|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2007 : 17:34:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think I can best respond to this by quoting from the Bidlack part of my TAM4 report. |
And given what Bidlack said in his TAM5 speech, it's clear that he has compartmentalized his deism and his skepticism. He's not skeptical about his faith, and he's not faithful about his skepticism. If you keep your pet mice in a cat-proof cage, it doesn't make your mice "compatible" with your cats, it simply prevents direct conflict.
And I see danger in compartmentalizing, because there's no logic behind which ideas get protected from skepticism and which don't. We've seen the results of this a few times here over the years, with people who are staunch skeptics regarding many subjects, but they finally get into a discussion about something they've compartmentalized, their skepticism-free ideas get challenged, and they have a meltdown, leave or both.
And, well, the more I think about this, the more it looks like Bidlack is just pleading for everyone else to leave his compartmentalization intact. Since his compartmentalization seems to be tied quite tightly to both 9/11 and his wife's death, through mechanisms I won't pretend to understand, perhaps we really should just leave it alone if it keeps him functional.
But there's another danger: without having a psychologist/patient relationship with everyone we meet, how can one tell when challenging an idea might shatter someone's carefully crafted defensive compartmentalization, leading to who-knows-what sort of reaction? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 17:59:21 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert:
But, Kil, it absolutely does indicate an inability to think critically in one large area--the question of god's existence. Just saying theism and critical thinking don't conflict without demonstrating how that is possible isn't very convincing.
Now, whether or not one must be skeptical in all areas in order to be a "good" skeptic is another question, which seems to be the one you're trying to answer in the rest of your quoted article. But as Dave noted, coexistence isn't evidence of compatibility.
And I agree that the topic of the meeting was ill-conceived. Of course a skeptic can believe in god. The better question is "Are belief in god and skepticism compatible?" The answer is a resounding no. It can be proven that regardless of whether or not god actually exists, belief in him isn't warranted. To a skeptic, that's supposed to mean something. |
This one is tough because skeptics seem to be of two minds about whom we will allow into the club. I take the broad view that I believe is the most practical in terms of getting things done. Again, if the person of faith can separate her spiritual quest from her examination and acceptance of what science tells us about the natural world, I have no problem with that. I do not think that a person like Hal Bidlack poses a threat to critical thinking, and in fact is an asset in a movement to make critical thinking the default method for evaluating the truth-value of any claim of fact. The God part is on him. It's a conflict that he must deal with. He doesn't need us to tell him that it's not rational to believe in God. He is, after all, a critical thinker.
I think it is important to remember that critical thinking is a tool kit. A set of tools that we want people to use. Obviously, even using the same tools, skeptics will not always come to the same conclusions. What is important is that we understand how to use the tools we have so that when we do debate an issue worth debating, we will not get bogged down by unreasonable or irrational arguments. And that is, after all is said and done, the point of this movement.
I should note that Bidlack would not try to convince you of his way of thinking. He understands that his belief will not pass any test of reason. I can pronounce that he is not a skeptic with regard to his faith in God and so what? He is an activist as skeptics go. He is a professional skeptic. Should we exclude him from our club because he holds an irrational belief that serves him in some way that we don't understand?
And look. I smoke. Almost every bit of medical evidence suggests that I am putting myself at serious risk by doing that. So choosing to smoke, based on what we know about it is irrational. It's stupid. I simply can't make a case for why smoking is good for me other than I like to smoke. I understand that my smoking cannot withstand any test of critical thinking. And yet I do it anyway. And I am willing to bet that all of us skeptics do, sometimes, and maybe often, things that would be considered by even us as irrational. Should I be drummed out of the club for that?
I am a big tent skeptic. Again, if what we actually bring to the table will ultimately make this a more rational and reasonable world, then critical thinking/skepticism has done its job. God or no God…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 18:19:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
He's not skeptical about his faith, and he's not faithful about his skepticism. |
Actually, no. He has said many times that he questions his own faith. And we really can't expect him, as a skeptic, to do more then that. It is not for us to make him draw the same conclusion that most of us would.
