Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
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.

Sharing the conclusions and positions of sceptics on various matters obviously doesn't make one a sceptic so I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate upon your simplification.

I think it would also be helpful if you shared any other simplifications you make in your arguments, such as your narrow view of what god is. I realise that you've explained your position and that's fine, but it isn't helpful when putting your point across to make the assumption that god = personal god, especially since that assumption seems to have little effect upon your own views. (However, I'd note that it reveals evidence of a certain bias).

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.

And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

You are wrong again. I certainly do not need Einstein to be religious or not as regards what I believe.

I cited Einstein originally here along with some others, and merely as a counter example to your assertion that anyone who believes in the scientific method could not consistently believe in God. (which was why I cited Descartes' method since it promotes both. How well it does that is another argument of course).

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.

You've had a few nasty things said about you which is unfortunate, but these things can happen when you come in all guns blazing with talk of 'brainwashing', 'feeble-mindedness' and similar. Once again I would suggest that you adopt the highest standard of argument that you are capable of, rather than resort to attacking anyone's religion directly and unsceptically, or assume that anyone who believes differently to you is incapable of posing any sort of valid argument. (even if you believe that, actually saying it reveals that you're at an immediate weakness when attempting such arguments).

Finally, if people are inclined to believe what their parents believe without questioning, then I find that unfortunate, but I do agree that it happens. However, I have known and met several people who have adopted various religions that were not what their parents had thought them, for various reasons that may or may not meet with someone else's selection criteria for "what to believe" and "what not to believe", but disproof of those beliefs is no more possible than it is for anyone to prove to you that God exists. I respect (and share) your disbelief in the existence of god, but until you can provide a scientific test one way or another, then the lack of proof for one standpoint is no better than the lack of proof for the other standpoint. Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

williamgrogan

A quick definition of a Skeptic (spelt that way) is someone who seeks to find evidence and proof before accepting something as true. Therefore Skeptics tend to disbelieve many commonly held ideas that are not based on evidence and proof such as CAM, luck, UFO’s=Aliens, the supernatural and I would argue religion. That after all is what this thread is about. Skeptics question things. There are thousands of different ideas that are commonly held that have no basis in fact. Under that definition I am a Skeptic.

I suspect that there are traits and therefore genes that make certain people more skeptical than others. Likewise I suspect that there are genes or groups of genes that make people more likely to believe in things without evidence. I admit it, my mother used to call me “Doubting Thomas”. There is hard science to back this up.
I cannot see much of a difference between believing in Astrology, Homeopathy, faith healing or that god exists. I don’t even think “a personal god” means anything. The fact that the “god” superstition is a “bigger” issue than water divining is not relevant to whether it’s true or not. It is perfectly possible to fool most of the people all of the time.

If god does not exist or one does not believe that god exists it is a perfectly valid discussion to enquire as to why people believe in him. The fact that such a discussion annoys people is not relevant to the discussion itself and the points raised during the discussion. In fact why people get annoyed is the basis of another perfectly valid discussion.

People may get insulted that you say that they believe in say the Islamic God because they were brainwashed into believing it as children but I defy you to argue that this is untrue. The evidence is there. It is patently obvious for reasons I already stated. Either all Muslims are brainwashed or it is an amazing coincidence that 99% of Muslims have Muslim parents. The exceptions you mentioned may be Skeptics?
If one defines god as most people do then I do not believe there is such a thing and I don’t believe there is any evidence for it. On the contrary there is a great deal of evidence, logic and the accidents of history that can explain why people believe in god.

If you define god as beauty or wonder or order in the universe then I don’t really think that means a lot and isn’t a definition of god that means anything. Order=order, beauty=beauty, cat=cat.

I think many people start off religious and then realize that religious organizations are obviously illogical and decide against them but then still hang on to the basic idea that there is a god. In a sense those people haven’t quite finished thinking about the matter. Gods that do not involve themselves in mundane matters like their followers violence but do start the universe are “cop out” gods.
And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

Fine. Throw it at me. What’s the evidence?

………..Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

I do not “disrespect belief in God” any more than I disrespect belief that certain numbers are lucky or unlucky in the Lotto or copper bracelets ward off illness. I believe that there is little of no chance there is a god, if that annoys people I must ask why?

A more interesting question is why do people feel insulted when you question the basis for their belief? And they certainly do.

Maybe its time for the religious skeptics to ask themselves why they get upset when their beliefs are challenged. I don’t ask this frivolously. I genuinely would like to know.

