My View of Skepticism

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point about the New Atheists.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Maybe your username needs an upgrade to represent your more evolved sensibilities Slayer of Debates!

 

[Kfox]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point about the New Atheists.

It has more to do with your claim that Atheists of yesterday were more of the "live and let live" type. The reality is with yesterday's atheists some were hostile towards religions, some were not, and with today's atheists some are hostile towards religion; some are not

 

[viole]

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

Well, that does not defeat my claim that all religions should get the respect they deserve. Even if I were a new atheist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Yerda]

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.

This is very similar to my own trajectory.

I don't believe in any gods but I've had a couple of experiences and "insights" that led me toward perceiving a great big mystery at the centre of...everything. And I grew tired of the skeptics and the rationalists. Daniel Dennett is a person I very much enjoy listening to but the other leading figures in the atheist propaganda movement just bore me. They don't have anything to say that is useful to me, I suppose, though I do appreciate some of their works.

I'm actively interested in a few religious traditions. The more open minded I am the more about them the more I tend to suspect there is something useful and interesting in the way people categorise and relate to the world.

I still don't expect to find gods or acquire some religious practice, but I feel like I'm getting closer to being able to situate myself within the frames that other people might use to speak of the divine or spirituality or whatever. And I'm enjoying this. Dismissing everything that doesn't sit within the bucket of objects science can reliably study was a bad approach for me. Now I feel much freer and more content to explore wherever the notion takes me.

I hope this makes some sense.

 

[Jimmy]

Definitely gotta keep that curiosity alive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Are you of the opinion that religions should get respect by default?

Last time I checked, respect needs to be earned.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are you of the opinion that religions should get respect by default?

Last time I checked, respect needs to be earned.

I am of the opinion that religion in general is a good thing, although certainly it can be abused. Evolution has selected for humans to be religious beings. When New Atheists rage against religion, it is like someone raging against music simply because some of it is awful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am of the opinion that religion in general is a good thing

Well, I'm not.

Evolution has selected for humans to be religious beings.

So? That doesn't make it a good thing. Evolution made humans tribalistic in nature also, which also isn't a good thing.

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

I disagree.
If by "new atheists" you mean people like Hitchins and Dawkins, they aren't just "raging" for the sake of it.
I find their arguments against religions (mostly specific religions, btw) and certain religious principles to be well thought out and argued.
It's not like they "rage" against it merely because they "don't like it". It's disengenous to imply that.

You can certainly disagree with them on whatever point, but you can't say that they don't make reasoned arguments.
If you ask them "why do you rage against religion X?" you'll get a whole lecture with well-reasoned arguments which underpins their "raging".
You will not get a "well, because i don't like it" or "because i say so".

I think that matters.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Dawkins, by his own words is not an atheist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Dawkins, by his own words is not an atheist.

I listened to the video. He creates a seven point scale where 1 is complete confidence that God exists, and 7 is complete confidence that God does not exist. He describes himself as an 6.9. In what world is that not an atheist?

"Philosophers such as Antony Flew and Michael Martin have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism."

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So? That doesn't make it a good thing. Evolution made humans tribalistic in nature also, which also isn't a good thing.

It means that it is ADAPTIVE.

I realize that it is currently very trendy to be opposed to "tribalism." I do not share that view. I have nothing against people forming cooperative groups. There is nothing wrong with someone being Cherokee. If you want to disagree, that is your perogative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It means that it is ADAPTIVE.

I realize that it is currently very trendy to be opposed to "tribalism."

Don't know about "trendy". It's just that in an increasingly globalizing and multi-cultural world, tribalism is the main psychological cause of wars. Us vs Them.
And even within single cultures. It's what makes the fans of one football club break the face of the supporters of another football club.

I will also add, btw, that evolution more then likely did NOT "select for" religious people.
Religion more then likely is merely a byproduct, a side effect, of other psychological constructs.
Primarily the tendency to engage in type 2 cognition errors (the false positive) and the assumption of agency in otherwise random events as a survival mechanism, which forms the basis for superstition.

The classic example is hearing a noise in the bushes. Is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator sneaking up on you for his lunch?
Those individuals that assume the dangerous predator will run. Those that don't will stay put. If it turns out to be a predator, those that didn't run will die.
If you run and it's not a predator, you just engaged in a type 2 cognition error and infused agency in a mere sound.

Natural selection favors those more likely to engage in that cognition error. If you run and it was just the wind, you didn't lose anything. You just went for a jog / sprint. The vast majority of animals that are seen as a meal by other animals, tend to engage in exactly such behavior.

A crockodile for example, will not be jumping up / running away when it hears a sound in the bushes. But rabbits, squirels, birds, etc will.

The propensity to invent and hold religious beliefs, is thus most likely a byproduct of that survival mechanism.

Just thought I'ld point that out.

Anyway...................

 

[ChristineM]

I listened to the video. He creates a seven point scale where 1 is complete confidence that God exists, and 7 is complete confidence that God does not exist. He describes himself as an 6.9. In what world is that not an atheist?

"Philosophers such as Antony Flew and Michael Martin have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism."

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's not a 7, that doubt is what creates the magic. He rates himself 6 leaning to 7.
BTW, we are talking Dawkins, not anyone else.

 

[ChristineM]

In what world is that not an atheist?

I remind you of the definition of atheist...

From the OED.

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

In what world does having doubt make someone an atheist?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I remind you of the definition of atheist...

From the OED.

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

In what world does having doubt make someone an atheist?

Disbelief in a deity does not always mean the same as belief in no deity. This is an important distinction between hard atheism, in which the person has a positive affirmative belief that there is no god/s, and soft atheism, where the person simply does not have an affirmative belief in any god. For example, lets say you have an agnostic who takes no stand. This agnostic would be a form of soft atheism.

Until you are able to understand the difference between affirming "there is no god" and simply not believing there is a god, you are not going to be able to have a grasp on the different forms of atheism.

The following short video is great at explaining this much better than I, and uses charts an stuff.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's not a 7, that doubt is what creates the magic. He rates himself 6 leaning to 7.
BTW, we are talking Dawkins, not anyone else.

You don't have to be a 7 to be an atheist. See my previous post.

 

[ChristineM]

Disbelief in a deity does not always mean the same as belief in no deity. This is an important distinction between hard atheism, in which the person has a positive affirmative belief that there is no god/s, and soft atheism, where the person simply does not have an affirmative belief in any god. For example, lets say you have an agnostic who takes no stand. This agnostic would be a form of soft atheism.

Until you are able to understand the difference between affirming "there is no god" and simply not believing there is a god, you are not going to be able to have a grasp on the different forms of atheism.

The following short video is great at explaining this much better than I, and uses charts an stuff.

I didn't write the definition. Obviously you ignore the definition. That's not my problem, take it up with the OED

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I will also add, btw, that evolution more then likely did NOT "select for" religious people.

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

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn't write the definition. Obviously you ignore the definition. That's not my problem, take it up with the OED

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.