Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

Calibos

Would I be right in assuming that all skeptics are also agnostic/atheist?

To me they go hand in hand. To be a skeptic and yet believe in God IMO would be like a skeptic who is skeptical about all the usual things except Homepathy for example.

ecksor

You assume that someone who believes in god hasn't seen evidence of god for him/herself.

Paddy20

Eh ?.. I can not vote in this poll, because I am very sceptical about the 2 answers.

P.:ninja:

davros

Originally posted by Calibos
Would I be right in assuming that all skeptics are also agnostic/atheist?

I don't think one implies the other. If there is a God, I don't believe His existence can be proved or disproved by the kind of experiments we advocate for, say, homeopathy. Since we can say nothing certain about an afterlife that has absolutely no interaction with this life, it's better to leave this topic in the realm of personal belief. That's my opinion, anyway.

It's also the position of the Irish Skeptics Society. Quoting from the about page:

Are Skeptics Anti-Religious?
No. People are sometimes concerned that skeptics are, by definition, anti-religious. This is not the case.

There are many skeptics who have religious beliefs and who distinguish clearly between questions concerning the material world (the realm of science), and a non-material world in which they believe and for which there is no physical evidence. Such belief is a matter of choice or faith and the majority of skeptics accept and respect this.

There are however, areas of overlap. If claims are made in the name of religion that concern physical phenomena and that can be tested, skeptics may engage in such testing. For example, claims of statues moving or of miraculous appearances or cures may be challenged.

Myksyk

I agree with Davros. It is not possible to prove the existence of God so it is not a question worthy of huge time and energy. It is a matter of belief.

One interesting question is 'is god an explanatory fiction which is becoming less and less necessary?' In other words, are there vast tracts of our experience of ourselves and the world which are inexplicable by science or are likely to remain inexplicable? I suggest there aren't. If you are attempting to understand something in the world, is it just habit (or intellectual laziness) which makes us explain it in terms of supernatural entities? Science is about 'natural' explanations of the natural world and assumes these explanations exist. If it is unable to answer something right now it leaves the gap rather than fill it with god. Mystery is not in itself evidence of god, just gaps in our knowledge.

Also, in my opinion, genuine understanding of processes like evolution by natural selection pose real issues for those of us who see the human race as qualitatively distinct from all other species. Religions can accept evolution and get around this thorny issue only by positing a particular supernatural phenomenon (the insertion of a soul at some indeterminate time during the process) which has no basis in fact.

In terms of explaining our history and our experience these philosophical gymnastics are only executed with preconceived answers to questions already in mind, with the subsequent need to fit new scientific information into existing supernatural accounts. It doesn't work and has always seemed particularly ham-fisted to me.

Talliesin

The poll seems a bit strange in lumping Atheism and Agnosticism together. Atheism means a belief in their being no deities, which is logically harder to prove than Theism, since a god could conceivably drop by for a chat and put all doubt out of the mind of at least one person, whereas no equivalent epithany is possible for Atheism.

mike65

As you can't be a vegitarian meat eater I have to be a atheiest sceptic.

Mike.

williamgrogan

There is absolutely nothing Science cannot investigate. People are part of the universe and their brains are part of physical reality and therefore they can be investigated as to how they work and in the way the work. The reasons why people believe in god are related to how brains formed from genes and how genes evolved and the subsequent “programming” of the brain by experience and education etc..

Because of the way god/gods have been defined by religious people it is difficult for someone to prove conclusively that there is no god. I mean how do you easily prove that something doesn’t exist when those claiming it exists will not tell you where it lives, have no photographs of it, don’t know how many of them there are, disagree about what they did and do, cannot prove it exists, have no physical evidence etc etc..

However, you can think about it, educate yourself and decide what the most likely answer is. Believe. Do not believe or sit on the fence.

sextusempiricus

I would hope a serious sceptic would look critically at all assertions whether scientific, moral, philosophical or theological. If a theist claims, for example, that 'God is loving' then a suitable sceptical response would be to question whether this is consistent with perhaps a child dying of hunger or leukaemia. I imagine the standard response from the believer is that God's love is difficult to understand and He (or She) works in mysterious ways. The sceptic should reject such a qualification which merely weakens the original assertion.
Does scepticism preclude a belief in a deity? Probably not. David Hume, supreme sceptic of the Scottish Enlightenment, could never-the-less profess to subscribe to the arguement for a deity's existence from design as when he wrote "A purpose, an intention, a design is evident in everything" and "the whole frame of nature besopeaks an intelligent author". Such statements were probably prudent for Hume counted prominent churchmen as his friends. In his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (surely required reading for any serious sceptic) little remains of the religious hypothesis.

davros

Originally posted by sextusempiricus
I would hope a serious sceptic would look critically at all assertions whether scientific, moral, philosophical or theological.