And look. I get into arguments with atheists who are upset that I identify as agnostic. Where does it end?
Dave:
And I see danger in compartmentalizing, because there's no logic behind which ideas get protected from skepticism and which don't. We've seen the results of this a few times here over the years, with people who are staunch skeptics regarding many subjects, but they finally get into a discussion about something they've compartmentalized, their skepticism-free ideas get challenged, and they have a meltdown, leave or both. |
Well, I guess they weren't very secure in whatever the belief was. But I am not saying that we should hold irrational beliefs in some other part of our brain to bring out when we feel like changing modes, or that it's okay to harbor an irrational belief without questioning it. And I don't think someone like Bidlack is doing either. In his case, the meltdown seems to be ours…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 19:07:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually, no. He has said many times that he questions his own faith. |
Must have missed that.| And we really can't expect him, as a skeptic, to do more then that. It is not for us to make him draw the same conclusion that most of us would. |
No, but it is for us to question why.| And look. I get into arguments with atheists who are upset that I identify as agnostic. Where does it end? |
Well, that last bit is due to the confusion of meanings that have sprung up around the terms.| Well, I guess they weren't very secure in whatever the belief was. |
Oh, don't get started down that road. It seems that creationists are using it against "angry materialists," as in "if you were secure in your knowledge of evolution, you wouldn't get so vitriolic at me" when the vitriol has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with debunked-for-decades creationist lies.| But I am not saying that we should hold irrational beliefs in some other part of our brain to bring out when we feel like changing modes, or that it's okay to harbor an irrational belief without questioning it. And I don't think someone like Bidlack is doing either. In his case, the meltdown seems to be ours… |
Well, I'm not taking any of that blame. I've never met the man, but the last half of his speech made it abundantly clear that he's compartmentalizing. The take-home message seemed to be "science can't test this carefully-crafted belief of mine, so leave it alone." I, for one, reject the notion that we should be accepting of the untestable because it's untestable. And with logic like that, all any psychic need do in the face of a meeting with James Randi is claim that his psychic powers vanish under the stress of testing, and then Bidlack should tap Randi on the shoulder and say, "okay, this belief isn't scientifically testable, so leave him alone." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 19:47:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
You wrote: [quote]If you're saying Mother Teresa was also a victim...
|
In my opinion, she's probably typical of many basically decent, intelligent people who integrate into corrupt organizations with altruistic intentions... based upon false claims widely accepted within society (which might- or might not- have originally been honestly believed)... only to eventually gain a more realistic perspective, and henceforth more accurately realize the true nature of the life endeavor they had undertaken. Perhaps she came to grips with truth over time- having been faced with an ongoing stream of first-hand evidence and other, which became too
overwhelming to rationalize away or deny, and sought to salvage her predicament in the most constructive manner possible, as she saw the situation.
I've personally spoken with a couple of older nuns over the years, and they weren't very happy campers. In one case, a woman of the Catholic clothe described having lived for years in the mountains of a Latin American country- run under the auspices of a brutal dictatorship supported by the US- among the indigenous population. She stated that the average life expectancy among the natives was 28 years. Along with young priests, she lived a life of hardship and
poverty, while Bishops drove Mercedes and had meals with the pawns of a vicious tyrant.
When I met her,those in the higher eschelons of the church had taken a new Jeep that her brother had given her as a gift (seeing others in the Catholic organizations as "having more need for such a vehicle.") They'd given her an older Toyota as a replacement, which I jump-started for her since the junker's battery was shot. Clearly, her painful sacrifices weren't appreciated- at least not by the organization she'd dedicated her life to.
That's not to say I knew the whole story, or it wasn't necessarily a two-way-street, but I couldn't help but feel sorry for her (mean and bullyish as she was) and considered her a sad and tragic figure who'd been duped into a life of exploitation. She was in her late 50's.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 19:51:33 [Permalink]
|
I don't think the atheist-agnostic "debate" is important or even very meaningful. Anyone who doesn't have an active belief in god(s) is an atheist, and that includes all agnostics. Most, but not all, atheists are also agnostics, in that they would not deny that there is at least a minuscule possibility that god(s) exist.