There is a biological puzzle here. Why did humans evolve they way they did? Why is superstition a trait that evolved? It is possible to imagine a world where the intelligent species are coldly logical and never in their history believed in gods. The Vulcans?

sextusempiricus

Perhaps it was a mistake to start this thread now that the discussion has become so heated. At least the debaters in Hume's 'Dialogues' (published 1779) discussing the attributes of a the deity enlightened their statements with some wit and humour (particularly the sceptical Philo).

The immunologist Sir Peter Medawar has written:

'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer. These are the questions that children ask- the "ultimate questions" of Karl Popper. I have in mind such questions as:
How did everything begin?
What are we all here for?
What is the point of living?
Doctrinaire positivism- now something of a period piece- dismissed all such questions as nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans of one kind or another profess to be able to answer. This peremptory dismissal leaves one empty and dissatisfied because the questions make sense to those who ask them; but whatever else may be in dispute, it would be universally agreed that it is not to science that we should look for answers.'
("The Limits of Science" Peter Medawar, Oxford University Press. 1984)

I accept perhaps a majority find satisfactory answers to such questions in their religion. I'm happy enough to accept our universe and our place in it as a mystery and get on with more important questions to think about; ones that can actually be answered or tested such as 'are large doses of vitamin C a protection from the common cold?' Much more interesting.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
People may get insulted that you say that they believe in say the Islamic God because they were brainwashed into believing it as children but I defy you to argue that this is untrue.

I have no interest in trying to prove any such thing. I have already stated that I believe that some people blindly accept the doctrines of their parents. I'm interested in the people that don't.

The evidence is there. It is patently obvious for reasons I already stated. Either all Muslims are brainwashed or it is an amazing coincidence that 99% of Muslims have Muslim parents. The exceptions you mentioned may be Skeptics?

The specific exceptions that I cited are people who are religious, but are not believers in their parents faith (or people who disbelieved and then came to believe later based upon a re-examination). Or perhaps you realised this and you are calling these religious people skeptics now?

And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

Fine. Throw it at me. What’s the evidence?

I think you missed the point of that particular statement. I was specifically referring to things that are not provable and I have no evidence to offer you.

………..Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

I do not “disrespect belief in God” any more than I disrespect belief that certain numbers are lucky or unlucky in the Lotto or copper bracelets ward off illness. I believe that there is little of no chance there is a god, if that annoys people I must ask why?

You didn't mention if you accept the first statement or not.

But ok, if you do not disrespect such beliefs, why do you express annoyance that a certain scientist is religious, and why do you use the phrases that you do? 'feeble-minded', 'brainwashed' etc do not seem to be words that one would use about someone the respect. You specifically said that anyone who was religious wouldn't be capable of posing a good argument to you.

A more interesting question is why do people feel insulted when you question the basis for their belief? And they certainly do.

That is an interesting question, and some people certainly are insulted by such questioning. I would suggest that such people are not very confident in their beliefs (but that's just a guess). I'm not sure where it comes in here though, since it's certainly possible to question such beliefs in a far less insulting manner than you have.

There is a biological puzzle here. Why did humans evolve they way they did? Why is superstition a trait that evolved? It is possible to imagine a world where the intelligent species are coldly logical and never in their history believed in gods. The Vulcans?

I'm whimsically inclined to point out to you that we have no evidence for the existence of Vulcans ...

As a serious answer, all that is true is not provable or deducible from first principles in a logical way. Logic is fundamentally limited in this regard. Humans arrive at true conclusions every day through intuition and we get by on this basis reasonably well. Stopping to think and criticise every little aspect of our lives would simply take too much time and cripple us (and would be ultimately futile). Unfortunately, our intuition can let us down and lead to us being conned or believing in things which are untrue. Overall it works well enough to let us get through the day and function in society.

williamgrogan

How did everything begin?

What this question meant hundreds of years ago is different from what is meant by it today. If the people who first asked this question were to know what we now know about biology, chemistry & physics, evolution, the formation of the planets, creation of elements in stars, creation of the stars and the big bang they probably would feel we had the answer. I do not accept that science cannot answer this. It is answering it. In 2003 it has answered it fairly fully and in 2103 it may explain the big bang and what it exists in or whatever.

What are we all here for?

DNA.

What is the point of living?

DNA. (+Personally speaking, horse racing, reading, etc.)

In my opinion there are no limits to science except in time, i.e. just what we currently know.