Separate from the question of whether these things are open for debate, is the question of whether it is polite to debate them with those of an opposing view.

In the case of chiropractic, I might merely annoy a believer by saying it has no basis in fact. But if I claim there is no God and religion is a farce, I risk deeply offending and distressing the person to whom I am talking. I insult not only them but their parents who passed on their faith and the memory of many of life's most significant events - marriages, births, deaths, etc. - which have an indelible association with the Church.

In Ireland, we allow a certain latitude in what we believe. Most people will allow that the Bible is not to be taken entirely literally. But the situation is a lot more stark in other faiths and in other countries. I have found it a handy rule-of-thumb, in matters of religion, to ask polite questions and keep my opinions to myself.

Calibos

Lets not debate, it would be impolite!

I know what you mean though Davros.

Well I personally don't go round telling anyone who will listen that I'm an atheist or that I think they're all deluded. Case in point being that I would never go into the christian forum and argue or troll etc. Like you say it could be deeply offensive and distressing. If I am asked about my faith, I will merely say that I'm an atheist (and have been asked if that was like a prespretyrian (sp?)! :D ). If they actually know the meaning of the word and they press farther as is often the case and say "how can you not believe in God?" then in my eyes its "Game On!"

williamgrogan

I can't believe what I am reading. Is it polite to debate religion?

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

Religion is the basis of much hatred (e.g. NI), many wars and conflicts & much of the current terrorist atrocities . Are the guys who flew planes into the Twin Towers polite? Is Ian Paisley polite?

Is it polite of the religious right in America to cancel Kyoto? Is it polite to try and ban contraception, divorce, abortion, Stem Cell research or as in NI playing football or swiming on Sundays?

Religion is wrong and very dangerous and those who know it is have a duty to try and convince people to see this.

Part of the many tricks religion use is, “we must respect everyone’s opinions”. Where was their respect during the Inquisition? Remember, religion doesn’t respect Atheism.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Religion is wrong and very dangerous and those who know it is have a duty to try and convince people to see this.

Religion is a source of division, sure. But can I convince someone who is deeply religious that they are wrong? No, I can't compete with someone who knows what God thinks. Nor can I point to irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist. The arguments on both sides are so insubstantial that I don't even find them interesting (I'm no philosopher ).

So I feel that the only outcome of arguing about religion with committed believers is upset and offence. I just don't want to go there.

With regard to the Irish Skeptics Society (and it's just a personal opinion - I'm an ordinary member of the society and I don't speak for the committee), I don't think adopting an anti-religious stance would help our public advocacy role with regard to science, medicine and other, worldly issues. It seems like antagonising people unnecessarily.

The Irish Humanists, on the other hand, do aim to remove religion from society (I hope that's a fair assessment of their views).

williamgrogan

I just joined the tread. I didn’t start it.

I find that “debating” about religion is not the only thing that “upsets” people. I think they are equally upset when you challenge them on Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Recki Healing, Reflexology, Nuclear Power, Politics, the war in Iraq, Globalisation etc.. If you want proof of this listen to Marian F.’s last two programs with Dr Hughes. How do we fight the inclusion of God in the EU constitution or the attempt to ban EU funding of stem cell research without challenging religion?

It’s not up to us to prove there is no God. If Dana wants God in the EU constitution she should have to prove there is a god and not expect me to disprove it.

However, I agree that with so much money being made by those selling dubious “cures” that it may very well be better & more practical in the short term for the Irish Skeptics to concentrate on these matters. The poor unfortunates with serious and often terminal illnesses that are handing over their money for unproven treatments deserve legal protection and I do regard this as a priority. I personally know two people who went to faith healers shortly before dying of cancer.

Finally I can accept that you may find “The arguments on both sides are so insubstantial that I don't even find them interesting”, but then don’t subscribe to threads on religion. There is no doubt that religion is fair game to a Skeptic.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
...but then don’t subscribe to threads on religion. There is no doubt that religion is fair game to a Skeptic.

