Reasons to be a Skeptic – Not an Atheist

[Quintessence]

The word 'Skeptic' has been hijacked in recent years by a group that is not really skeptical, but no-holds-barred defenders of atheist-materialism.

Precisely why I generally avoid using the word to describe myself. The colloquial meaning of "skeptic" bears little resemblance to true skepticism, which is essentially the practice of critical thinking.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism, to me, is positive, positing a way that the world is, sans "god." Skepticism is apart from that.

 

[Mickdrew]

From Wikipedia: Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.

The word 'Skeptic' has been hijacked in recent years by a group that is not really skeptical, but no-holds-barred defenders of atheist-materialism. A true skeptic is willing to go where the evidence takes him and is not the defender of a position. I think the hijacking of the word is what is causing your confusion. There is open-minded and closed-minded skepticism out there.

There is no hijacking. There is a widespread view that Atheist materialism is the most appropriate position for a skeptic to take.
It certainly seems to have the most justification as far as I can see.

Precisely why I generally avoid using the word to describe myself. The colloquial meaning of "skeptic" bears little resemblance to true skepticism, which is essentially the practice of critical thinking.

Again, you are judging it to not be "true" skepticism because most people don't reach the same conclusion as you by its method.

Someone who is a-communism has options for more pointed self-descriptors of sociopolitical ideology. Murder isn't itself an ideology or belief, though there's plenty of ideologies out there which have beliefs regarding murder.
More importantly, I think, theism tells us as little about a person's belief as atheism. There are a myriad of different kinds of theistic beliefs, some without any ideology attached. The purpose of the terms isn't to give more information other than if a person does or does not believe in god or gods. Then further clarification can be done with other terms. E.g. I am a ignostic agnostic atheistic apatheist consequentialist.
That may be a bit of a word Salad but it tells a lot more about me and my ideology than skeptic does, especially since most people believe they are skeptical in their own mind, in all ideological categories. I just can't see myself reducing my beliefs to one single term, so I don't. I use multiple terms in concert.

One of them is atheist.

I see where you're coming from, for the most part.
Theism (rather than deism) means "a personal God", which I think does say a great deal about a person's views and how they see themselves.
I narrowed on the single word "skeptic" because it describes the essence of a person's mindset more than a specific position on religion or God.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see where you're coming from, for the most part.
Theism (rather than deism) means "a personal God", which I think does say a great deal about a person's views and how they see themselves.
I narrowed on the single word "skeptic" because it describes the essence of a person's mindset more than a specific position on religion or God.

Deism is a theistic belief, not apart from it. Theism just means a belief in any kind of god or gods, personal, impersonal, monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, etc etc.
And again, most people, a/gnostic, a/theistic, i/gnostic and everything inbetween can and do identify as skeptic. So it would require further clarification anyway.

Edit: Should also add that deism doesn't mean an impersonal god always either. There's a deist here who believes in the Abrahamic god but that the Abrahamic god is uninvolved in mankind only until death. But is very much involved with them in the afterlife.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have never much cared for the label “atheism”. This is not just because of the baggage and connotations that come with it, but also because, as many have argued, it is a label that describes a negative. If we labelled ourselves just on what we did not believe, we’d be weighed down with having to call ourselves “A-communists” or “a-murderers” (not to equate those as being the same, of course).

I'm not going to debate your personal aesthetic preferences (I hate bananas, so it's okay by me if you hate negative labels),
but we label things based on negatives all the time: "non-smokers", "vegetarians", "dissenters", "alternative", "sedentary", etc. I really don't see the issue with it.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not going to debate your personal aesthetic preferences (I hate bananas, so it's okay by me if you hate negative labels),
but we label things based on negatives all the time: "non-smokers", "vegetarians", "dissenters", "alternative", "sedentary", etc. I really don't see the issue with it.

People who restrict their diet to vegetables are not saddled with a negative term, any more than people who restrict their diet to meat would be.

 

[George-ananda]

There is no hijacking. There is a widespread view that Atheist materialism is the most appropriate position for a skeptic to take.
It certainly seems to have the most justification as far as I can see.

Yes, the word has been hijacked. The type of skeptics you are referring to are frequently called pseudo-skeptics by many (myself included). They are not interested in open-minded consideration but in defending atheistic-materialism.

Perhaps why you are somewhat equating skepticism and atheism is because you are thinking of theism too much as the Abrahamic God with all its trappings. Some might think of it as the interconnectedness of individuals in One entity as opposed to a separate independent being for example.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

People who restrict their diet to vegetables are not saddled with a negative term, any more than people who restrict their diet to meat would be.

Acarnivoria? ...No that would be not part of the taxon, which is true but not relevent.
Acarnivory? Doesn't really roll off the tongue.
Anticarnivory? Hmm...

 

[Mickdrew]

Deism is a theistic belief, not apart from it. Theism just means a belief in any kind of god or gods, personal, impersonal, monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, etc etc.
And again, most people, a/gnostic, a/theistic, i/gnostic and everything inbetween can and do identify as skeptic. So it would require further clarification anyway.