I believe that some people blindly accept the doctrines of their parents

…..or most people?

I think you are not being honest in a couple of comments you made which seem to downplay the relationship between someone’s religion and the religion of their parents.

Finally, if people are inclined to believe what their parents believe without questioning, then I find that unfortunate, but I do agree that it happens.

It happens or is it what mainly happens?

It is a very important distinction. I am saying, and maybe this bit is causing offense, that people are mainly the religion they are because of what their parents were and not via any investigation or analysis or evidence or re-examination. Maybe people find this insulting when you point out that their strongly held religious beliefs are actually 99% related to the fact that they were born in a particular place and time. But that is a fact. Can facts be insulting?

I'm interested in the people that don't.

Each of them has to be looked at individually. They do fall into groups though. There are those that become more religious within their parent’s religion, e.g. charismatics, neo- Neo-Catechumenists, nuns etc.

A gay organization claims that a quarter of London vicars are gay, about 10 times the population average. Why?

Then there are those that wander about in similar religions, say Church of Ireland into Anglicism or Ch. of Ireland into Catholicism as many are doing because of homophobia. Very little difference here with their parents religion.

Then there are those who “find Jesus”. Jehovah Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons etc.. Very often they are religious to start with but go through a stressful experience, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, job loss etc.. You often hear “born again” types speak of their evil past. W. Bush is an example. I think it is far more common than you would imagine.

A lot of people are easily conned, as we all know. Look at Scientology, a religion started by a SF writer in the 50’s and based on the notion that we have aliens in our heads. Millions of people have paid this organization up to £20,000 for “auditing” sessions.

Obviously those that drop religion altogether may just learn that it just doesn’t make sense.

As an aside, there is a friend of mine who like me is non-religious but he is not scientifically inclined. I have often said that I have spent decades reading science to disprove god and he hasn’t and I once asked him why he no longer believed in god and he said, “why should I?”

You have me at a disadvantage, you refer to friends of yours but I know nothing of their background or why they have changed.

If you disagree with someone you can’t just say “it’s not provable”.

I claim again that it is possible to prove that the belief in god is wrong and explain why people believe in her.

You didn't mention if you accept the first statement or not.

You ask can I disprove God exists. Obviously the first thing is your are going to have to define what you mean by “God” or I cannot begin to disprove it.

Did I say “feeble-minded”?

I don’t believe that I questioned anyone’s beliefs in an insulting manner. I maintain that if people are insulted it might come about because they don’t like what they are hearing. I am well aware of the concept of “respecting everyone’s opinion”, its very PC at present. However, that doesn’t mean respecting the opinion itself. You can respect the person but hate the opinion.

Aside: I spoke to demonstrators in Memphis a couple of years ago. They were protesting about a Blues Festival, hundreds of them. The devils music, that type of thing. One of them insisted that the Sun went around the Earth, he said to me, “ya can see it going around the Earth!”

ecksor

This is getting nowhere, so I'll make some clarifications and closing remarks.

I'm happy to change that sentence to read 'most' instead of 'some', or explain/elaborate upon any sentences that you feel misrepresent connections between religion and family if you specify which of them you mean.

This is beside the point though. Picking the term 'mutually exclusive' out of the thread title, the natural course of argument is to attempt to find apparently sceptical people who also believe in god and examine those positions. You are specifically picking upon the people who can easily be shown to be non-sceptical. If we only ever consider those people, then you can never be proved wrong. You have dismissed well known examples by redefining terms. I'd attempt to narrow in on a definition of god for you, but firstly you equate god with personal god, and then you claim that it doesn't actually matter if you make that equation or not. Exactly what good a specific definition would do is unclear.

Apologies for incorrectly attributing the phrase 'feeble-minded' to you. You said that religion was a crutch, and I para-phrased.

I claim again that it is possible to prove that the belief in god is wrong and explain why people believe in her.

And when we have a test for it, then it will rightfully become a scientific question. Whether such a test is possible or plausible must be answered by the philosophers.

If you disagree with someone you can’t just say “it’s not provable”.

I don't see why not. If something is not provable either way, then argument is futile. It is at this point that I would agree to disagree with someone who has an opposite belief.

Finally, the reasons you have for not believing in God, or more accurately, the absense of reason for believing in God is something you keep repeating. You are just one specific case, as am I. Continual reference to one specific case that fits the model you subscribe to isn't useful. One counter-example of a sceptical person who believes in God is all that's needed to solve the question posed by the topic.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Maybe its time for the religious skeptics to ask themselves why they get upset when their beliefs are challenged. I don’t ask this frivolously. I genuinely would like to know.