More important is the matter of what these freethinkers should be doing. The "New Atheists" have stirred up a hornet's nest by actively campaigning for atheism. The more common traditional approach by freethinkers has been to avoid tackling theism head-on.
Many of this traditional camp adhere to something like Gould's "NOMA" (non-overlapping magesteria) approach, where theism and atheism are seen as separate ways of viewing the world, with neither one having anything to say that could refute the other position. The New Atheists reject that notion, often noting that theist ideology is essentially dangerous and ultraconservative. They also note that theists generally don't accept the NOMA notion, and have evangelized for thousands of years, often killing atheists and others of opposing beliefs.
They also see theism and their own science-based view of the world, as being in direct contradiction.
The one "radical" thing about the New Atheists is that they are determined to spread their critical thinking. Personally, I see this approach as both reasonable and necessary. The New Atheists, and I count myself among them, are the primary force that is at last tackling the age-old curse of theism.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/28/2007 19:55:38 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 20:05:32 [Permalink]
|
I feel it is most appropriate to repeat something I wrote in response to Humbert from the Pope and Evolution thread. He had quoted this from the SFN mission statement: | "[P]romote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact." |
And I wrote: | Certainly, but not all religious ideas are claims of fact, and certainly the ritualistic and emotional aspects of religion are not claims of fact. Also, skepticism is one value, not a whole worldview. One can be a skeptic, as it is defined here, and also value and promote other things. And as is the case with any value system, sometimes the interests of more than one personal value will be in conflict, and a person is forced to decide which should supercede the other. You seem to be arguing that it is dishonest to call oneself a "skeptic" if their skepticism isn't their highest value. |
Dave, I don't think this is always about compartmentalizing. Bidlack's "God" was so vaguely defined that it is hard to understand it clearly as any kind of claim of fact. At least not in the same sense that a Biblical literalist claims that an intelligent and sentient and personal God created the universe just a few thousand years ago.
Skepticism is about doubt. Plenty of religious people not only doubt their own beliefs, but side with their doubt when it comes to all worldly issues exactly because they value the skeptical scrutiny of their own beliefs over their emotional-based spiritual understanding. That's not compartmentalizing because they are not sheltering their beliefs from skeptical scrutiny. They fully admit that the beliefs do not hold up to such scrutiny, but they still believe in them for other reasons (spiritual experience, which an atheist would attribute purely to emotion). Why is it so hard to understand that people can have religious belief and doubt at the same time? Why do you think most religious people aren't self-righteous about their beliefs? Sure, many don't think about it and probably are compartmentalizing, but plenty of them who are more intelligent and articulate can explain that they aren't self-righteous about their beliefs because they understand that their beliefs can't be proven objectively with empirical evidence, and therefore have no place being enforced on everyone.
People with faith can't help it. They just have it. Bidlack can't help having his faith in his vaguely-defined impersonal God, and I don't think anything less of him for it, nor do I think his skepticism is diminished. He isn't making any claims of absolute truth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 20:12:32 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: | The one "radical" thing about the New Atheists is that they are determined to spread their critical thinking. Personally, I see this approach as both reasonable and necessary. The New Atheists, and I count myself among them, are the primary force that is at last tackling the age-old curse of theism. |
Again I feel compelled to repeat something I recently wrote in the Pope/Evolution forum:
I am interested in promoting religious tolerance and pluralism, as well as skepticism. I hold these values because it is very possible there will come a day when freethinkers are a self-aware majority, and if we do not plant the seeds of religious tolerance and pluralism now, and make them an integrated part of the freethinking lifestance, freethinkers are destined to become future oppressors.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2007 20:13:14 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 20:59:14 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Look, skepticism has rules. It is a narrow path and not everyone can hack it. |
According to what authority? Kil just said that he's a "big tent" skeptic. Bidlack has been hugely involved as a skeptic activist and you wrote that people like him are worse than fundamentalists. What you are saying in this discussion seems rather extreme to me.
