My View of Skepticism

[ChristineM]

OED uses the phrase disbelief (aka lack of belief) in god, not a belief there is no god. You still are not registering the significant difference. The belief that there is no god is a SUBCATEGORY of lack of belief in god. There are forms of atheism where no statement that there is no god is made.

I'm not going to continue this with you, Christine. The dictionary is clear. I have been clear. And I have offered you a very easy to understand video that goes into detail. The problem here is that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the difference between lack of belief and an affirmative belief. I don't think I can help you with this. I'm going to move on now. You can have the last word if you want.

I do love religious folks who try to redefine atheism to suit their own belief system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are incorrect here. I refer you to evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, who is cutting edge.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But religion didn't originate in a vacuum.
The initial impulse for religion originated from the propensity of type 2 cognition errors and infusing agency in seemingly random events.
That is what gave rise to it. So in that sense religion definitely is a byproduct of underlying psychological traits that most animals (that are also prey to other animals) share.

Once this byproduct manifested, it off course took on roles in group dynamics as explained by Sloan.

 

[Yerda]

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But religion didn't originate in a vacuum.
The initial impulse for religion originated from the propensity of type 2 cognition errors and infusing agency in seemingly random events.
That is what gave rise to it. So in that sense religion definitely is a byproduct of underlying psychological traits that most animals (that are also prey to other animals) share.

Once this byproduct manifested, it off course took on roles in group dynamics as explained by Sloan.

Sounds like a "Just so..." story. Is it based on research?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sounds like a "Just so..." story. Is it based on research?

Yes.

For example

The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour - PMC

Superstitious behaviours, which arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect, receive considerable attention in psychology and popular culture. Perhaps owing to their seeming irrationality, however, they receive little attention in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There's so much we don't understand about the human brain, consciousness, and even the ocean, so how can we so confidently declare all belief in gods to be a "delusion" rather than an understandable and reasonable form of diversity in the human experience?

Is it the use of the word delusion that offends you? Would insufficiently supported belief be more to your liking? If so, you might like "The God Hope" even better.

I'm arguing for curiosity and uncertainty about the gaps, which may not be gaps in the first place to the person whose personal experience has led them to their current personal beliefs.

Curiosity in general or curiosity about people's religious beliefs? I'm curious about much, but not about theology or what they believe by faith. For example, when two believers begin disagreeing about some theological difference of opinion, I scan past.

To me, it means not immediately accepting claims for which I don't have access to evidence, but it also means not categorically dismissing them or being certain in my dismissal thereof.

If you mean dismissal of the possibility of gods, you seem to be describing what some call gnostic or strong atheism. Most atheists are agnostic about gods in general. They live their lives as if gods don't exist, but feel no need to make such a claim absent any means to rule gods out, as is the case with all unfalsifiable claims. I also don't claim that vampires don't exist, because how could I know that, but I live as if they don't, making me not only an agnostic atheist, but also an agnostic vampirist.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But religion didn't originate in a vacuum. The initial impulse for religion originated from the propensity of type 2 cognition errors and infusing agency in seemingly random events. That is what gave rise to it. So in that sense religion definitely is a byproduct of underlying psychological traits that most animals (that are also prey to other animals) share.

Agreed. Combine a propensity to assign agenticity, magical thinking, a desire to control nature, and you have people willing to believe in gods. Also, people have a propensity to submit to father figures like a parent. That's the bottom-up aspect of organized religion. Then add a top-down element - a priesthood ready to step into a cushy job that requires almost no knowledge, heavy lifting, working in the hot sun, and which garnishes instant respect and social status, and voila!

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That can be simplified to "a person who lacks belief in gods"

In what world does having doubt make someone an atheist?

The doubt is philosophical, not psychological. The former is understood, not felt. Descartes made an irrefutable argument for doubting the reality of everything beyond ones own consciousness, and I accept it, but I don't experience doubt there. I merely understand why the doubt is justified.

The New Atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, are well known for their lack of respect towards religion.

Agreed, but are you implying that they should respect religion? Respect has at least two distinct meanings. One is admiration, as in respecting somebody's ability to overcome adversity, and the other is closer to tolerance, as in respecting a person's right to hold a religious belief, which atheists do. But they need not respect the belief or the individual holding it in the first sense of the word.

I don't respect religion or religious belief, but I'm indifferent to it apart from its theocratic tendencies, meaning I tolerate it without any opinion about or interest in what others should believe. This is from another post:

"Who's trying to convert theists? I never even think about or discuss the matter except when a theists is proselytizing, and even then I'm not trying to change his mind, just to tell him why I don't think that way. That would be a waste of time not only because it would be impossible to make any headway against a faith-based confirmation bias, but because it really doesn't matter to me what he believes. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn’t violently insane, sacrificing animals, and he keeps the noise down."

