Must skeptics also be atheists (or at least agnostics)?

Great Debates
1

This is an outgrowth of this thread which has, in my opinion, wandered way off course without ever answering the questions posed in the OP.

Now, maybe different people have different ideas of what it means to be a “skeptic.” I submit, though, that a standard definition for the purpose of this discussion would be the following:

And I further hold that this definition applies both to what other people claim to experience and what the skeptic experiences himself first-hand.

Now, assuming this definition is valid (and I grant that it may be flawed), it seems to me that it is therefore impossible for somebody to claim to be a skeptic while also claiming to believe in God, especially when that person also claims that God’s existence cannot be proven through logic or empiricism.

If somebody claims to have had a psychic experience, seen a ghost, or had any other sort of supernatural experience, and is unable to provide any empirical or logical proof of that claim, the claim is rejected by skeptics. It doesn’t matter how fervently the claimant actually believes in what he says, or that he experienced the phenomenon first-hand and is not simply relying on the testimony of others – his claim is rejected by good skeptics everywhere.

Now let’s say a skeptic himself experiences something that appears to be supernatural. Perhaps he sees a blinking light in the sky that appears to move at impossible speeds. Or perhaps he sees what appears to be a ghostly apparition drifting through a deserted graveyard. Or perhaps he has a premonition that ends up coming true. In each case, in spite of the fact that he himself experienced the phenomenon first-hand, a good skeptic is NOT likely to assume that his experience is proof of the supernatural. Instead, he is likely to think that there must be some rational explanation for what he experienced, even if he doesn’t know what that explanation is right now.

In short, the difference between a skeptic and a non skeptic is that a skeptic assumes there is a rational explanation for seemingly irrational experiences, whereas a non-skeptic is willing to ascribe to the supernatural that which he cannot otherwise explain.

So, how can somebody who claims to be a skeptic also claim to believe in God? Indeed, there are many phenomena that cannot be easily explained, including seemingly miraculous events and the feeling of a presence in your mind that seems to be not just you talking to yourself. As with any other seemingly irrational experience, however, a good skeptic should assume that there is a rational (if hidden) explanation for what he saw and/or felt instead of ascribing the experience to a supernatural source.

Is it simply that often the experience in question is internal (e.g., a sense of presence, a deep feeling, etc.) and is therefore somehow outside the realm of logic and empiricism? If so, then why should we be skeptical of people who claim to receive messages from dead people? Yes, it’s easy to trip up people like John Edwards and prove they are lying, but I assume that you would also be skeptical of me if I claimed to receive messages from dead people and simply refused to offer any proof of my claim whatsoever. Also, the world is full of people who have hallucinations, and any good skeptic knows that internal perceptions are not a foolproof measure of validity.

The question is not whether a so-called skeptic can prove that God exists. The question is why a so-called skeptic would be willing to believe that his experiences must prove the existence of God instead of simply being the result of some other rational explanation.

I think that skepticism certainly allows for a belief in the possible existence of God, just as it allows for a belief in the possibility of UFOS, psychic powers, the Loch Ness Monster, and the continued existence of Elvis. But when somebody crosses the line and actually starts believing that God, UFOs, Nessie, ESP and Elvis exist in the absence of any logical or empirical evidence, then I submit the person can no longer be considered skeptical and must be lumped in with the great unwashed mass of gullible humanity.

OK, it’s way too early on a Monday morning to be expending that many brain cells…

Regards,

Barry

2

First of all, the very meaning of the word must be agreed upon. In the consise Oxford, one of the definitions is “a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist”!

Historically (and philosophically) it came to mean “one who denies the possibility of knowledge”, but we would surely all agree that the word has currency outside this narrow epistemiological scope.

The Greek [symbol]skepsis[/symbol] means “inquiry or doubt”. From this, I venture that it would be fair to say a sceptic was “one who only believes that which is supported by inquiry, ie. independently verifiable evidence”.

godzillatemple’s definition, A skeptic holds the position that what cannot be proved by logic and/or empirical reasoning should not be believed, also contains a tricky ambiguity: “should not be believed”. Is this a not-believe or a believe-not?

Many sceptics here would say that they simply lack belief in God, and that in order to think it probable that God did not exist would require some kind of evidence of God’s nonexistence.