| Faith is not compatible with skepticism. If you mean feelings of "awe" or "transcendence" strictly then you are no longer speaking about religion, nor do you have any right to place such universal human experiences under the label of religion. |
I don't have a right? Gee, does a religious historian like Karen Armstrong who has extensively studied all the major world religions have that right? From the introduction to her book The Great Transformation: | The Axial sages have an important message for our time, but their insights will be surprising – even shocking – to many who consider themselves religious today. It is frequently assumed, for example, that faith is a matter of believing certain creedal propositions. Indeed, it is common to call religious people "believers," as though assenting to the articles of faith were their chief activity. But most of the Axial philosophers had no interest whatever in doctrine or metaphysics. A person's theological beliefs were a matter of total indifference to somebody like Buddha. Some sages steadfastly refused even to discuss theology, claiming that it was distracting and damaging. Others argued that it was immature, unrealistic, an perverse to look for the kind of absolute certainty that many people expect religion to provide. |
Or perhaps the words of a fellow freethinker such as Jennifer Hecht, who wrote Doubt: A History would be more compelling. Throughout this masterful history of uncertainty she, too, speaks about the foundations of many religions, such as Buddhism, as not making any such literal, supernatural claims, but that followers later corrupted the original ideas. To quote just one such passage from this excellent book: | What makes it (Pure Land sect of Mahayana Buddhism) so so special is a surprising vow Buddha Amitabha once made: that anyone who trusted in him purely would be given enlightenment and welcomed into Pure Land! That makes it a lot like the bhakti yoga of Hinduism: intense love and selflessness can bring one to enlightenment. Obviously this is exactly what the Buddha who had been Siddhartha said could not happen, but for the masses this promise of devotion and reward was attractive. Add to it the idea that one could spend eternity with one's loved ones in the bliss of Pure Land, and the attraction becomes even stronger. Yet Pure Land also appeals to many people who do not take its promises literally – who see Pure Land as a state of being, not a real place—but who are more inclined to the romantic, emotional, artistic, and fantastic aspects of life than to the strictly philosophical. |
| My "philosophical principle" is a commitment to skepticism, which I'm more and more convinced is not something you understand. |
This is the second time you've questioned my status as a skeptic. Reminds me of Christians who call other Christians not really Christians 'cause they don't subscribe the exact same Christian theology or hierarchy of Christian values.
| Skepticism isn't just something which you can pick up or leave off whenever you feel like. It isn't something which you can dabble in. It takes a commitment. |
First of all, skepticism certainly is something people can and do pick up whenever they feel like, dabble in, and never commit to. In fact, probably most people use skepticism in this manner. I, however, do not. I actually am committed to skepticism, and I fail to see how I have shown otherwise in this discussion.
| Skepticism means giving up what one wants to be true for what one can reasonably demonstrate to be true, always. It means prostrating oneself before the evidence. It means sacrifice, Marf. It means actively repressing personal whims and desires. It requires vigilance and perseverance, since there can be no exceptions on personal grounds. |
Wow. Nice speech. Prostrating and everything – what does that remind me of? What does it have to do with my call for religious tolerance and pluralism?