I think this conveys the two uses of the word respect. I can respect (abide) his right to believe such things without respecting (finding value in) his religious beliefs.

Unlike atheists of the past who took a live and let live attitude towards religion, the New Atheists preach that religion is a horrible thing that needs to be expunged.

That's the gist of it, but it's the antitheist who is insisting on that "live and let live attitude" from the believers who would limit or degrade his life, not the other way around as you suggest as I just outlined.

And yes, I believe that the world and most individuals would be better off without any religions, but I don't have any interest in it beyond getting it out of the lives of non-volunteers. Religion has almost no effect on my life, but not none. I live in a predominantly Catholic country. My neighborhood is presently celebrating the following. We have been hearing bottle rockets exploding virtually every daylight hour and several dark hours before sunrise and after sunset for over a week now. One of my dogs is terrified and spends much of the day panting and shivering. The other barks at the explosions. We have also been serenaded each of the last three mornings by brass marching bands, which also terrify my fearful dog.

Ajijic's November Fiesta: Celebrating San Andrés
By Judy King

When the first sky rocket explodes announcing the kickoff of the November 21st opening procession of bands and floats, the village of Ajijic will surrender to the annual siege of Fiesta Fever that runs through the end of November. The actual feast day of St. Andrew is November 30, but this is a novena—nine days of prayer and thanksgiving, celebration and joy. The fiesta officially begins on November 22, but most Mexican celebrations begin at sunset on the evening before.

Then this was posted: "What are the exact dates for this festival, as I want to go to the beach with the dog and want to miss all the action." We have friends who live closer to the church than we do, and also leave town at this time every year (link below)

So, once again, I must abide by this tradition if I want to live here and not leave town every late November, but I don't respect it in the sense of esteeming it. It's a nuisance fueled by ancient superstitions, and I think less of the religion because of it and its indifference to the suffering it causes pets and small children, which translates into suffering for those living with such pets and children.

This is the only effect religion has in my life, and it's a negative one.

You can read about it and the opinions of some of the other expats here and here. Some love the festivities, and we enjoyed them when we were new to Mexico, but now they're just a nuisance to us and our dogs.

When New Atheists rage against religion, it is like someone raging against music simply because some of it is awful.

More like complaining about music that is too loud and causing damage to ears. Religion harms people.

Did you consider what I wrote preaching or raging against religion? You used both words in describing atheists expressing their opinions. Do you consider yourself respectful of atheists or atheism? I don't. And I get that a lot from believers here on RF. Naturally, I respect none of that, nor the isms that teach them atheophobic thoughts - another reason to want to see at least the Abrahamic religions diminish in influence (antitheism). I'd prefer encountering fewer such people.

And you shouldn't expect more respect than you offer.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Have Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett started being more respectful of religious people? I wasn't aware any of them had made any adjustments in their attitudes.

Hitchens hasn’t, but then he’s brown bread as they say round my way. So it would be hard to tell if he had.

 

[paarsurrey]

IndigoChild5559 said:
Have Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett started being more respectful of religious people? I wasn't aware any of them had made any adjustments in their attitudes.

Hitchens hasn’t, but then he’s brown bread as they say round my way. So it would be hard to tell if he had.

Yes, Hitchens died. I read his book "God is not Great" from cover to cover. The man had no deep study of some religions, this is obvious when he couldn't quote from root books of some religions although he spoke against them, right?
Isn't it inappropriate for a research Scholar, please, right?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

You folks hold waaaay too unproperly high expectations of some of those people.

That is really missing the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The New Atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, are well known for their lack of respect towards religion. Unlike atheists of the past who took a live and let live attitude towards religion, the New Atheists preach that religion is a horrible thing that needs to be expunged.

In your opinion, is there no truth in any of their criticisms of religion?