I do not get upset when by beliefs are challenged. There are two things in this thread though that I do get upset about. One is untruth presented as fact, whether through ignorance or deliberate deceit. Einstein was a deeply religious man (indeed I would never say the things he said about atheists - I have far more respect for atheism and atheists than he) saying otherwise is simply an untruth, and I have "brought forth the proofs" (using an Islamic expression of the sceptical burder for deliberate comic value - don't read too much into it) for that, though there are plenty more (he really did write a lot about his faith).

Another thing I get upset about is irrational beliefs presented as rational.
Now my religious beliefs are clearly irrational, and even if I have had personal experiences that may strengthen my personal conviction in those beliefs those experiences are in themselves irrational and there is no rational basis on which I can offer proof to another of them, nor for that matter that I can prove completely to myself that there is not a rational explanation that goes counter to my experiences (unlikely but still possible coincidences, hallucinations, wishful thinking, etc.).
As such there is no sceptical justification for my beliefs - I have to either abandon them or concede that they are not something to which I am applying sceptical thought (or at least not depending on sceptical thought alone when considering them).

Agnosticism is a religious stance that can be purely justified on sceptical grounds. Literally it of course means "not knowing" and in this context that you don't know whether there is a god or not, and by extension that you do not know whether various other things are true such as the existence of the summerlands/heaven/valhalla, the need for a particular figure as a personal saviour, the inevitability of judgement, the operation of Karma, etc.
This is the position that requires no proofs, and indeed the position that those of us with a religious belief must take when engaged in a scientific endevour (we might base a hypothesis on a mere hunch, but become agnostic when testing it).

Atheism - the belief that there is no God is not justifiable purely on sceptical grounds. Leaving aside belief systems which are atheistic but which do entail belief in some unprovable or unproven concepts (Buddhism, Dialectic Materialism) and taking the simple statement "there is no god" on its own, where is the proof?

This does not invalidate atheism, but without proof it is no more justifiable on sceptical grounds than any other religious belief. Even claims that the existence of God is unlikely is not justifiable on sceptical grounds - there is no data on which to determine the likelihood of Deities existing.

Why do I care about this? Historically presenting religious beliefs, including atheism, as rationally justified has gone hand in hand with the persecution of other beliefs and with the very same brainwashing complained of in this thread. Whether it is the Catholic Church using Anselm's Argument or Communists using historical materialism, these claims are dangerous.

Typedef

From the strictest point of view, in terms of logical propositions, god has not been proved to exist.

Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

In such propositions of logic, the owness is not on the observer to disprove 'anything'. In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

In the strictest sense of boolean logic, god is an invalid proposition.

Sure maybe people have all sorts of personal allegories for god and all sorts of ideas for what god is, but, in the world of logic or science, god is still not proved. One could say "I don't know for sure the universe doesn't stand on top of a giant turtle", but, there is no rational path that would lead one to any such conclusion, so the proposition is invalid, it is for all intents and purposes, rhetoric.

I used to be an agnostic, but, exposure to the rigorous standards of logic, precludes agnosticism, god is not proved, therefore god does not exist.

There are many societally imposed constrains on predicating agnosticsm to atheism as above, but, I would accept the general proposition that an organism is a product of it's environment as is a person and that the majority of deity belief is in fact merely a society imposed, highly predicated value-set (aka belief), similar to other standards of social discourse, wearing clothes and use of language appropiately, for example.

If by sceptic, one means a person who only accepts what has been proved and challenges what has been said to be 'proved', until the proof stands or falls, then yes, being a sceptic excludes acceptence of the existence of a deity or at least places a deity as the reason for the universe much lower on the list of possible logical conclusions, then say any number of current popular quantum/theoretical physics theories on the start of the universe.

Holding up my hands though, my parents are both lapsed-Catholic-atheists, unlike their god fearing parents. My parents remembered the 60s and 70s and thus were products of their environments. I entirely accept that my ... well... belief in (from what I call fact) in systems of logic, is in reality subjective, since my background precludes me as being 'exactly' the sort of person who would grow up, not believing in god, so maybe I've been brainwashed into believing I'm rational (there must be elements of truth in that), even though, my ideas of the universe are all proven.