Well, this isn't a thread on religion - it's a thread on whether skeptics have an opinion on religion. And that is quite an interesting and important topic to discuss.

You are probably right that skeptics in general have strong opinions on religion, and they are not likely to be positive. I just offer an explanation of why I avoid the topic myself outside skeptical circles.

[Incidentally, to Dana, I would just ask that she keep her personal beliefs to herself and not put them in what should be a secular document that applies to all regardless of faith. For embryonic stem cells, I'd have to query the definition of what constitutes human life. I don't think I have to drag the existence of God into it.]

sextusempiricus

I want nothing more than polite debates on any issues including the existence of a deity. The aim of debate is to clarify our ideas and assumptions not to cause upset. A theist is free to attack my views. What's important is to sharpen our respective viewpoints, decide what might be a weakness in our arguements and seek new ones to support our cause. You cannot do that if debate turns into a slanging match. Of course nothing is likely to produce more heated arguments than those that ultimately have no final answer. Yet if believers put forward flawed reasons for the existence of a deity such as the 'ontological argument' and the 'argument from design' it is reasonable for the sceptic to point out the flaws. I'm not going out of my way to attack a religion that has deep roots in the community if this is likely to cause offense. Society has a way of evolving despite the strictures of religion. Look at the way the young adult population now has access to contraception ( I deliberately choose something that's no longer controversial just to avoid upsetting anyone).

williamgrogan

Perhaps a more interesting question is why does challenging someone’s opinions causes “upset” or “offence”? It seems from the Irish Skeptics web site that religion is off limits. We don’t want to upset the natives. Religions are pro-actively unfair in their treatment of the members of other religions and the non religious but we have to tip toe around the place. I have never heard a humanist call for a statement in a country’s constitution that there is no god. I don’t get upset if someone challenges my opinions. Laugh maybe, but never upset or offended.

I do actually think that being a Skeptic and being religious is contradictory. You can’t pick and choose your superstitions. You either believe in the Scientific Method or you don’t. Dr William Reveille who writes for the Irish Times on science matters claims you can be scientific and believe in god. I strongly disagree and even more so dislike the fact that one of the few writers writing about science in Irish newspapers is religious. It’s like being infiltrated.

There are theories beginning to crop up as to why people are superstitious and gullible. It is obviously related to how we evolved our intelligence and how it acts in a group. Maybe a certain degree of gullibility in the gene pool means there can be followers and leaders. Maybe this confers an advantage. There must be an advantage to gullibility or the genes for it would have been selected out.

I think the reason that religious people and people with opinions that are on shaky ground get upset is that their confidence, self esteem and understanding of who they are is in real danger of collapse when you zap some of their cherished beliefs. You can’t undermine a scientist. When quantum mechanics came along Einstein fought it but to the best of my knowledge he didn’t get upset and I never heard that he was offended.

I don’t think that we need to hone our debating skills; most arguments that the non-sketpic (ok I’ve put skeptic in my spelling checker) puts forward are poor and easy to overturn.

The Irish Skeptics Association is going to upset people. That’s what its there for. If we can convince the public to avoid charlatans and get the politicians to introduce legislation that outlaws the selling of bogus medicines & treatments then obviously we will seriously upset the guys making all the money out it. I don’t know what the total figure for CAM is in Ireland but I’ll bet it’s now in the 100’s of millions of Euros. So lets do a bit of upsetting!

ecksor

Good grief.

Einstein cited god in his reasons for not wanting to accept quantum mechanics. Descartes wrote a philosophical piece on the certainty of the existence of god in his 'Discourse on Method and The Meditations'. Stephen Hawking is of the view that modern theoretical physics is about seeing into the mind of god. Isaac Newton thought that Gravity was not a mechanical thing, but was directly under the control and whim of god.

If you want an excellent example of scepticism in the history of science, then examine Bishop Berkeleys attack on the notion of infinitisimals as proposed by Newton, a very sharp and insightful critique of the original theories of calculus.

Which of these were not scientists?

Perhaps if the typical debate about justification of belief in god didn't always reduce to this sort of drivel about the superstition and gullibility of anyone with a belief in god then people would be more open to discussion. In short, I think you could do with drastic honing of your debating skills before you touch a topic like this again.

I do not believe in god, but I can't prove that he/she/it doesn't exist. Are you going to attack me for my disbelief since I can provide no proof of my stance? I certainly do not believe that science can answer the question of his existence, nor do I have a good answer as to the origin of the universe beyond the current published best guesses of our astronomers and physicists.