| Throwing all of that out the window to believe in some unprovable bogyman which makes you feel good can never be consistent with being a skeptic. |
You are so utterly ignorant of and lacking curiosity about so much about the nature of religion and personal experience of religious faith in a broad sense, you keep setting up these strawmen and ignoring so much of what I have written, I, I really don't even know what to say anymore.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2007 21:02:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:19:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave, I don't think this is always about compartmentalizing. Bidlack's "God" was so vaguely defined that it is hard to understand it clearly as any kind of claim of fact. |
He believes that his vague, untestable God exists, marf. He may be wracked with doubt about it every day, but he still considers the proposition "God exists" to be true or very close to it. The modern, popular usage of "agnostic" boils down to "someone who thinks there's a 50-50 chance that God exists." Bidlack is nowhere close to being even that type of agnostic.| At least not in the same sense that a Biblical literalist claims that an intelligent and sentient and personal God created the universe just a few thousand years ago. |
Yes, in the same sense. "God exists" is true for them, too. They may even doubt it from time to time.| Skepticism is about doubt. |
Simply doubting something isn't a form of skepticism that I'm particularly interested in, because it leads to nowhere but more doubt. Bidlack isn't that sort of skeptic, either. Skepticism, as I practice it (and as it seems Bidlack mostly does), is a tool used to tease a sense of what the truth is to any particular proposition.| Plenty of religious people not only doubt their own beliefs, but side with their doubt when it comes to all worldly issues exactly because they value the skeptical scrutiny of their own beliefs over their emotional-based spiritual understanding. That's not compartmentalizing because they are not sheltering their beliefs from skeptical scrutiny. They fully admit that the beliefs do not hold up to such scrutiny, but they still believe in them for other reasons (spiritual experience, which an atheist would attribute purely to emotion). |
That full admission is exactly what compartmentalization is, marf! It is precisely "I will not subject these beliefs to full inquiry because I want them to be true, but I can't show even myself that they are."| Why is it so hard to understand that people can have religious belief and doubt at the same time? |
Why is it so hard to understand that people who doubt something for which there exists no evidence, but believe it to be true despite that fact and despite their own doubts, aren't applying skepticism?| Why do you think most religious people aren't self-righteous about their beliefs? Sure, many don't think about it and probably are compartmentalizing, but plenty of them who are more intelligent and articulate can explain that they aren't self-righteous about their beliefs because they understand that their beliefs can't be proven objectively with empirical evidence, and therefore have no place being enforced on everyone. |
This isn't about enforcing anything on anyone. This isn't even about proselytizing. This is about how one person chooses to believe something is true despite the utter lack of evidence and despite their own well-honed critical thinking skills (as seen in use on other subject matter).| People with faith can't help it. They just have it. |
I never said otherwise. The question is: why?| Bidlack can't help having his faith in his vaguely-defined impersonal God, and I don't think anything less of him for it... |
What makes me think a little less of him is the argument he makes in favor of being left alone with his God, because the way it sounded to me was that he was asking skeptics to lay off of his unevidenced belief because it's untestable, a standard that he now should be applying to anyone who believes any whacky and admittedly untestable nonsense. If he'd instead come out and said something like, "I need this God-belief in order to keep my brain from shattering under the stress of my horrific experiences," well, hell, I'd be quite understanding of that, but it would have been a much shorter speech.| ...nor do I think his skepticism is diminished. |
Absolutely his skepticism is diminished when he admits that he'll be using numerous appeals to emotion in defending his deism. "Hi, I'm a professional skeptic, but allow me to use these logical fallacies while discussing my God, please." Come on!| He isn't making any claims of absolute truth. |
And that's completely irrelevant to my points. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:25:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Half wrote: | The one "radical" thing about the New Atheists is that they are determined to spread their critical thinking. Personally, I see this approach as both reasonable and necessary. The New Atheists, and I count myself among them, are the primary force that is at last tackling the age-old curse of theism. |
Again I feel compelled to repeat something I recently wrote in the Pope/Evolution forum:
I am interested in promoting religious tolerance and pluralism, as well as skepticism. I hold these values because it is very possible there will come a day when freethinkers are a self-aware majority, and if we do not plant the seeds of religious tolerance and pluralism now, and make them an integrated part of the freethinking lifestance, freethinkers are destined to become future oppressors.
|
I'm for all for religious tolerance and pluralism. I think most of the New Atheists are tolerant. Part of that religious tolerance and pluralism is the even-handed principle that the atheists have a right to vigorously attack the ideas of theists. That is a separate issue from the right of the theists to hold their beliefs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:53:16 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, in the same sense. "God exists" is true for them, too. |
I disagree.