That's a long winded way of saying people are products of their environment and that as science advances, human civilisation is shirking one set of beliefs (which are becoming increasingly out of kilter with observed 'proven' facts) for another set of beliefs, which is based on scientific method. The fact is, that most people don't examine, their belief or disbelief in god, it' simply a fact of life in that particular person's environment.

On this point, many psychologists would propose that if a child belives in god at the age of 12 (when one goes through a process called individuation) that one is highly likely to hold on to this belief (the collorary hold true also), not based on rationale, but based on one's own ideas of self and individuality (things which are instinct driven as opposed to intelligence driven).

So you don't believe in god at 12, you're highly like not to ever believe in god and vice versa.

http://www.wynja.com/personality/jungarchf.html

Talliesin

Originally posted by Typedef
From the strictest point of view, in terms of logical propositions, god has not been proved to exist.

Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

This I agree with.

In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

"Not proved" yes, "invalid and false" no.
Would you say that string theory is invalid and false?
Would you say that 10 years ago Fermats Theorem was invalid and false?

ecksor

Originally posted by Typedef
Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

Yes.

In such propositions of logic, the owness is not on the observer to disprove 'anything'. In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

No. Such a proposition is undecided until either proved or disproved, (or a counter-example is given, which doesn't quite fit into propositional calculus I think, but I can't help mentioning it anyway ). What's more, calling it false is no more correct than calling it true. There are propositions in any given logical system which are undecidable, as was proved by Kurt Godel in 1931.

As I've said a few times on this thread, all that is true is not provable ...

Typedef

Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no system can ever be complete, since it cannot accuretly describe itself in a state of error, thus it is an incomplete system.

Would you say that string theory is invalid and false?

Until it is proved (within reason) it is at best, a theory and lies in a state of 0, in boolean terms, we haven't hit it's base case, so in the strictest sense, yes it is false, until proved elsewise, since in a logical porposition, it cannot evaluate to a true base case through predicated logical steps.

That's a bit of bait though.

Considering the number of false propositions that have been proved to have occured 'elsewhere' when 'god' was in bygone times used as the reason behind many happenings, I would say the likelyhood of 'god' being proved as a 'true' theorem, as against string theory being proved as a 'true' theorem, are quite low.

I suppose for a 10,000 year old theorm, which has thousands of different forms (all of which can be shown to have serious flaws), the god theorm for the origins of the universe, is quite long lasting. I guess when one continually changes the goalposts on a theorm and discounts evidence to the contrary (like dinosaurs and such), it is possible to continually trumpet theorem (x) in perpetuity, but, on that note, I'd be highly sceptical of the god theorm.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Typedef
Until it is proved (within reason) it is at best, a theory and lies in a state of 0, in boolean terms

Null would be a better value that 0.

Myksyk

This is an interesting discussion but I'm not sure we haven't strayed substantially from the initial question which asked if skepticism and belief in god are mutually exclusive. This is not asking if they are consistent necessarily, just mutually exclusive.

I think it is clear that people can believe in god, deistically or theistically, and still be appropriately skeptical and critical about any number of issues. This may or may not betray a certain level of inconsistency but it hardly excludes the person from being described as skeptical.

For example, the author Kenneth Miller who wrote 'Finding Darwin's God' executed a brilliant defence of Darwinism against creationist fundamentalist nonsense in a riveting read which was scientifically erudite, critical and deeply skeptical of the creationist position. The fact that one may disagree with one of his theses, i.e. the possibility of a personal god, can be argued to be to some degree, beside the point; or at least a different point. And perhaps this is the kernel of the matter. We may have an easier time being appropriately skeptical of some ideas than others, (presumably a fairly normal feature of the human condition).

Embracing skepticism means a willingness to critically analyse and question all ideas and practices and a desire to develop critical thinking skills. It does not necessarily mean the wholesale and immediate abandonment of one's belief and opinions. Nor, by the way, does it mean the immediate acceptance of a scientific/naturalistic view of the world. It may or may not lead too this positon but that is not a foregone conclusion. So while skepticism forms part of the bedrock of science it is not the exclusive intellectual property of science.

Skepticism usually brings people through a long process of examination of cherished views and beliefs. This process may take years or perhaps a lifetime and does not have a definitive end point which marks the person out as having achieved 'skepticism'. As Susan Rama pointed out to James Randi and Michael Shermer in a letter to 'SKEPTIC' recently, people who are willing to drop long-held beliefs without deep critical analysis are hardly the type of people we want championing the skeptical cause.