Not all true things are provable. IMO The sceptic's job is not to wander into the territory of things which he/she can't offer a meaningful test or alternative theory of. Believe, or don't believe, but don't claim to know any better, because we can't.

williamgrogan

Einstein & Hawking are/were atheists as far as one can make out. Descartes was more a philosopher than a scientist. Einstein’s comment re “playing dice” was not meant to imply he believed in god, he said as much himself. Isaac Newton kept his opinions to himself but was probably a Unitarian. He couldn’t admit this publicly as he would have been fired. Newton was also quite possibly mad. Newton and Descartes lived a long time ago and it’s not fair to expect them to understand reality as well as we now do. If Newton were alive today would he believe in god?

Strictly speaking you may not be able to prove that god doesn’t exist but you certainly can prove that it’s highly unlikely, explain why religion came about, explain why people follow particular religions, explain & prove an alternative and show there is no evidence for a god. That’s not bad!

I didn’t know that “astronomers and physicists published guesses”. That’s a new one on me.

“Not all true things are provable.“ If you can’t provide evidence for something you shouldn’t believe in it.

“The sceptic's job is not to wander into the territory of things which he/she can't offer a meaningful test or alternative theory of.”

Who says we can’t offer a meaningful test? You can't decide that something is off limits unless you can prove it is.

Sorry if you were offended, I’m off to bed.

Calibos

I'm in total agreement with WG and Sextus.

Like them I don't get offended when someone challenges my views on religion but the reverse is not true. Often when the subject comes up and I am asked "but, but how can you not believe in God, isn't your life empty and without meaning....." Now thats offensive but I actually don't take offense I just...ahem.....'raise my eyes to heaven'.

Its this fear of the religious taking offense and the rejection by the religious majority that prevents what I imagine to be thousands upon thousands of celebrities, scientists and politicians etc from 'coming out' as the atheists or agnostics that they are. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean that I don't listen intently to what they have to say on a given subject. Again the reverse is not true. A lot of religious people will totally switch off because "what does the heathen know". To make sure religious people don't 'switch off' these celebs, scientists, politicians proclaim that they believe. I think a survey a few years ago revealed that 30-35% of churchgoers are atheist/agnostic but continue to attend mass to keep up appearances in the community!

The most extreme example I witnessed of the contradiction between scientific method and belief was a series of articles and letters in the UCD student newpaper that my brother showed me a few months ago. A female medical student at UCD wrote a creationist article which was followed the next month by a barrage of letters from students in the physics, biology, geology etc departments the following issue. In the next issue she defended her article and would not accept the arguements made by the other students.

I mean this is a girl who accepts the scientific method where it relates to her field of study but totally disregards it in relation to Physics, Geology etc where it was used to argue against her creationist views. It reminds me of the story about the Biology lecturer who was fired in a Uni in the states because he asked his students to sign a piece of paper that said they believed in the theory of evolution. Everyone signed except for one girl who didn't believe in evolution. She complained and he was sacked. How can you study Biology at 3rd level and not believe in evolution?? :D

Finally as to whether I myself am atheist or agnostic. I believe that all religion in this world is based on superstition and myth. I do not believe that there is a deity floating around within this universe and interacting/intervening now and again. The closest I believe a deity has come to us is perhaps in creating the big bang in the first place and then leaving the universe to do its thing of which sentient life is a natural by product. So I would say I am atheist with regard to a deity within this universe or for a deity having anything to do with us since the big bang and I am agnostic with regard to there being a God like creator of the universe but outside it as....obviously we can never know.

