My View of Skepticism

[Debater Slayer]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Great post!

I spent a large portion of my life as a skeptic, refuting others experiences and even, in some cases, outright dismissing them, but have all but moved away from skepticism entirely. That's not to say that I'll readily accept the experiences of another and bring them into my own fold, but I will accept them as substantive experiences of their own.

I have little interest anymore in attempting to validate or invalidate the experiences of another. If they had an experience of God or whatnot or even believe they had such an experience, I may question their views to determine why they trust the experience, but having had experiences myself that most would readily attempt to invalidate or outright dismiss, I see no reason to put others on the defensive save instances they are expecting me to adjust my view to align with their experiences.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

I think people misconstrue skepticism as being something negative when it's actually not.

 

[Orbit]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

My first exposure to skepticism and the L.A. Skeptic community was in the 1990s through a woman that I worked for part-time. I was a theist at the time. I didn't mind that she was an atheist, but the skeptics, judging by her behavior, anyway, were just a bit too disrespectful for my taste. I don't mean that I found disagreements about religions, or the existence of atheism bothersome. It was stuff like she would take the Gideon Bibles out of hotel rooms when she traveled, and bring them home to throw in the trash. (True story). It just seemed a bit senseless to me.

 

[blü 2]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

If a novelty is proposed, and you reply, Really? Show me. ─ that's skepticism.

As for actually showing ─ demonstrating, the objective reality of ─ the entities of supernatural religion, well, the track record speaks for itself.

But if people treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, what they believe is by and large not very relevant.

Except on the RF debate boards, of course.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Because we more or less understand why people hold those beliefs. Most people were raised to believe in some kind of god and it is just natural to them to believe in god(s) because of this. Others were converted by someone, convinced either by words, goods or services. And yet others simply became enamoured by some aspect of that religion and then converted.

Some of them even had an extraordinary experience, but that when scrutinized could be either explained without resorting to the supernatural or could fit a multitude of entities rather than any specific god (and yet those believers often find a way to use those experiences to justify belief in one god in particular).

Then we also have the mentally ill, and the con artists, and...

Well, I don't intend to make a fully comprehensible list, but you get the gist of it. Once we get past all of that, isn't it far more likely that those god experiences weren't actually god experiences?

 

[LuisDantas]

Myself, I have fully embraced anti-theism about ten years ago.

Never had a reason to reconsider. Probably never will.

I also realized that ignotheism and apatheism are very much necessary. Far too often people end up pretending that this is a well-delimited subject matter when it is anything but.

Ultimately, there may be a deity, or there may not be; but it just doesn't and can't matter much either way. By the time that you decide that it is an important matter, all the healthy significance of the subject matter has been thrown away violently already.

To think otherwise is... in all honesty, it is grave denial.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

I appreciate.

Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

I favor dismissal over curiosity.
For example, The God Delusion.
Never read it. Not interested.
But occasionally, novel things
do inspire curiosity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think people misconstrue skepticism as being something negative when it's actually not.

CS Lewis wrote a sci fi novel called That Hideous Strength. My favorite character in that book was the skeptic. The protagonist of the story made the remark that believers need skeptics, because skeptics keep us honest.

 

[Kfox]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

Just because you are skeptical of their claim does not mean you have to label their beliefs primitive superstitions, or emotional crutches. Skepticism simply means you are not believing what they say.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

I consider myself a skeptic (though because I am also skeptical about theism, most call me atheist) but as a skeptic I don't feel a need to invalidate their claims.

 

[MikeF]

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.

For example, if someone tells me now that their religious practice involves contacting spirits or receiving hints from their god or gods, my reaction will primarily be to ask them more questions to understand why they believe what they do and to explore what they're experiencing, if they can put it into words (since I realize that some experiences may be difficult or impossible to describe) and are inclined to share it. This doesn't mean that I will share their beliefs, since their reasons for belief, which could include personal experience, may not apply to me, but I view the diversity of human experiences, psychology, and cultures as too vast for me to simply dismiss the religious beliefs of clearly sane and reasonable people as "delusions," "emotional crutches," "primitive superstitions," etc. I believe our reasons for belief tend to be much more complex and diverse than that.

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. 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?

I'm not arguing for a god of the gaps, to be sure; 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. My worldview is materialistic, secular, and skeptical, but this is my skepticism: I strive to keep it consisting of uncertainty and curiosity rather than dismissal and stigmatization. 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.

Discuss.

I have a different take on what it means to be skeptical. I certainly do not see it as immediate and categorical dismissal. I also do not equate holding a false or incorrect belief as equating to delusion, a term I see as referring to a form of mental disorder or pathology.