Presumably therefore one can curently hold many 'unscientific' beliefs and still be appropriately described as skeptical. This would suggest that belief in God and skepticism are not mutually exclusive at any given time in this process of examination.

sextusempiricus

williamgrogan makes some interesting replies to my 'ultimate questions'.

'What are we all here for?

DNA.

What is the point of living?

DNA. (+Personally speaking, horse racing, reading, etc.)

In my opinion there are no limits to science except in time, i.e. just what we currently know.'

I guess DNA is important. About 60 % of my genes are basically the same as found in a fruit fly and my knowledge of 'ultimate questions' is just about the same as a fruit fly's. The concept of God is not one upon which can be scientifically investigated.
The so-called proofs don't hold water and are logically flawed. As the concept has no empirical content it is not scientifically testable. People will often seek peace of mind
by seeking some kind of answers to 'first and final questions' in their religion. This is a matter of faith. I don't (probably like my relation the fruit fly) have a faith like this. I can of course look for contradictions in the theist's beliefs. I can also ask what would for the theist be a disproof of God's existence. Sometimes I feel that theists are too caught up in 'doublethink' to reject the idea of a loving God even in the face of a heartless and indifferent world. This has nothing to do with science however.

Sceptics accept that even if knowledge is not impossible it is at least very difficult to get. We have the imagination (sadly absent in my winged friend ) to state what might be the case and can subject our theories to rigorous testing. We can see if our theories fit the facts.
Such an atitude does not exclude those that believe in a deity. Profession of atheism doesn't of course preclude pseudo science. What about Lysenko's ideas in the USSR of Stalin re the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Sceptics have to be on their guard wherever dubious claims are put forward although that might neccessitate more than a little courage in the face of political incarceration in a latter day equivalent to a Siberian prison camp.

Limits to science can occur through failure of nerve, political oppression, lack of imagination, human extinction in a nuclear wasteland or whatever.

williamgrove's interests that give point to his life fail to include being arguementative. I'm sure he is a great assett to the Irish Sceptics Society's debates.
If he didn't exist I'm sure, to paraphrase Voltaire, he would have to be invented!

williamgrogan

I'm waiting on someone to define god so I can disprove him. (While you are at it can you give him a name so when referring to him that we know that we are not referring to all the other gods/goddesses.)

Thanks.

sextusempiricus

Here is a parable you might be interested in.
Two explorers came across a jungle clearing in which there grew a lot of flowers and a good few weeds. One of the explorers said, "Some gardener must tend this plot" The other, a williamgrogan-type person perhaps, disagreed but being scientifically inclined suggested that they set up a watch from the thicket to see if a gardener appeared. They didn't see the gardener and our first explorer suggested that the gardener may be invisible. The two set up a barbed wire fence, electrified it and, recalling that H.G.Well's 'Invisible Man' could be both smelt and touched, had the area patrolled with bloodhounds. There were no cries of pain to suggest that an intruder had received an electric shock or pricked himself on barbed wire. The bloodhounds didn't bay or vigorously sniff at an invisible intruder. The Believer was still not convinced that there was no gardener insisting that he was invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks and without a scent and that he still came to the clearing to tend the garden he loved. The williamgrogan-type loosing his patience with his friend hotly responded,"What remains of your original assertion? How does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

Whilst they continue to disagree about the existence of this mysterious gardener to this day they are in absolute agreement that large doses of Vitamin C are not a protection from the common cold and amicably support the Irish Skeptic's society.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I'm waiting on someone to define god so I can disprove him. (While you are at it can you give him a name so when referring to him that we know that we are not referring to all the other gods/goddesses.)

Thanks.

I don't consider definitions important. That is merely replacing one word with a lot of words each of which may have to be further defined. This leads to an infinite regress that gets nowhere. To talk about God in any meaningful way presumably means that one can give him attributes viz 'All powerful, loving, good etc'. Whilst such statements are not subject to scientific scrutiny in a way williamgrogan would like we can look for consistency of such attributes with the the presence of evil. As my previous parable hopefully made clear believers may try and further qualify their original assertion by claims that He works in mysterious ways. This is hardly convincing.

williamgrogan

Here is a parable you might be interested in.

One of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by “explaining” via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

The problem with Skeptics believing in God is that they then have a major problem arguing against Faith Healing, Reiki, Spiritualism, Physic Healing, Mediums etc.. In fact if someone simply says that, “I believe that Acupuncture cured me”, how can you say that just because they believe it, it may not be true, if this is the only argument you yourself have for your god?

