Need I say more?
However, if you see anything but strawmen and nonsense in his video I'll be glad to hear about it.
Of course, here I am expecting you to give a non-hostile, reasonable reply, so how smart am I? |
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 15:43:06 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 15:42:21 [Permalink]
|
There are a lot of libertarians who happen to be skeptics. So what are you saying with that "need I say more" remark?
|
There are a lot of people involved in all kinds of 'woo' that call themselves skeptics. Should we drum them out? If you think they should, why is 'woo' in economics or religion different? |
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
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 17:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
There are a lot of libertarians who happen to be skeptics. So what are you saying with that "need I say more" remark?
|
There are a lot of people involved in all kinds of 'woo' that call themselves skeptics. Should we drum them out? If you think they should, why is 'woo' in economics or religion different?
|
What exactly is "woo" about libertarian economic philosophy?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 17:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
...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. |
In principle yes, but in practice maybe not.
| It is not NOMA at that point. |
Does NOMA = Non-Overlapping Magisteria?
| 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. |
Why is it appropriate to label all NOMAs other other than science as woo?
| 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. |
I don't think I can agree with such a general statement. Scientists often use metaphors to comunicate their ideas and theories (esp. with regard to communicating with the general public).
| 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. |
Well put.
| 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. |
Saying that "God/religion affects us positively" is not a metaphor so I'm not really sure that your point has anything directly to do with metaphors. Also you've defined "progress" (which is not universally considered to be positive anyway) as "gaining/creating choices and options." Finally, under some value sets the claim that "God/religion affects us positively" would likely be true.
| 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. |
Would not this assumption be a denial of skepticism? Wouldn't skepticism demand a state of doubt until evidence was presented. Perhaps this is just awkward phrasing.
| 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. |
It seems to me that skepticism is equally incompatible with both assumptions.
| 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. |
Well the idea that the concept of humanity and the future is better than the concept of God is obviously just your personal opinion. People often have difficulty finding hope within a materialist worldview.
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. |
How can skepticism be applied to itself?
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. |
How has Shermer confused doubt and denial?
| 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. |
Well you must at least restrict your skepticism to claims of fact though. If you are entirely consistent how do you avoid descending into nihilism?
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! |
If you doubt skepticism then on what basis are you a skeptic? Doubting skepticism is meaningless, for practical purposes, unless there is potential for falsification. How could skepticism ever falsify itself even in principle?
| 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. |
Both science and skepticism do rest on certain fundamental assumptions though.
| 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). |
I agree that Bidlack is not skeptical with respect to his Deism, but I don't see how fashioning it as a falsifiable belief rather than as an unfalsifiable one would make him skeptical in that regard. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 17:58:57 [Permalink]
|
What exactly is "woo" about libertarian economic philosophy?
|
There is something 'woo' about Shermer's approach to 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
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2007 : 18:05:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
What exactly is "woo" about libertarian economic philosophy?
|
There is something 'woo' about Shermer's approach to it.
|
This sounds like a good talk, if you are willing. Shall we continue here or begin anew?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 18:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
How can skepticism be applied to itself? |
Easily, by asking if skepticism is a useful tool for leading us towards something resembling truth. In other words, we question the utility of skepticism to reach the goal for it set by skeptics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 18:15:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
How can skepticism be applied to itself? |
Easily, by asking if skepticism is a useful tool for leading us towards something resembling truth. In other words, we question the utility of skepticism to reach the goal for it set by skeptics.
|
I agree with your statement Dave.
A problem can occur when one sees the tool they have as the only tool for each and every job.
Sometimes a man with a hammer sees every thing as a nail.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