sextusempiricus

Let me take williamgrogan up on a couple of points. He criticises ecksor for stating that "astronomers and physicists publish guesses." All knowledge is conjectural. Theories are indeed guesses and we give them credance when they stand up to severe tests. The best theories are those that are bold and have a high empirical content. They exclude more. Let me clarify this more. If I see a patient with a fever the conjecture that they have an infection is pretty likely. It is less than helpful in managing the patient. If I make the bolder assertion that they have meningococcal septicaemia and test this with my search for a purpuric rash and evidence of shock
then the administration of Penicillin on finding such signs will most likely save a life.
Secondly he argues that unless we have evidence for something we shouldn't believe it. We all make unwarrented assumptions and I'm afraid life's too short to seek evidence for them all. Although we like to be rational, especially if we belong to the Irish Skeptic's Society, life is impossible without those prejudices that Edmund Burke wrote about. We may not be fully aware of them but without them society just couldn't function. Prejudices can be good and bad of course. They have evolved over generations and attacking them will risk upsetting people especially if the prejudice is a person's religion. As a sceptic (excuse the spelling) I can hopefully nudge people in a rational direction that's more consistent with the facts. When it comes to God there are no facts. The deity is not a scientific proposition although I feel the sceptic should attack bad arguments to support Her existence.
If theists want to join the society let's welcome them with open arms. Its likely we share more views with them than those where we disagree. Calibos mentions the biology student with creationist views. I imagine we all at sometime have espoused some crackpot ideas. Doublethink might be the best term. It is the result of those prejudices I've mentioned above. It might be difficult to completely shake them off. In the meantime we must criticise, criticise and criticise.
PS Davros is not a philosopher, neither am I. A talk on the philosophy of science might be useful.

kiffer

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There is absolutely nothing Science cannot investigate.

I dont believe that. prove it.

...

...

the scentific methoid can be used to investigate many things. how ever there are things which are beyond our current level of understanding / ability. I'm not saying that in a few years we'll prove that spirits exist ...

but the important thing is to every now and then say thats CRAZY lets test it, now that we have new tools.

take gravity waves ... we're still testing for them, even though experiments in the past have failed to find them, because scientist believe they exist ... because they make sense under the current working thoery.


I'm not saying we should test the ideas of every nut job we come across but abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

we all believe things based on trust. we trust people to tell us the truth ... and we all trust different people.
when I was growing up I trusted my school when they told me things about god ... things that i now believe to be untrue. I also trust my Ex-Girlfriend who is an astrophysicists... but I cant understand many things that she can. but I've nothing to prove that she's right ... I cant do the maths but for some reason I believe that the speed of light for some reason the max speed that any thing can travel at... I can work out that speed for my self and test it ... but I cant test that it's the max speed... should i not be skeptical of that?

williamgrogan

II think you misunderstood me. I meant that there is nothing Science "should not" or "should be prohibited from" investigating.

It reminds me of one of my Science teachers who used to correct us when we misused, "can" and "may". He used to say, "Grogan, I'm sure you can go to the toilet, I presume you mean, may I ".

Anyway, with the corrected meaning/context, I don't think I "proving" means anything.

Your actual point that we need to trust is true with regards to what people tell you, which is why anecdotal evidence is not much use.

However, when it comes to scientific matters, trust is not necessary because if someone publishes a lie he will be found out.

My only need to trust is that say all the Biologists are not involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fool everyone in thinking that evolution is true on the back of fake evidence. I don’t believe this is remotely likely as it only takes one Biologist to squeal.

As regards “can science investigate”, in the sense of “is it able to” then the point is irrelevant and needs not be answered by me. The reason for this is that all it takes is for one person to publish a paper that contains a theory, evidence, logic, prediction etc.. on a matter and that opens up that area to comment and further research. How sucessful that research is determines the answer to the question.

kiffer

Originally posted by williamgrogan

My only need to trust is that say all the Biologists are not involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fool everyone in thinking that evolution is true on the back of fake evidence. I don�t believe this is remotely likely as it only takes one Biologist to squeal.

A very good point ... it only takes one person to stand up and say, "It's lies! all lies!" and no one would call him a wackjob for standing in the face of the status quo... scientists would never do that...


if there was a conspiracy ...

As regards �can science investigate�, in the sense of �is it able to� then the point is irrelevant and needs not be answered by me. The reason for this is that all it takes is for one person to publish a paper that contains a theory, evidence, logic, prediction etc.. on a matter and that opens up that area to comment and further research. How sucessful that research is determines the answer to the question.

Do I trust people? yes , do i understand peer review? yes.
do I think it possible for things to slip through the cracks ... yes for a time.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992848

ok i know he was caught but still it took long enough...

pooka

I don't see any great problem with being a theistic (or to specify further, Christian) sceptic. It's not so different from being an atheistic sceptic.

I would say that the perfect sceptical position is agnosticism (about pretty much everything), but I don't think many human beings are capable of perfection in any discipline. Nor do I particularly appreciate that level of questioning and testing - what is it all for, if not to bring us closer to the truth?