However, when asked the same of the faeries at the bottom of the garden they appear happy to say “I reckon they don’t exist” without any evidence of absence, only an overwhelming absence of evidence.

I personally view belief merely as a needle on a “belief-o-meter”, and scepticism as involving the mere admission that the needle can never hit zero or 100%. Evidence must be the major factor governing the needle’s motion, but I contend that it is perfectly valid to state one’s “best guess” one way or the other regarding God’s (or Tinkerbell’s) existence without evidence proving either contention “beyond reasonable doubt”.

In short a sceptic must inquire as to the truth of any statement (which is where supernatural claims are sadly lacking), but should feel no compunction to hide their needle’s position.

3

I’d say that skepticism is characterized by the awareness that the conclusions drawn by any entity aren’t binding on reality. The inevitable result is that skeptics are willing to examine any idea and compare it to the world in which they exist, always remembering that their experience is limited.

I would agree that skepticism necessarily implies agnosticism, given our current state of knowledge about the world. (Specific claims can be shown to be logically self-inconsistent; these can be dismissed without further prejudice.)

4

To say that anything definitely exists is to reach a conclusion. To say that anything definitely does not exist is to likewise reach a conclusion. At that point, the skeptic has ceased being a skeptic and has become a dogmatic.

Skepticism is not identical to “it is false”. Skepticism is “I do not know.”

There are, of course, other paths to follow than skepticism and dogmatism (although most modern self-styled “skeptics” are really ultra-hard-core dogmatics who are intellectually indistinguishable from the most stereotypical “Inquisitor”–they only “inquire” to reaffirm their dogma or attack those who disagree with their dogma).

I, for example, am a “fideist”. That is, my own conclusion, so far, at least for the moment is, that, as far as I can tell, the conclusions I have reached are the most likely to be true, but I admit that I reach this conclusion on the basis of incomplete evidence and with a most likely finite and limited capacity to reason, over a span of time devoted to reason that may very well turn out to be too short to adequately consider the various questions. However, I stop short of saying that what I have concluded must necessarily be true, only that, as far as I can tell, with my apparently limited capacity, it is probably true. However, my inability to prove something likewise does not necessarily mean it is false.

Peter Suber sums up these sorts of positions well:

Peter’s whole article can be found at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm

5

I can name at least one famous skeptic who famously believes in God: Martin Gardner. Read his book Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener – published in 1980 or '81, out of print, but available in many libraries.

Martin Gardner is a famous skeptic, and a founding member of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). He is also a well-known essayist, and amateur philosopher and mathematician (for years he wrote a “Mathematical Games” column for Scientific American).

Whys deals with a wide range of philosophical areas – ethics, esthetics, epistemology, politics. Most of the chapter titles follow the form of Russell’s Why I am not a Christian – e.g., “Why I am not an anarchist,” “Why I am not a Marxist,” etc. It also includes chapters titled “Why I am not an atheist,” “Why I am not a polytheist,” “Why I am not a pantheist,” “Prayer: Why I do not think it foolish,” and “Immortality: Why I am not resigned.”

Gardner is a skeptic who rejects the reality of all purported paranormal or supernatural phenomena. He is utterly familiar with all the arguments for atheism, and he admits they are far more compelling than any arguments to the contrary, and he knows perfectly well that God’s existence cannot be logically or scientifically proven. In scientific fashion, he does not accept the authority of any religious tradition or purported divine revelation.

Nevertheless, Gardner believes in, and prays to, a personal God. The main reason Gardner has made this leap of faith is that he wants to live forever after death, and he believes only a personal God can provide a personal afterlife. He explains it all in his book. He explains it all thoroughly and brilliantly. Gardner, however, is not in any sense a Christian, nor a member of any other traditional religion. He characterizes himself as a “philosophical theist.”

6

So Gardner wants a specific conclusion to be true… and he adopts it for that reason?

That doesn’t sound like reasoned skepticism to me.

At least he’s honest about his illogic. :dubious:

7

As has already been discussed, the problem is arriving at an agreeable definition for the term, “skeptic.” I personally know many active skeptics (as in, they are active in skeptic organizations) who also hold religious beliefs. Why? Because the two areas are segregated from each other. When those of us involved in skeptics groups talk about “skeptics,” we are usually (though not even all of us can agree!) talking about areas where something can be subjected to some sort of scientific testing. Psychic power, astrology, ghosts, alien abductions, faith healing, creationism, etc. all fall into these areas. However, whether or not you believe in a personal god that exists outside of the realm of scientific testing is purely a faith issue. It cannot be tested and therefore is considered to be a different subject area, fit for philosophers but not scientists.