For me, skepticism starts with the acknowledgement of the fact that human beings are fallible, and that fallibility can manifest itself in any number of ways and for multiple and varied reasons. Given this starting point, great care is required to mitigate this inherent fallibility to the best of our ability as we work to develop accurate knowledge and understanding of not only the world around us, but of ourselves as well. This takes effort and it requires discipline. With this disciplined effort we can collectively build a core of knowledge that we can have confidence in, a foundation that provides an objective vantage point much improved over the fallible subjective vantage point of any one individual. Skepticism, then, grounds itself upon this vetted core of objective understanding to evaluate the stated beliefs or observation of an individual.

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?

It is both the diversity across cultures and across time as well as the conformity to a specific individual's culture and time in regards to similarly described events that gives us confidence that such claims are a product of our inherent fallibility.

You appeal to our ignorance as an avenue to entertain possibility, but over the millennia, when has our imagined explanation of the unknown ever survived our eventual knowing? Heaven’s above the clouds and Hell’s under our feet have all succumbed to our eventual knowing. From my perspective, a skeptical position treats unexplainable phenomena as exactly that, unexplainable until sufficient verifiable data can be obtained to provide an explanation that comports with the collective core of knowledge and understanding for which we have already established confidence. Outside of that, all that is left to us is to scratch our head and admit we simply don’t know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Not that I feel a particular need to defend (or "support") Richard Dawkins, but have you read that book?

I did. And it's not the "outright dismissal" people sometimes try to present it as.
There sure are outright dismissals of specific god concepts in there, but they tend to be very well argued and reasoned as opposed to handwaved.

Just thought I'ld point that out.
Popular / commercial books tend to have titles aimed at controversy or attention grabbing moreso then to actually reflect the content of it. This only to make people buy it more easily.


To illustrate.... 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.

 

[viole]

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. 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?

Yes, we should all give the deserved amount of respect to ideas, even if they do not have the smallest shred of evidence of being true.

It is difficult sometimes, but I am the living proof that it is possible. Even though it takes some effort. A lot of effort. I was also a new atheist, and I used to laugh (quite literally) at such god claims, but now I realize it was rude.

For instance, yesterday I manage to keep serious and respectful when my friend from Iceland told me that some trolls stole his breakfast last week. People in Iceland tend to believe in trolls and elves, and I learned that this also deserves respect. Like belief in Gods, since elves and gods are ontological equivalent, for what concerns plausibility, evidence and such.

And that helped me feeling a better person. Or a better atheist. Alas, more like an old one and not a new one, anymore.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, we should all give the deserved amount of respect to ideas, even if they do not have the smallest shred of evidence of being true.

It is difficult sometimes, but I am the living proof that it is possible. Even though it takes some effort. A lot of effort. I was also a new atheist, and I used to laugh (quite literally) at such god claims, but now I realize it was rude.

For instance, yesterday I manage to keep serious and respectful when my friend from Iceland told me that some trolls stole his breakfast last week. People in Iceland tend to believe in trolls and elves, and I learned that this also deserves respect. Like belief in Gods, since elves and gods are ontological equivalent, for what concerns plausibility, evidence and such.

And that helped me feeling a better person. Or a better atheist. Alas, more like an old one and not a new one, anymore.

Ciao

- viole

I appreciate and welcome the change of attitude in some New Atheists, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I appreciate and welcome the change of attitude in the New Atheists, please, right?

Regards

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.

 

[viole]

I appreciate and welcome the change of attitude in some New Atheists, please, right?

Regards

I don't know what you mean. I always supported giving the deserved amount of respect to all religions. The same is valid for all new atheists I know.

Ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Yes, we should all give the deserved amount of respect to ideas, even if they do not have the smallest shred of evidence of being true.

It is difficult sometimes, but I am the living proof that it is possible. Even though it takes some effort. A lot of effort. I was also a new atheist, and I used to laugh (quite literally) at such god claims, but now I realize it was rude.

For instance, yesterday I manage to keep serious and respectful when my friend from Iceland told me that some trolls stole his breakfast last week. People in Iceland tend to believe in trolls and elves, and I learned that this also deserves respect. Like belief in Gods, since elves and gods are ontological equivalent, for what concerns plausibility, evidence and such.

And that helped me feeling a better person. Or a better atheist. Alas, more like an old one and not a new one, anymore.

Ciao

- viole

Some people don't believe in trolls and elves?

I'm shocked ... shocked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The same is valid for all new atheists I know.

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.

 

[Kfox]

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 the 1960’s Madalyn Murray O’hair was anything but “live and let live” in her approach. Yeah; eventually she was brutally murdered, but up to that point, she was an activist, she was political, as a matter of fact; she and her “American Atheist Organization” that she started was responsible for getting prayer out of American schools.