I think we're both operating under different understanding of theism and deism.
From my understanding, deism holds the belief in a supreme being and creator that does not intervene in how universe operates (whether for human interests or otherwise)
Theism is the belief that a supreme creator does intervene.

If you wanted to make your position clear, then yes, you would have to clarify further. That goes without saying.
"Skeptic" is meant to describe a person's mindset of philosophical approach. I think that tells us more about the person than what position someone may hold at a specific time.

I'm not going to debate your personal aesthetic preferences (I hate bananas, so it's okay by me if you hate negative labels),
but we label things based on negatives all the time: "non-smokers", "vegetarians", "dissenters", "alternative", "sedentary", etc. I really don't see the issue with it.

People certainly do describe themselves in negatives. I was wrong to make it seem like that wasn't the case.
I just don't see it as very helpful in this case.

 

[Mickdrew]

Yes, the word has been hijacked. The type of skeptics you are referring to are frequently called pseudo-skeptics by many (myself included). They are not interested in open-minded consideration but in defending atheistic-materialism.

If they have ruled out a certain position, and you bring the same arguments that they've considered, then do not be surprised when your views are not readily accepted.

Perhaps why you are somewhat equating skepticism and atheism is because you are thinking of theism too much as the Abrahamic God with all its trappings. Some might think of it as the interconnectedness of individuals in One entity as opposed to a separate independent being for example.

The elegant razor of Occam cuts through this effortlessly.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think we're both operating under different understanding of theism and deism.
From my understanding, deism holds the belief in a supreme being and creator that does not intervene in how universe operates (whether for human interests or otherwise)
Theism is the belief that a supreme creator does intervene.

That is a type of deism for sure, but not the sum total. It is certainly possible to be someone who believes in a god that used to intervene but no longer does, or isn't currently intervening but will eventually, or that the gods do intervene, but only in mechanisms of the universe and not with human affairs, and all of the above could be classified as deists. And all of the above could be classified as theists. I don't know of many or anyone who could consider deism as non-theism or atheism (the two mean the same thing root word form). Classical deists usually considered themselves Christian deists, after all.

If you wanted to make your position clear, then yes, you would have to clarify further. That goes without saying.
"Skeptic" is meant to describe a person's mindset of philosophical approach. I think that tells us more about the person than what position someone may hold at a specific time.

Again though, I don't think it's very useful as an informative label if everyone believes they are skeptical. You might disagree with what that mindset should be, but that makes about as much difference in personal identification as a Baptist not believing a Catholic is a 'real Christian.' Doesn't change that someone who says 'I am a Christian' could be referring to Baptists or Catholics or many other branches.

 

[George-ananda]

If they have ruled out a certain position, and you bring the same arguments that they've considered, then do not be surprised when your views are not readily accepted.

Yes but different theologies are supported with different arguments.

The elegant razor of Occam cuts through this effortlessly.

If an observation (paranormal) can not be explained through the current paradigm (materialism), then it becomes appropriate to promote hypotheses including new things. Even Occam would agree.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have never much cared for the label “atheism”. This is not just because of the baggage and connotations that come with it, but also because, as many have argued, it is a label that describes a negative. If we labelled ourselves just on what we did not believe, we’d be weighed down with having to call ourselves “A-communists” or “a-murderers” (not to equate those as being the same, of course). These labels should be used to affirm something about ourselves, not simply exclude certain positions.

Having pondered over this, I’ve concluded that “skeptic” is truly the best way to describe the very essence of scientific naturalism. Prior suggestions by other New Atheists such as “brights” does little inform others where people stand (in addition to being very condescending), whereas naming yourself a skeptic perfectly encompasses the heart of our position.

We are always on our toes when it comes to holding “faith” in something, and we do not submit to an unquestioning authority. We question basic assumptions, and make sure our conclusions are based on evidence and logic. It is of course true that faith plays a role in our outlook on life (by being optimistic, looking ahead, hoping for happiness etc.). We are all evolved primates, after all, and can never completely escape our irrational tendencies. All we can do is put in the effort to compensate for them. This is something which still clearly separates us from the great majority of religions, where not showing faith or questioning ultimate authority is seen as a threat.

The easiest example to show this is with Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. At the very last moment when Abraham is about to perform the sacrifice, God sends an angel to stay his hand, and the potential murderer is praised for his faith. Now, any skeptical mind can see that this is an immoral and wicked story. The main point here is not simply to murder, it is actually more sinister than that: it advocates complete servility. “Obey me without question. If I ask you to kill your own family, you must do so without hesitation” – these words jump right off the page. Religious apologists always counter this by pointing out that God stopped Abraham from performing the act. God is benevolent, after all, and would never allow something so evil to actually take place.

Despite this objection, the yoke of evil within this story remains unbroken. God’s benevolence or malevolence is not what makes this immoral; it is Abraham’s obedience. Even though murdering his son is counter to what a benevolent God would want, the story is saying that Abraham should still be willing to perform the act. He has to actually have the will in his heart to do this in order for his faith to be validated – which is the purpose of this.