If you’d like to get a better feel for what I’m talking about (including the meaning of skepticism as it relates to this issue), check out this article I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer a few years back.

8

There’s a value in that, though. As David points out, there is an obvious difference in terms of skepticism towards things like astrology and ESP, and skepticism towards the unknowable.

You cannot say Gardner’s skepticism isn’t reasoned - because he HAS reasoned it out. You were given the references, go ahead and read them; he reasons his beliefs out pretty extensively. You might not agree but you can’t say it isn’t reasoned. And if you do read it you’ll find it’s not quite a circular as presented here. The value in that, of course, is that Gardner is establishing a skeptic’s outlook despite his belief in God; he’s saying in essence, yes, I believe in God (or a god, whatever) but only insofar as his existence goes; if you’re going to tell me He worked a miracle, I’ll have to see proof, pal. Gardner is essentially going to the absolute extreme end of the scale when it comes to God as a material vs. a purely spiritual being, saying there’s no material manifestation at all, and hence nothing to be skeptical about.

Of course, I’m biased because I’m in Martin Gardner’s camp, but it seems to me believing in a spiritual God, while well outside the realm of scientific knowledge, doesn’t quite disqualify you from the ranks of skepticism. It disqualifies me from the ranks of Catholicism, but I can live with that. However, believing in every little alleged proof of God’s hand in the real world - like those statues that start shedding tears you hear about every few months, or people who claim to see Our Lady Of The Wal-Mart Parking Lot in their taco - well, that disqualifies you.

9

I consider myself to be a skeptic, and I agree with David. I also highly recommend the article he references, with particular emphasis on this notably Popperian observation:

I would go a step further, however, and clarify the fact that science never proves anything to be true; it can only prove things to be false. And I would point out that science (like logic) is a branch of philosophy. Therefore, although a philosopher might not be a scientist; a scientist is always a philosopher.

10

I would say that if one’s total focus in life was to be a “skeptic”, then one would end up being an atheist or agnostic. But most people use the term in a more narrow sense: “I’m skeptical about what I hear from a politician”. They are skeptics in some circumstances, but not in others, like religion.

11

Skepticism doesn’t concern itself with the unknowable. If it can’t be known, then although any particular position might happen to be correct, our claims that it is correct are unjustified and thus wrong.

It’s reasoned. It’s not skepticism – it’s credulity. (Quite literally – it’s belief, pure and simple.)

** Existence requires proof as much as any miracle. If Gardner said that he would require proof of a miracle, excepting the Loaves and Fishes which he accepts unconditionally as true, I doubt you’d consider him a skeptic. That is essentially the position I have been placed in.

Then Gardner himself doesn’t believe in this God, because his belief would necessarily constitute a material manifestation.

** Then how did you obtain information about this God? What data lead you to your conclusions?

Since there can be none, the conclusions are invalid, and his claims are wrong.

If I stand on a stage holding a quarter, and claim that I know the quarter will come up heads the next three times it’s flipped because of my magic powers, it doesn’t prove that I have magic powers if it comes up heads three times.

12

**

We’ve been over this before, Libertarian.

Proving something false is proving something true – you’re proving that the negation of a particular statement is true.

These boards are intended to dispel ignorance. It would be appreciated if you’d stop spreading it around.

13

John Mace

It is in religion that I am most skeptical. I accept the theories of quantum physics based on my faith in the competence of other people, but it required first-hand experience for me to believe in God.

14

Hmmmm…

Gardner sounds very Pascalian to me. If I understand correctly, his beliefs are not based on personal experience or logical analysis or anything else that can be verified or falsified. He simply “chooses to believe” on the off chance that doing so will result in his being granted eternal life.

I would submit that such a “belief” is, in fact, no belief at all. Gardner has made a choice to act as if there were a personal God, but that’s not the same as actually believing in that God. In other words, Gardner is still a skeptic – just a bit more hypocrytical than most.