In fact what a Religious Skeptic (an OxyMORON?) is saying is that he must be allowed to believe in his superstitions but others cannot believe in theirs.

Defining God

There are two approaches.

1/ The person proposing that there is a god proves it or
2/ They demand I disprove it.

I have no problem with option 2 (as religious people have failed with option 1), but I cannot disprove god until I know what it is you think it/him/her/them is/are/were/did? I need a definition, otherwise when I am finishing disproving him, you will just change the goalposts and I’ll have to start again.

It is bizarre to argue that you will not define god because, “…is merely replacing one word with a lot of words…”. Have you something against words? Is there a word shortage?

ecksor

The parable didn't try to prove anything, it asked interesting questions about your stance that you completely dismissed. He even seems to share your beliefs, but has put the argument on a surer framework than you have attempted to. You don't believe in god, which is fine. I'm not sure if you've quite grasped that most people here are not trying to convince you of the existence of god, merely to show that a sceptical argument can't really say anything useful about the situation one way or another (not yet anyway).

williamgrogan

The parable didn't try to prove anything

I didn't say it did. I just pointed out that it is very often used to try and do so.

I'm not sure if you've quite grasped that most people here are not trying to convince you of the existence of god,

I didn't say they were.

We are debating whether or not a Skeptic can be religious. You either believe in evidence, logic, proof or not. You can't pick and choose which superstition to believe in and which to reject. Either everything is up for grabs or nothing is. Simply saying that Science cannot investigate something as a way to "kick it to touch" because it upsets people is unacceptable and "unprofessional" and obviously a cop out.

I have often noticed that believers in one superstition often "respect" the "beliefs" of others. They have to, don't they?

To believe that god kicked off the big bang but argue that he doesn't cure people at Lourdes is illogical.

....merely to show that a sceptical argument can't really say anything useful about the situation one way or another

I obviously disagree with that point. Science can understand why people believe in god and other superstitions. It can be studied and researched.

However, suggesting that we analyse ourselves seems to annoy people or to suggest that the reason they believe in silly things is because of a failure in their programming.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by williamgrogan
One of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by “explaining” via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

Firstly, Ecksor, is right that I have no religious beliefs. The parable was first narrated by philosopher John Wisdom and used by atheist Antony Flew to attack theological statements. I hope I'm not out to hoodwink anyone.

A scientific theory that attempts to explain everything will explain nothing. If it is to be useful a theory must exclude some possibilty otherwise it is not testable. An explanation of the cause of the universe seems to my humble mind to be the ultimate folly. It is certain to waste a lot of time which can be fruitfully spent perhaps on more down to earth subjects such as attacking the claims of alternative medicine. Even the search for a "unified field theory", surely a scientific enterprise more worthy of pursuit, has turned out to be a scientific "holy grail" (this is a metaphor not an oxymoron). Hermann Bondi has rightly pointed out the dangers of the lure for complete explanations (see his comments in 'The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance' p5).

On definitions and especially their unimportance in science see Sir Karl Popper's 'The Open Society and its Enemies' Vol 1, p32

ecksor

I didn't say it did. I just pointed out that it is very often used to try and do so.

If it isn't what you were saying or suggesting then I don't know why you mentioned it. The latest in your long lines of prejudices (God = Personal god, belief is sillly, God is the god that was allegedly seen at Lourdes, etc) perhaps. The comment was a poor smokescreen to the issues it raised. Stop fogging the issue.

The title of this thread cites 'Belief in God', not whether you can be religious and skeptical. Only a slight difference, but we should be clear on it.

Let me define God for you as an all-powerful being or collection of beings who created the universe. Nothing more or less. This may or may not be the best of definitions, but if you agree that it's a suitable definition then please present your disproof.

I have no idea whatsoever what such a being would be or how it would manifest itself either inside or outside of our universe, or if 'outside of our universe' even makes sense.

I also challenge you to specifically assert that you don't believe anything that hasn't been proved to you.

Lastly, you obviously do not believe in a god, do you believe that a god as I defined above definitely does not exist?

Capt'n Midnight

I love the word theroy - if you can prove something it is not a theroy ! - It's only a theory if you can DISprove it.

And it ain't science if you can't reproduce the results. Unlike many other belief systems Science can't explain everything - but it excels at explaining some things.

