|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2007 : 10:03:42 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox:
If Bidlack is not a skeptic then probably nobody is a skeptic since it is difficult to imagine any human being being able to be totally skeptical about everything all the time. |
This represents a fundamental error in the concept of a skeptic and the application of doubt. I will deal with it shortly. But first:
Bidlack is not a skeptic, as a matter of definition. He is selectively skeptical.
I have already suggested taking every example of "God" in Bidlack's speech and replacing it with other woo words: bigfoot, greys, Sylvia Browne's predictions, pyramid power, angel night-lights, or whatever you happen to think is woo. The content becomes precisely the same, unless you assume some sort of special content to "God" for which there is no more evidential support than for the other ideas. I'll put this bluntly: God is woo. It is specifically stipulated to not admit of verification/refutation, by definition.
I have already written many words about this topic on the Skepticality forums and see no reason to reiterate absolutely all of it. If anyone is actually interested in what I've written, it can be found in the Episode Comments thread on said forums.
The use of the word "skeptic" by a believer is an attempt, plain and simple, to redefine the term into meaninglessness, since the application of doubt, and the rejection of belief because of that application, is the primary property of the concept. This is quite akin to the IDer's attempt to redefine "science" such that it admits of faith-based "evidence." Such incredible violence is done to the concept that it no longer has any meaning or power whatsoever. Now, I will be the first to recognize that stipulated stipulations are under constant (re)negotiation, but consider the following: What would we make of someone who claims to be a Christian, but who doesn't believe in Christ? Pretty obvious, eh? That person is not a Christian, straight up and by definition.
It is not difficult to imagine a skeptic who doubts everything at all. Here I am - a pure skeptic, and hence reviled by Shermer and the other new-age scientistic "skeptics" who are trying to turn skepticism into a religion. To be a skeptic is to reject certainty. All that remains of certainty is the by-definition or the logically trivial sorts. This is not to say a skeptic is hobbled by a constant denial of everything, as the childish caricature would have it. Doubt is not denial, however much the dogmatic would like us to accept that expedient for them equivalence. To not affirm is not to deny. And this understanding puts paid to the initial quote. It is quite easy to "to imagine any human being being able to be totally skeptical about everything all the time" if you don't let the dogmatists disingenuously define your terms for you.
Now,the danger of someone professing to be a "believer skeptic" is that their public presentation of self is as such, thereby publicly asserting, even if passively, that such a concept of self in internally consistent, coherent and rational. By definition, it is not. Their claims thereby become prescriptive, rather than merely descriptive. The expression of the private realm publicly is a public event. To try to pretend it is then a private event only is clearly incorrect at best, an outright deception at worst.
I am a skeptic. My private realm is subject to public discourse just as my public realm is. That is a choice I make by being a skeptic, by eschewing certainty and seeking external verification. Accepting verification has implications for the private realm, whether I like it or not. The only way my private realm stays private is if I choose to keep it out of the public realm.
That said, I would laud the application of doubt anywhere, even if it is not everywhere. I'll take selectively skeptical over pure credulousness.
The use of NOMA to dodge critique is just that - a dodge, and a dangerous one at that. Much in the same way that admitting faith-based evidence is a danger to the efficacy of science. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 10:03:42 [Permalink]
|
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
|
Quoted so I don't have to repeat myself. What is your evidence that religious people are not as sane or as complete as humans as the rest of us who have no such "need" for superstition? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/01/2007 10:06:15 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 10:26:30 [Permalink]
|
You have only said that I have said logically suspect things due to their attachment of faith.
|
I don't recall saying that. I don't even know what it means. I think what you and Kil are both doing is probably viewing what is being said through your own emotional attachments. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 12:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
You have only said that I have said logically suspect things due to their attachment of faith.
|
I don't recall saying that. I don't even know what it means. I think what you and Kil are both doing is probably viewing what is being said through your own emotional attachments.
|
I remember and have re-reviewed my past conversations with you where you found my statements to be logically suspect. They were all about religion.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 12:51:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
|
Quoted so I don't have to repeat myself. What is your evidence that religious people are not as sane or as complete as humans as the rest of us who have no such "need" for superstition?
|
I have made no such claim that religious people are not as sane or complete as humans as non-religious people. I have question that implied assertion from you.
Again, nice dodge.
Your quotation of "need" implies that you reject the concept of those psychological needs in others. That you do not possess those particular needs does not indicate that they do not exist for others. The world is bigger than just you. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 13:39:00 [Permalink]
|
dglas, I was impressed by your last post, and agree almost entirely. But I wonder about one thing you wrote: | Here I am - a pure skeptic, and hence reviled by Shermer and the other new-age scientistic "skeptics" who are trying to turn skepticism into a religion. |
Huh? How are they "trying to turn skepticism into a religion"? Exactly who, other than Shermer? The "New Atheism" crowd?