| Skepticism, as I practice it (and as it seems Bidlack mostly does), is a tool used to tease a sense of what the truth is to any particular proposition. |
Do you doubt that Bidlack would disgard his faith if his proposition could be tested in this way? Also, we're talking about faith and belief, which are slightly different from claims of truth. I believe my husband will not leave me or cheat on me. I would never claim to know this or regard it as a fact. It might be a fact, but I can't know that with the same level of certainty that I can know I have ten toes or that the sun will come up tomorrow.
| That full admission is exactly what compartmentalization is, marf! It is precisely "I will not subject these beliefs to full inquiry because I want them to be true, but I can't show even myself that they are." |
Wrong. People with religious faith credit religious or spiritual experience as the way in which the object of their belief is revealed to be true. Skeptical believers acknowledge that such revelation is too mysterious, unreliable, and untestable to stand up against empiricism, so they only apply it to things where empiricism can't be used due to not into information. Bidlack cannot show himself that his beliefs are true using empiricism, but while he champions empiricism as the best way to get closer to truth, he obviously does not regard empiricism as the only way.
| Why is it so hard to understand that people who doubt something for which there exists no evidence, but believe it to be true despite that fact and despite their own doubts, aren't applying skepticism? |
Because not all people regard religious belief to always be the same thing as knowledge of facts.
| This is about how one person chooses to believe something is true despite the utter lack of evidence and despite their own well-honed critical thinking skills (as seen in use on other subject matter). |
People choose how to act on a belief, and if they apply skepticism to their own belief, they can come to the conclusion that their belief is unsupported or unlikely, and therefore choose to not act on it, or not act on it outside of the realm of the personal. Thus, even if they still believe in it on some level despite their doubts, they are still applying skepticism to it and acting on their skepticism.
| I never said otherwise. The question is: why? |
I imagine that's pretty complicated and will take a lot more research to answer. But happily some people have already started working on it!
| What makes me think a little less of him is the argument he makes in favor of being left alone with his God, because the way it sounded to me was that he was asking skeptics to lay off of his unevidenced belief because it's untestable, a standard that he now should be applying to anyone who believes any whacky and admittedly untestable nonsense. |
I didn't read it this way. I don't think he was saying that religious skeptics shouldn't criticism theism and deism, but rather, that they shouldn't insist that atheism and agnosticism are the only religious stances consistent with being a skeptic, and also he was criticizing proselytizing atheists, which are growing out of the "New Atheist" movement that Half mentioned. There is a pretty significant difference between untestable claims and testable claims, just like there is a pretty significant different between Christian secularists and Christians who want theocracy. The differences should impact the context and way in which religious skeptics apply their criticisms.
| Absolutely his skepticism is diminished when he admits that he'll be using numerous appeals to emotion in defending his deism. "Hi, I'm a professional skeptic, but allow me to use these logical fallacies while discussing my God, please." Come on! |
To be quite honest, Dave, I fear anyone with a singular, spell-out worldview who is part of a social movement, and that goes for skeptics too. I'm with Kil on this big tent thing. Skepticism is a great thing to value and promote. I'm all about that. I'm just not about promoting only skepticism, or valuing it above all else. Maybe I'm really splitting hairs here… yeah probably... but what you are saying about Bidlack sounds very derogatory in its tone. You seem to be questioning his very integrity. If that is the case, you are pushing your overall values onto him, and that strikes me as self-righteous, even if it is a mild sort. I'm not trying to offend you or set up a strawman, so if I got this totally wrong tell me so and why. I'm very interested in this discussion, you are one of the most articulate people who will converse with me on such subjects.