Yes, yes, I believe that things can be true. ;o)

Overall, I think one ought to allow a good deal of leeway for veering to the theistic or atheistic points of view within a sceptical society, while recognising that the sceptical position (even if only adopted as a disciplined way of thinking) should ideally be agnostic - not professing perfect knowledge of anything.

Cian

Myksyk

Overall, I think one ought to allow a good deal of leeway for veering to the theistic or atheistic points of view within a sceptical society, while recognising that the sceptical position (even if only adopted as a disciplined way of thinking) should ideally be agnostic - not professing perfect knowledge of anything.

This is essentially the position of the Irish Skeptics Society.

Two questions seem to be being discussed here. The question of ultimate origins which currently is unanswerable and about which some are happy to posit the existence of a 'starter' - this is Deism. The second question relates to Theism and the idea of a personal god who interacts, intervenes and manages the whole ball game. This is obviously strongly related to organised religion while the former isn't necessarily. The main difficulties seem to be with religion and its claims and practices. I think these are fair game for the sceptical mind and can be rigorously but respectfully questioned, without unwaranted hubris. Arguments over ultimate origins seem a little pointless in the absence of evidence on either side. However, thinking about ultimate origins is fascinating and perhaps will lead to evidence which allows potent arguments to be made on one side or the other.

Talliesin

Originally posted by mike65
As you can't be a vegitarian meat eater I have to be a atheiest sceptic.

Only if you can prove there is no deity.
I can see how agnostics have a point here (though I disagree with it) but arguing atheism follows from scepticism lacks any logic.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Einstein & Hawking are/were atheists as far as one can make out.

Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

Originally written by Albert Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Descartes was more a philosopher than a scientist.

He was both (Cartesian coördinates aren't scientific?) He was a philosopher who attempted to rebuild philosophy from the ground up on sceptical principles. Personally I don't believe he succeeded in this apart from the cogito, which successfully proving to himself that he existed and allowing each of us to prove to ourselves that we exist.

Einstein’s comment re “playing dice” was not meant to imply he believed in god, he said as much himself.

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

Isaac Newton kept his opinions to himself but was probably a Unitarian.

Well hardly an atheist then. He was also a strong defender of astrology against those sceptical of it, hell I know astrologers more sceptical of it that he was.

Newton and Descartes lived a long time ago and it’s not fair to expect them to understand reality as well as we now do.

LOL. Generally that argument is made on the basis that the person describe lived before Newton and Descartes had shaped our modern view of the world!
Newton's physics are of course disproven in many ways, but at the psychological level it still relates to our immediate experience of the world than the physics that succeeded it.

If Newton were alive today would he believe in god?

Maybe he'd be writing yet another one of the many books on chaos theory and quantum mechanics that quote liberally from the Bhagavadgîtâ and compare the big bang to the Shinto creation myth!
Then again, since astrology and astronomy are very much divorced these days, and he had a great love for both, maybe he would have followed a career in astrology rather than in science.

Strictly speaking you may not be able to prove that god doesn’t exist but you certainly can prove that it’s highly unlikely, explain why religion came about, explain why people follow particular religions, explain & prove an alternative and show there is no evidence for a god. That’s not bad!

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

That argument would have some validity if all religious people did this. Given that some religions actually proscribe any form of prosyletisation that is easily disproven.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

williamgrogan

Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

The above is just an insult so I will skip it.

I am reluctant to get into defining God in a way that means that it can be anything. God was invented by many men, many times throughout history & pre-history and is defined in all sorts of MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE ways and because of this one can state that most interpretations of god must be wrong, unless he can be 1 person, 2 people or 5,000 people, a cat, or the King of Egypt at the same time, not to mention being on both sides in a war.

E. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland would reject that E. meant above the god they believe in. I do not think E. believed in God as most people would define God.

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

That’s true, but using a religious metaphor doesn’t prove someone believes in god which is what you were arguing. I often say, "Jesus" when I drop something on my foot, but I don't believe he exists.

Newton was a rebel against the current orthodoxy is all I was saying. He was a Skeptic.

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Have you something against Statistics?

I cannot go around believing in everything that I am told by other people. I think it is perfectly logical and reasonable to decide to believe in that which has evidence and logic. God fails both. I think there is a small probability that there is a god but it is a very very small probability. God doesn’t exist; people just say that there is one. Therefore it’s up to them to prove it. Not alone have religious people failed to prove their particular interpretation of god, they have less and less functions for him as science unravels how the universe actually works. God is “God of the gaps” and the gaps are closing.