One problem with Gardner’s decision is simply that he has apparently chosen the type of God he will worship and made assumptions as to what type of worship is acceptable to that God. He claims, for instance, to not be a Christian. What if one has to be a Christian in order to receive the desired eternal life? Or, for that matter, what if one has to be Jewish, Moslem, Zoroastrian, or a beliver in Zeus?

Whatever conception of God that Gardner might have, it’s no more likely to exist than any other conception of God. Choosing to worship a particular God in a particular way solely as a hedge against death, with no evidence or logical analysis to provide any reason for choosing that particular God, seems a complete waste of time to me.

I may not agree with those who worship God because of a religious experience or because of a careful study of the available evidence (scriptures, accounts of miracles, the inherent order of the universe, etc.), but at least I can accept that they are sincere in their beliefs. Based on what has been said about him in this thread, however, Gardner wins no such respect from me.

On a different note, I think my choice of “atheist” in the title of this thread was definitely incorrect. I don’t think a skeptic needs to actively choose NOT to believe in God, unless he or she feels that there is convincing counter-evidence disprove his existence. In the absence of any verifiable evidence to support his existence, however, I continue to maintain that a skeptic MUST at least be agnostic.

As for me, I happen to think that there is plenty of counter-evidence to disprove the existence of God, at least insofar as he has been traditionally described, and I refuse to resort to the sort of mental masturbation performed by those who reject all historical descriptions of God and create their own notion of a “God” who conveniently lies outside the material plane and whose existence can therefore neither be proved nor disproved. For this reason, I do consider myself to be an atheist rather than an agnostic.

Regards,

Barry

15

You really ought to take your personal attacks to the Pit.

You (still) misunderstand that nature of scientific falsification. Newton’s theories are not false — they are merely incomplete. So are Einstein’s. And so, in all likelihood, are Heisenberg’s.

You consistently confuse logic — one branch of philosophy — with another, science.

16

There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of an entity, only absence of evidence for its existence.

I believe a sceptic can, hand on heart, say “I believe faeries do not exist” without having to furnish proof or provide evidence of such.

Similarly, they can say “I believe God does not exist” despite no evidence of such.

Surely, then, they can say “I believe God does exist” given that there are indeed phenomena (eg. personal experiences) which might be explained by such.

17

I would tend to agree that, in general, science can only prove that certain things are more likely to be true (in the absence of contrary evidence that may be later discovered), and that other things are false. To say that science can prove the truth of an assertion that something is false, while accurate, is not particularly helpful or relevant.

As a “good skeptic,” I don’t have any absolute beliefs. There are many things that I think are likely true, perhaps even extremely likely, and I live my life accordingly. At the same time, I understand that anything I believe to be be probably true may, in fact, later be proven false (or incomplete).

On the other hand, I refuse to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever and for which there exists counter-evidence.

Barry

18

Care to give an example?

Note that it must not be mere absence of evidence, nor reasoning based in this (“Why doesn’t he just appear at the World Cup final?”), nor evidence for an alternative explanation for a given phenomenon (eg. fossils, since this prumes the possibly faulty premise that God and evolution are mutually inconsistent).

It must be evidence for the NONexistence of God/Tinkerbell/The IPU etc.

19

prumes?

presumes

20

That wasn’t a personal attack, Lib.

Take yourself to the Pit. (Now, that’s a personal attack! :slight_smile: )

Newton’s theories are known to be wrong at velocities far beyond what Newton could have observed. Einstein’s theories reduce to Newton’s at sufficiently low velocities – for that reason, we can say that Newton had no way of generating Relativity and that his theories were incomplete instead of outright wrong.

Nevertheless, if you apply Newtonian mechanics to speeds approaching c, your results will deviate significantly from the observed behavior of the universe. The theory is incorrect when applied to such phenomena. (It’s technically incorrect when applied to everyday phenomena, too, but the error is so small as to be neglibible.)

You consistently confuse communication with logic.

If logic is merely a branch of philosophy, then philosophy as a whole is not bound by logic. Therefore, our discussions of philosophy have been unnecessarily restrictive. Let’s remove those restrictions.

Cataclysm orange dribble-worster eidolon happily. Besmirching top-knot melodious, syzgzy treble noisily anthropic? Mole-march quibble tannic telemarchos. Bacon.

I await your rebuttal.