I mean, first, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris don't always agree among themselves, and certainly there are many criticisms of what they have -- individually and ensemble -- said. But I think there are some general themes that deserve consideration. For instance:

• The New Atheists generally argue that religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific understanding. They assert that religious faith can hinder scientific progress by promoting dogma and discouraging critical inquiry.
• They seem critical of religious dogma, and argue that it can lead to intolerance, violence, and discrimination, often citing historical and contemporary examples where religious beliefs have been used to justify persecution and conflict.
• I think they argue, in my view rightly, that morality is not dependent on religious teachings, but rather are a consequence of our human nature, and rather than hard, doctrinal rules, argue for a secular moral framework based on reason, empathy, and societal values. Just for example, religion's view of different sexual orientations and identifications differs wildly from that of modern psychological and neurological study. Is only the religious view appropriate in such questions?
• It seems to me that they point out the many inconsistencies, contradictions, and morally problematic passages in religious texts like Bible, Qur'an etc., (like the massacre of the Canaanites or the threatened sacrifice of Isaac), and argue that these texts should not be considered as infallible guides for morality or truth.
• It also seems to me that they question the value of faith as a method for understanding or coping with the world and the difficulties we face, pointing out that relying on faith rather than evidence and reason can lead to belief in unfounded or irrational ideas. Or even failure -- praying instead of seeking medical help for an ill child, for example.
• I know that all four of them criticize religious institutions for suppressing dissent and discouraging questioning, arguing that this can lead to a stifling of intellectual freedom and hinder social progress.
• Last (for my post, but not for them), the New Atheists express concern about the intersection of religion and politics, particularly when religious beliefs influence public policy. They argue that decisions based on religious doctrine may not be in the best interest of society as a whole.

Is there not, in your view, some truth in those arguments?

And let me say, this post attempts to answer the question posed by the thread itself -- skepticism, in my opinion, must always rear its questioning head when confronted by any sort of dogma: religious, political and economic. Skepticism just means asking questions. If the answers support the dogma, go with it, but if they don't, well, then what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, Hitchens died. I read his book "God is not Great" from cover to cover. The man had no deep study of some religions, this is obvious when he couldn't quote from root books of some religions although he spoke against them, right?
Isn't it inappropriate for a research Scholar, please, right?

While you may be correct about Hitchen's scholarly knowledge of various religions -- and their books -- I have to ask if having such knowledge can actually tell you if writers from the distant past actually had access to divine knowledge, or only thought that they did. That is by far the deeper question.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In your opinion, is there no truth in any of their criticisms of religion?

I mean, first, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris don't always agree among themselves, and certainly there are many criticisms of what they have -- individually and ensemble -- said. But I think there are some general themes that deserve consideration. For instance:

• The New Atheists generally argue that religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific understanding. They assert that religious faith can hinder scientific progress by promoting dogma and discouraging critical inquiry.
• They seem critical of religious dogma, and argue that it can lead to intolerance, violence, and discrimination, often citing historical and contemporary examples where religious beliefs have been used to justify persecution and conflict.
• I think they argue, in my view rightly, that morality is not dependent on religious teachings, but rather are a consequence of our human nature, and rather than hard, doctrinal rules, argue for a secular moral framework based on reason, empathy, and societal values. Just for example, religion's view of different sexual orientations and identifications differs wildly from that of modern psychological and neurological study. Is only the religious view appropriate in such questions?
• It seems to me that they point out the many inconsistencies, contradictions, and morally problematic passages in religious texts like Bible, Qur'an etc., (like the massacre of the Canaanites or the threatened sacrifice of Isaac), and argue that these texts should not be considered as infallible guides for morality or truth.
• It also seems to me that they question the value of faith as a method for understanding or coping with the world and the difficulties we face, pointing out that relying on faith rather than evidence and reason can lead to belief in unfounded or irrational ideas. Or even failure -- praying instead of seeking medical help for an ill child, for example.
• I know that all four of them criticize religious institutions for suppressing dissent and discouraging questioning, arguing that this can lead to a stifling of intellectual freedom and hinder social progress.
• Last (for my post, but not for them), the New Atheists express concern about the intersection of religion and politics, particularly when religious beliefs influence public policy. They argue that decisions based on religious doctrine may not be in the best interest of society as a whole.

Is there not, in your view, some truth in those arguments?

And let me say, this post attempts to answer the question posed by the thread itself -- skepticism, in my opinion, must always rear its questioning head when confronted by any sort of dogma: religious, political and economic. Skepticism just means asking questions. If the answers support the dogma, go with it, but if they don't, well, then what?