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

That argument would have some validity if all religious people did this. Given that some religions actually proscribe any form of prosyletisation that is easily disproven.

Point 1.

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

Point 2

Because a religion doesn’t call door to door doesn’t mean that the don’t brain wash their children.

Point 3

The vast majority of people who ever lived subscribed to the religion of their parents. Is this a co-incidence? All these beliefs are contradictory. It would be a doubly amazing thing if people believed in the religion of their parents based on reasoning, logic and evidence and yet by co-incidence came to the same conclusions as their parents BUT all the other children of parents of different religions came via the same reasoning logic and evidence to belive in the religion of their parents which are completly different. Brain washing children is what is behind it.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

I’ll take this as another insult as no doubt it was intended to be and also ignore it.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

The above is just an insult so I will skip it.

No, it was not an insult, this is:

You are an idiot, you call yourself a "sceptic" because it validates your sense of yourself as an intelligent person who relies on logical thought, yet you merely assume you are right and that logic would provide the same answer and that you are hence logical. This kind of thinking is foolish and often dangerous.

unless he can be 1 person, 2 people or 5,000 people, a cat, or the King of Egypt at the same time,

That would hardly be a unique view of divity. The idea that any given religious teaching is but a reflexion of a greater truth and that other religions also reflect that truth can be found in Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism and Bahá'i; and hence God can be 1 person, 2 people, 5,000 people, a cat, and the King of Egypt at the same time.

not to mention being on both sides in a war.

Hey, if America can provide both sides of a war with arms, why can't God?

E. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland would reject that E. meant above the god they believe in.

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland wouldn't have the same beliefs about divinity as I do, yet I am a religious man.
Indeed Einstein goes much further than I ever would in saying "What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."

I do not think E. believed in God as most people would define God.

Well once you go out to "most people" you've got a pretty nebulous idea of God. Some statistics would indicate that the most prayed-to deity is Ganesh, by which standard the religious views of Einstein and "the vast majority or religious people in Ireland" (why did you even use that as a standard for the beliefs of a man from a German Jewish background anyway?) seem pretty close (Granted, other statistics indicate it is Jehovah/Allah).

Einstein directly compared his beliefs with those of Spinoza. Are you going to try to tell us that Spinoza was an atheist? That Spinoza didn't influence the beliefs of a large number of people, most of whom would consider themselves to be either Christians or Jews, and indeed has been an influence behind entire spiritual movements (the Christian Transcendentalists in particular)?

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

That’s true, but using a religious metaphor doesn’t prove someone believes in god which is what you were arguing. I often say, "Jesus" when I drop something on my foot, but I don't believe he exists.

I didn't seek to prove Einstein was religious at that point, just debunk your using it in arguing that he wasn't. For goodness sake, Einstein didn't just say "god" in passing one day, he wrote frequently and eloquently about his religious beliefs. In particular he wrote frequently on the very subject of this poll - whether religious belief is reconcilable with scepticism, and he very strongly argued that it could.

Newton was a rebel against the current orthodoxy is all I was saying. He was a Skeptic.

Newton was a sceptic, he was also a believer in god, astrology and a practiced occultist.

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Have you something against Statistics?

No, I'm just saying that it is perfectly in line with a sceptical and scientific use of statistics to declare something "unlikely". However declaring something "unlikely" in a "hard" science is just opinion, not science and not sceptical.

I cannot go around believing in everything that I am told by other people. I think it is perfectly logical and reasonable to decide to believe in that which has evidence and logic. God fails both. I think there is a small probability that there is a god but it is a very very small probability. God doesn’t exist; people just say that there is one. Therefore it’s up to them to prove it.

"Burden of proof" only lies with one side or another in a court of law, which does not seek to determine the exact nature of things, but to dispense justice as best it can for the benefit of society.

In science the burden on proof is on whoever makes a claim. The only position on divinity that is fully justified from an sceptical perspective is agnosticism.

When you claim there is no deities you have to either prove this or concede that you have to proofs and are offering only opinion, just as I do when I claim that there is.

God is “God of the gaps” and the gaps are closing.

Janus is screwed then!

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

That's an interesting and statistic with a large number of digits after the decimal point, I'm sure you can cite a source.

Because a religion doesn’t call door to door doesn’t mean that the don’t brain wash their children.

Granted, some religions ban prosyletising to members of other faiths, but not to one's own children, Bahá'i would be an example.