| And that's completely irrelevant to my points. |
Perhaps, but only if we're talking about slightly different kinds of skepticism. YOu seem to regard skepticism as a method of obtaining knowledge, but I don't think Bidlack is making a claim of knowledge. I used the phrase "absolute truth" because more general definitions of philosophical skepticism involve a rejection of claims of absolute truth, which indeed Bidlack seems to reject.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 23:24:15 [Permalink]
|
Me:
Well, I guess they weren't very secure in whatever the belief was. |
Dave:
Oh, don't get started down that road. It seems that creationists are using it against "angry materialists," as in "if you were secure in your knowledge of evolution, you wouldn't get so vitriolic at me" when the vitriol has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with debunked-for-decades creationist lies. |
Well, I was thinking about Slater, but I hear you. And really, I'm not sure we should care if they are compartmentalizing or not. Their reaction to being confronted with what looks like an un-evidenced claim is really not our problem. Thing is, in my opinion, Bidlacks handling of what he admits is an irrational belief is far different from what we sometimes see from others who have been confronted and asked why they hold their belief. Once we have agreed that it's not really rational, and understand that it will not hinder being affective as a skeptic, what's left to say? At that point it's not our business.
Dave:
I, for one, reject the notion that we should be accepting of the untestable because it's untestable. And with logic like that, all any psychic need do in the face of a meeting with James Randi is claim that his psychic powers vanish under the stress of testing, and then Bidlack should tap Randi on the shoulder and say, "okay, this belief isn't scientifically testable, so leave him alone." |
Ah, but Bidlack isn't selling anything. He isn't misrepresenting his belief. He isn't making a claim to a fact or making any attempt to convince us that he knows something that we don't know. He certainly isn't preying upon the credulous, taking money by claiming an ability that he doesn't have. The simple fact is he has a faith in something that can't be tested. I believe that he knows he is not exempt from our being skeptical of the existence of his God. I mean, Randi is one of his best friends. My guess is they have talked about it.
What rankles Bidlack are the atheists who insist that he believe as they do. Thing is, he knows and I know that skepticism does not equate to atheism. It equates to doubt. I am fully aware that irrational beliefs are subject to inquiry and doubt, and that includes a belief in God. But I am not willing to close the door on all of those who have some kind of faith in something I doubt as long as it doesn't interfere with how we view science and critical thinking. I am free to think they are wrong. I am not sacrificing any of my own skepticism to doubt the subject of their faith and still believe that they can be an asset to the goal of promoting skepticism.
There is a continuum of skeptical thought. I happen to draw the line at the nod to science as the best tool we have for understanding nature for inclusion into the skeptics club.
And like Marf I worry about our becoming elitist and intolerant. Promoting critical thinking does not mean that we will all walk in lockstep with one another. It means, generally speaking, that we are using the same tools, a common language, no matter where that leads us as individuals.
Sorry for the speech Dave. Not all of my comments were directed at you…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2007 : 00:11:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm for all for religious tolerance and pluralism. I think most of the New Atheists are tolerant. Part of that religious tolerance and pluralism is the even-handed principle that the atheists have a right to vigorously attack the ideas of theists. That is a separate issue from the right of the theists to hold their beliefs. |
Well said!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 04:45:03 [Permalink]
|
| I'm for all for religious tolerance and pluralism. I think most of the New Atheists are tolerant. |
Sorry, but tolerance and pluralism are too important values for me to associate with a movement where "most" of the leaders are tolerant! If I'm going to be part of any freethought movement, it would be one where secularism, critical thinking, and religious tolerance were all integrated and essential parts. Overemphasis on a single worldview that explicitely pits itself against other worldviews is dangerous IMO. These are some of the very seeds of religious discrimination and hatred.
| Part of that religious tolerance and pluralism is the even-handed principle that the atheists have a right to vigorously attack the ideas of theists. That is a separate issue from the right of the theists to hold their beliefs. |
Absolutely, just like those values give religious groups the right to door-to-door proselytize. Doesn't make it right. Do you suspect that most religious people who proselytize are themselves champions of religious tolerance and pluralism? I think you've forgotten that just because a social value gives a minority certain rights doesn't mean that minority holds that social value.
Edited to add: To give an extreme example for the purpose of illustration - you have the right in this free nation to organize a non-profit whose purpose is to alter the US constitution to ban religious expression. Freedom and tolerance give you that right, but you would be a heinous monster as bad as the worst Christian Dominionists for doing such a thing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/29/2007 04:49:01 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Crisis of Faith- Time Mag