I'm not going to go into detail, and I'm not going to get into it with you. I will repeat what I've already said. Religion is, by and large, a good thing. That doesn't mean that it can't be abused. It means that we homo sapiens have evolved to be religious creatures because it is good for us. There is plenty of scientific research that shows being involved in religious communities makes us healthier, happier, longer lived, and have a buffer against anxiety and depression. Religion has evolved largely because it supports cooperative groups, and cooperative groups will out compete non-cooperative groups every time. Next time you see a non-profit hospital, soup kitchen, or food bank, remember, they exist due to religious people working together.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not going to go into detail, and I'm not going to get into it with you. I will repeat what I've already said. Religion is, by and large, a good thing. That doesn't mean that it can't be abused. It means that we homo sapiens have evolved to be religious creatures because it is good for us. There is plenty of scientific research that shows being involved in religious communities makes us healthier, happier, longer lived, and have a buffer against anxiety and depression. Religion has evolved largely because it supports cooperative groups, and cooperative groups will out compete non-cooperative groups every time. Next time you see a non-profit hospital, soup kitchen, or food bank, remember, they exist due to religious people working together.

And if, just perchance, the other outcome is the harming of our planet to the extent it can no longer support us (something that is clearly happening)?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And if, just perchance, the other outcome is the harming of our planet to the extent it can no longer support us (something that is clearly happening)?

The harm we are doing to our planet is not due to religion. It is due to:
1. Overpopulating the planet, because procreating is a basic instinct.
2. Not listening to scientists who have warned us about climate change because again our instinct is to believe those things which are convenient.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
Yes, Hitchens died. I read his book "God is not Great" from cover to cover. The man had no deep study of some religions, this is obvious when he couldn't quote from root books of some religions although he spoke against them, right?
Isn't it inappropriate for a research Scholar, please, right?

While you may be correct about Hitchen's scholarly knowledge of various religions -- and their books -- I have to ask if having such knowledge can actually tell you if writers from the distant past actually had access to divine knowledge, or only thought that they did. That is by far the deeper question.

Yes, the founders of almost all religions in different nations did have a Direct Converse of Gd, it is another matter that their followers forgot the message or changed it, so Gd revived the message through another human being by a Direct Converse, right?

Regards

 

[Kfox]

Yes, the founders of almost all religions in different nations did have a Direct Converse of Gd, it is another matter that their followers forgot the message or changed it, so Gd revived the message through another human being by a Direct Converse, right?

Regards

Why does God do that? Why does God use messengers to relay his message? Why doesn’t he just give the message himself?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The harm we are doing to our planet is not due to religion. It is due to:
1. Overpopulating the planet, because procreating is a basic instinct.
2. Not listening to scientists who have warned us about climate change because again our instinct is to believe those things which are convenient.

China managed, for quite a while, to limit its birth-rate. In a competitive world, scarcity of resource can easily mitigate against over-procreating. That's how animal populations, left undisturbed, manage. But the Bible tells us to "be fruitful and multiply," and to "take dominion over the earth," and so we do.

As to not listening to scientists, perhaps you didn't see my post on why beliefs are so persistent, even in the face of evidence that shows them to be completely wrong. Religion isn’t good for everyone.

And as I said on Post #49 in this thread, religion teaches us not to listen to science and reason -- but to received dogma.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, the founders of almost all religions in different nations did have a Direct Converse of Gd, it is another matter that their followers forgot the message or changed it, so Gd revived the message through another human being by a Direct Converse, right?

Regards

And the reason you believe that is because they told you that they did. And here's the real problem: if all those "founders of almost all religions in different nations" did have direct converse with God, then God must spend a great deal of his time changing his mind. The human race has been fighting over differences in religious belief since we started having religious beliefs, and only because all those different religious beliefs teach things contrary to one another. You see, Christ either is or is not the "Son of God." Christianity says yes, Islam says no. They cannot possibly both be right.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As to not listening to scientists, perhaps you didn't see my post on why beliefs are so persistent, even in the face of evidence that shows them to be completely wrong.

People are irrational because that is our biology as human creatures. There are any number of errors in logical thinking that are very common to people. Stop blaming religion for it.

 

[PureX]

Neil deGrass Tyson published a book called "Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier"
But that wasn't the original title he wanted. The original title was "Failure to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts"
His publisher made him change it, because it was "bad for business" to have the word "failure" in the title from a marketing standpoint.

His publisher was fool. I'd have read a book by that original title WAY before I'd ever read a book with the bland title it was given.

Tyson is at his best when he's debunking scientism by talking about what all science, DOESN'T and even CAN'T know. Unfortunately he's become a 'personality' now, and so he doesn't talk that way much anymore. He's being told it's bad for business, I guess.

 

[PureX]

My view of skepticism is that it's not the necessity that a lot of folks make it put to be. Sometimes it's good to be skeptical, and other times skepticism is just a useless impediment. And these probable happen abut 50% of the time, each.

I think what we really ought to be trying to develop is discernment. An ability to intuit when it's wise to be skeptical and when it's just wasting time and energy. When to move forward and when to step back.