The vast majority of people who ever lived subscribed to the religion of their parents.

This is also true of many atheists, who either teach their children atheism because it is what they believe to be true, or because that atheism is part of a wider philosophy that prosyletises it's views, such as Marxist Dialetical Materialism.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

I’ll take this as another insult as no doubt it was intended to be and also ignore it.

Well your reasoning for arguing Einstein wasn't religious seems to be:

1. Einstein is very smart
2. I am very smart
3. Therefore Einstein agrees with me

Which is frankly dumb.

williamgrogan

You call yourself a "sceptic" because it validates your sense of yourself as an intelligent person who relies on logical thought

Wrong. The reason I call myself a Skeptic (I don’t really but lets simplify things) is because the various Skeptics associations seem to have similar positions on matters that I have.

If god can be anything that anyone decides that he can be, then by definition he is nothing, e.g. because we call a thing that looks like a cat, mews, puts hair all over the place a cat and not god. If god is indistinguishable from cats then he doesn’t exist as a separate entity. In fact most religious people are quite dogmatic on EXACTLY what god is. There have been major splits in Christianity not to mention wars, burnings and torture based on whether there are three “(virtual) gods” in one or just one.

The fact that all the people who believe in god differ as to what that means, means that it means nothing. What is really happening is that people have the capacity to believe in things that have no evidence, proof or logic and then try, as you are, to justify their illogical & irrational beliefs.

The answer to the question, “what is the meaning of a human’s life”, is evolution and nothing else. At least not until someone comes up with some further proof or evidence.

Einstein was not religious in the acceptable sense of what that means to most people in the world.

People do not “pray-to god”. There is no god so whatever they do its not praying TO anything.

"Burden of proof" only lies with one side or another in a court of law

No it doesn’t. I & presumably everyone else have to make decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. I agree I cannot be 100% sure of anything so I must decide based on probability.

The only position on divinity that is fully justified from an sceptical perspective is agnosticism.

I disagree, I do not say that I don’t know if there is a god or not. I say that there is no evidence of any description that there is a god/s, most of the people who put forward the notion of a god are religious because of the accident of their birth in time & location, everyone who believes in him disagrees as to what he is, there is no logic in the proposition, no predictions, contradictions galore, he has no function and therefore with a very high degree of probability does not exist.

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

That's an interesting and statistic with a large number of digits after the decimal point, I'm sure you can cite a source.

What percentage of all the children in the world say for the last 2000 years were thought the religion of their parents? I estimate it is between 99% and 99.999%. Telling a child whose capacity for critical thinking that the world was made by your version of god is forcing religion upon him. I do not think it’s important whether the figure is 95%, 99% or 99.999% because I am making the point in support of my contention that people are mainly the religion of their parents AND that the reason they are is that they were “programmed” into the religion before their brains developed the ability to question this teaching. In the main people believe in their version of god because of brain washing and not logic and evidence. Even the “ability” to believe such nonsense must be something that is brainwashed.

This is also true of many atheists, who either teach their children atheism

I reject this argument. How can you teach Atheism? Can you teach say non-Catholic Atheism and non-Hindu Atheism? Do I teach my children that the King of Egypt is not god nor his cat is? There are thousands of superstitions. Do I have time to teach my children the opposite to all these superstitions? I agree I do not teach my children religion, but then what religion would I teach them? Perhaps pick one at random?

I dislike being called an Atheist as this defines me as the opposite to something. I am not an Atheist. Other people are Theists.

I DO teach my children a little about Science but even religious people don’t have a problem about that (generally speaking).

Well your reasoning for arguing Einstein wasn't religious seems to be:

Einstein is very smart
I am very smart
Therefore Einstein agrees with me

Which is frankly dumb.

You are wrong again. I certainly do not need Einstein to be religious or not as regards what I believe. Presumably you are not suggesting that if I discovered that Einstein was a religious fanatic that I would then believe in God? This would be true if your above statement was correct.

Whether Einstein was religious or not is actually irrelevant. He was wrong about aspects of Quantum Mechanics and possibly many other matters.

God cannot be pulled into existence based on your faulty logic or for that matter by dishing out childish insults.

Whether I am an idiot or not has no bearing on the existence of god. God does not exist. It’s got nothing to do with me.

Whatever your definition of an idiot is, I am inclined to believe that those who believe in witchcraft would probably qualify first.