My View of Skepticism

[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.

It surprises me as to why the Atheism people support Hitchens and his above book, it is nothing more than simply supporting one's group, right?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It surprises me as to why the Atheism people support Hitchens and his above book, it is nothing more than simply supporting one's group, right?

I can't speak for other atheists. I can tell you that, for the most part (not always), I have found his arguments convincing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

In my experience, people tend to go off on tangents about "scientism" whenever science says things they don't like.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It surprises me as to why the Atheism people support Hitchens and his above book, it is nothing more than simply supporting one's group, right?

I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that I don't support Hitchens merely for the idea that "i belong to his group". I don't think that way. I actively try to not think that way.

I also don't "automatically" agree with whatever he says because he's Christopher Hitchins.
When I agree with an argument he makes, I agree with it because of the argument. Not because he said it.

And sure, for the most part I think his arguments tend to be well reasoned and fair. Sure, he's blunt and confrontational, but that's just his style it seems to me.

 

[PureX]

In my experience, people tend to go off on tangents about "scientism" whenever science says things they don't like.

Then you have no idea what scientism even is, or why anyone would mention it. But of course you don't, being that you're a part of it.

 

[AppieB]

When I think of skepticism nowadays, I tend to think of uncertainty accompanied by a considerable measure of curiosity rather than immediate or categorical dismissal. Up until a few years ago, dismissal was more central in my conception of skepticism, whereby any idea or suggestion without empirical evidence to back it up should be immediately discarded.

Sure, I view skepticism as more than just an immediate dismissal. It's about asking questions and investigate if a claim is true or not. It's withholding belief until sufficient reason and/or evidence is presented.

This is one of the main reasons I have increasingly felt distant and disconnected from "New Atheism" and associated figures like Richard Dawkins, one of whose book titles, The God Delusion, exemplifies the simplistic dismissal I'm discussing here.

But I don't think you can accuse Dawkins of "simplistic dismissal" when he writes a book about the arguments and evidence for the existence of a god or gods. He goes in great detail as why he thinks these arguments or evidences are flawed. You might not like the tone in which it's written or not agree with his counterarguments, but he did exactly what a skeptic supposed to do: investigate if it's reasonable or not. That's not a simplistic dismissal.

 

[AppieB]

It surprises me as to why the Atheism people support Hitchens and his above book, it is nothing more than simply supporting one's group, right?

I'm not convinced by people. I'm convinced by arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you have no idea what scientism even is, or why anyone would mention it.

I can only repeat what I said.

Whenever someone starts ranting about "scientism", especially on forums such as these, every single time it seems to be more about "I don't like it when science contradicts my a priori beliefs" rather then about an actual valid objection to anything in particular.

But of course you don't, being that you're a part of it.

See? Like that. You're just making my point.
Try to properly argue your accusation instead of simply throwing it around. At this point, it just seems an attempt at trying to undermine me through some form of character assassination more then anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure, I view skepticism as more than just an immediate dismissal. It's about asking questions and investigate if a claim is true or not. It's withholding belief until sufficient reason and/or evidence is presented.

A good approach.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
It surprises me as to why the Atheism people support Hitchens and his above book, it is nothing more than simply supporting one's group, right?

I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that I don't support Hitchens merely for the idea that "i belong to his group". I don't think that way. I actively try to not think that way.

I also don't "automatically" agree with whatever he says because he's Christopher Hitchins.
When I agree with an argument he makes, I agree with it because of the argument. Not because he said it.

Good approach.

Regards