And people can use many belief systems at the same time - even inconsistant and imcopatible ones. There are people who believe in christanity AND horoscopes AND follow politics AND hold views on environmental issues and equality while driving cars and using more resources than many third world villages some would also be interested in Science and a further subset would believe in things that others would be skeptical of...

So living in a complex society allows people to handle many different mind sets and use the one appropiate for the situatition.

If you could force someone to examine all of their beliefs closely then it could be interesting ...

ecksor

Originally posted by sextusempiricus
Firstly, Ecksor, is right that I have no religious beliefs.

Nor do I. I don't believe in god. If I could have some proof that my belief was correct, then I'd be very very much happier about my lot in the Universe. My limited knowledge of logic and physics hasn't done much for me except give me more interesting and potentially more consistent ideas with which to consider such an idea. Philosophical arguments and meta-arguments can help to clarify the ideas and perhaps satisfy some people depending on the assumptions they are willing to make, but don't provide a definite answer either. Perhaps I need to study more :dunno:

If williamgrogan is more assured in his beliefs, then more power to him. If he can outdo the various intellectuals cited on this thread and demonstrate a conclusive argument, then I forsee a phenomenal jump in traffic to this website in the near future.

I want to be a scientist. I don't believe in god. I want to be convinced by him, but the fact is that I don't find him convincing. Little wonder that anyone who does believe in god would find his attitude annoying.

ecksor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
If you could force someone to examine all of their beliefs closely then it could be interesting ...

I'd never leave my house.

Myksyk

Just to reiterate the Irish Skeptics Society position on this, the website asks "Are skeptics anti-religious?" and answers as follows:

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.


Just a reminder
:cool:

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Myksyk
For example, claims of statues moving or of miraculous appearances or cures may be challenged.

For the purposes of beatifiation etc. there is no "may" involved , they are indeed challenged vigourously by somone well versed in canon law called the "devil's advocate" for obvious reasons.

williamgrogan

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

I claim this sentence means nothing.

"the realm of science?"

"the non-material world?"

Clichés...........

williamgrogan

Let me define God for you as an all-powerful being or collection of beings who created the universe

OR?

If you don't even know whether god is "an all powerful being" or "a collection of beings" then you don't know even the most basic thing about him/them.

Remember this is not semantics, people let this belief rule their whole lives and unfortunately try and make it rule other peoples lives.

Please define god as something specific that people or at least one person claims to exist. We accept that they cannot prove he/it/them exists but if I am to disprove something they at the very least I can ask that it is something that someone actually believes in.

Myksyk

In my opinion there is very obviously a 'realm of science', outside of which one risks committing what Massiomo Pigliucci (rationalist, skeptic, evolutionary biologist, philosopher of science) calls 'the sin of scientism' ... the idea that everything can be reduced to and answered within a scientific framework.

For example, how does an individual or society decide upon what it accepts as ethical behaviour? How is a moral framework decided? These are questions which at best may be informed by knowledge (perhaps gleaned by science) but not decided upon by science.

If williamgrogan thinks that science alone can give us the answers to all fundamental questions (including, for example, those relating to morality and ethics) he is misguided. Dawkins, for example, proclaims himself a neo-Darwinist when it comes to understanding the evolution of life on earth but an anti-Darwinist when it comes to deciding how society should use this knowledge as a moral compass.

Similarly, Steven Pinker points out the difference between the 'is' of our evolutionary history and the 'ought' of our ethical/moral existence. he gives short shrift to the knowledge that he should be desperately trying to reproduce, driven by the evolutionary history of his genes, in fact he says his genes can 'go jump in the lake'.

Nobel laureate and Human Genome Project leader, John Sulston makes a clear distinction between what science can find out and what is then done with that knowledge. The former is the realm of science, the latter is the realm of society/culture.

So if the question mark at the end of your 'realm of science' comment (was it a comment?) indicates that you are unsure if there is such a thing, I suggest that there obviously is.

With regard to your second 'comment' regarding the non-material world, the point here (obvious I thought) is that if someone wants to believe in such a thing, as they are entitled to do, in the absence of evidence for or against it, then it is not a question that can be debated usefully.

And surely this is the function of a society like the Irish Skeptics; to engage in useful debate about answerable questions. If a question is intrinsically unanswerable to begin with why would one waste time and energy arguing the toss. On the other hand, if this belief leads to claims about 'answerable' questions in the material world then that's a different kettle of fish.