On the face of it, this seems to me much like the kind of baseless accusation hurled by fundies toward secularism in general ("Darwinist, materialist religion," etc.) You may have something to back this up with, but if so, I'm presently unfamiliar with the evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 13:52:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
dglas, I was impressed by your last post, and agree almost entirely. But I wonder about one thing you wrote: | Here I am - a pure skeptic, and hence reviled by Shermer and the other new-age scientistic "skeptics" who are trying to turn skepticism into a religion. |
Huh? How are they "trying to turn skepticism into a religion"? Exactly who, other than Shermer? The "New Atheism" crowd?
On the face of it, this seems to me much like the kind of baseless accusation hurled by fundies toward secularism in general ("Darwinist, materialist religion," etc.) You may have something to back this up with, but if so, I'm presently unfamiliar with the evidence.
|
What they've done is ask why religion is not subject to the same questions as anything else. They've done it imperfectly, but that's the main thrust of what they've done. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/01/2007 13:57:02 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 13:56:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Gorgo
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
|
Quoted so I don't have to repeat myself. What is your evidence that religious people are not as sane or as complete as humans as the rest of us who have no such "need" for superstition?
|
I have made no such claim that religious people are not as sane or complete as humans as non-religious people. I have question that implied assertion from you.
Again, nice dodge.
Your quotation of "need" implies that you reject the concept of those psychological needs in others. That you do not possess those particular needs does not indicate that they do not exist for others. The world is bigger than just you.
|
Yes, you keep saying things that have no relevance, and saying "nice dodge" as though you're having a conversation. You are the one that made the claim that religious people are more psychologically deficient than others. It may be true, but I see no evidence of that. However, it's your claim, so where is the evidence?
I've given you evidence of my claim, you only need to talk to religious people and find it out for yourself. As I've shown, the Rabbi explains my point very well. So, stop with the "nice dodge" crap and say something worthwile, if you are able. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 14:24:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Gorgo
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
|
Quoted so I don't have to repeat myself. What is your evidence that religious people are not as sane or as complete as humans as the rest of us who have no such "need" for superstition?
|
I have made no such claim that religious people are not as sane or complete as humans as non-religious people. I have question that implied assertion from you.
Again, nice dodge.
Your quotation of "need" implies that you reject the concept of those psychological needs in others. That you do not possess those particular needs does not indicate that they do not exist for others. The world is bigger than just you.
|
Yes, you keep saying things that have no relevance, and saying "nice dodge" as though you're having a conversation. You are the one that made the claim that religious people are more psychologically deficient than others. It may be true, but I see no evidence of that. However, it's your claim, so where is the evidence?
I've given you evidence of my claim, you only need to talk to religious people and find it out for yourself. As I've shown, the Rabbi explains my point very well. So, stop with the "nice dodge" crap and say something worthwile, if you are able.
|
I have made no such claim.
Since you are incapable of answering the main thrusts of my posts, have a nice life. Thanks again for reminding me why I try not to respond to your posts. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 14:28:38 [Permalink]
|
My bad. I read up on Shermer a bit, and now understand what dglas' remark meant. (I really don't know the players all that well!)
|
“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 09/01/2007 14:37:51 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:17:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Kil
Gorgo:
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality. |
Thanks for this brilliant psychological insight. I'm sure with your background in psychology, it should be no problem for you to support that claim.
|
I didn't hear you say that when people said that people have a psychological "need" for faith.
Faith is what you do when you do not have reasonable evidence.
|
Okay, which is it? "The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality" or "Faith is what you do when you do not have reasonable evidence?" These are two very different statements. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:33:24 [Permalink]
|
Since you are incapable of answering the main thrusts of my posts, have a nice life. Thanks again for reminding me why I try not to respond to your posts.
|
Nice dodge. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:36:20 [Permalink]
|
I see faith very differently than what most here are ascribing to deists. I have faith that the earth will spin and tomorrow the sun will shine on the plot of land I occupy. I have faith that the Cubs will not win the world series. 
Faith is an assured expectation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 16:30:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I see faith very differently than what most here are ascribing to deists. I have faith that the earth will spin and tomorrow the sun will shine on the plot of land I occupy. I have faith that the Cubs will not win the world series.
Faith is an assured expectation.
|
Faith is a word that has different meanings at different times. It's use generally is meant to be vague. What you are talking about are odds. Odds are, the sun will do what we think the sun will do, until the day that it doesn't. That's different than creating a fantasy world because one is afraid of reality. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