I hope anyone reading is skeptical enough to know how immoral this is. If you do not, then consider any mentally ill person who hears such voices in their head claiming to be God. As a student of Criminology, I can ensure you that there are more than a handful of murder cases where this exact thing happens. The parent is suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, and hears a voice claiming to be God telling them to kill their children. Now, according to this story in the Bible, any person of faith who hears of this murder case cannot believe the parent’s willingness to kill children because of faith was wrong. It is tragic that it was not actually God commanding it (and was thus not there to stop the parent at the last moment), but the willingness to obey this evil command was not the issue. In the same way that Abraham would’ve killed his son if no one interfered, this parent has shown the same faith by killing their child - so says the honest religious person.

All counter arguments to this are unsatisfactory. The idea that “the parent should’ve known it was a false God” or “we’d know through God’s divine grace if he was really speaking to us” are not enough. Not only does this assume the act wasn’t commanded by God (something which may never be completely impossible for someone religious), but it also tries to have it both ways by defending a story which demands complete obedience to God’s word – except in those cases where you should be skeptical. After all, if the person knew it was the true God and knew that God is benevolent, and then there would be no need to “prove your faith” to begin with because the person would never believe the act was going to happen. The story of Abraham clearly tells us that obedience to God’s word should override all skepticism.

Are you starting to realize how faith can twist you into believing blatantly evil things? No reasonable person would ever consider this line of thinking as moral, nor would they approve of mental gymnastics to excuse these lessons as justified. Any sane person listening to an attempt at justifying this should respond by incredulously asking “Are you serious?”

So a person of faith must ask themselves: is God asking for children to be killed, or is this more likely the result of mental illness? If you say the latter, then it must be asked: wouldn’t it also be more likely that Abraham was mentally ill?

This example shows clearly what separates skeptics from religious obedience. Indeed, the word “Islam” itself can be translated as “submission”. Skeptics such as myself hold a very firm position: were it not for these calls for faith and obedience to a divine ruler, most would see that religious dogma is unreasonable. We now live in a world where robust scientific explanations are plentiful. Merely letting go of our religious biases and embracing these tested and proven discoveries quickly reveal an absence of God in the universe (or the lack of a necessity to impose one, at the very least).

This also works well to counter those that point to Stalin or Mao Zedong as examples of atheistic evil. “These men abandoned religion,” The apologists proclaims, “and they went on to kill millions of people. This shows the danger of abandoning God’s word.” No, it shows the danger of humans as ultimate authority instead of a religion. The lesson here is not to abandon skepticism, but to underline it. Submission to a dictator is as dangerous as submission to a God – and both have caused many deaths. The beauty of labeling yourself as a “skeptic” is that you are not defending every atheist good or bad, but a mindset that always searches for evidence and uses logic rather than faith and servitude.

My position is that the moment you apply a bit of skepticism and not fall into the demands that you be afraid or cower; that’s the moment you realize that the emperor has no clothes (whether the emperor is religion or a dictator). This is not a triumph of atheism; it is a triumph of skepticism. Critical thinking is a virtue to us, and to think freely and without restraint is our paradise. Nothing in this world is beyond being questioned, because no one in this world is perfect – that not only goes for the people we question, but also to ourselves. Since we are all imperfect, we must try to be as skeptical as we can.

Apologies for the length.
Thoughts? Opinions?
What value do you see in religious obedience?

I didn't have time to ponder it all but I think I agree with the gist.

I was born and raised with a strict set of beliefs- instilled not just from my parents but in school & culture in general, which I accepted as unquestionable truth- no matter how extraordinary and unsubstantiated they were. Only when I became older and more skeptical, did I begin to question my atheist beliefs.

Nothing is beyond questioning, so I think the most important thing is that we acknowledge our beliefs as such. i.e. we acknowledge our personal faith- whatever it is.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself, and this is far more dangerous. It's why Stalin, Mao, Il Sung.. etc. were able to kill vastly more people, in a single generation, than every religious war in the history of humanity combined.

 

[Quintessence]

Again,

Again? Huh? Where have I commented about this before in this thread? I don't understand.

.... you are judging it to not be "true" skepticism because most people don't reach the same conclusion as you by its method.

It seems you're conflating me with what some other people may have been posting in this thread, because I've said no such thing. I understand you're responding to multiple posters and it can be hard to keep track, so no worries. Since I didn't speak on this before, I'll tell you now I think no such thing.

 

[Mickdrew]

That is a type of deism for sure, but not the sum total. It is certainly possible to be someone who believes in a god that used to intervene but no longer does, or isn't currently intervening but will eventually, or that the gods do intervene, but only in mechanisms of the universe and not with human affairs, and all of the above could be classified as deists. And all of the above could be classified as theists. I don't know of many or anyone who could consider deism as non-theism or atheism (the two mean the same thing root word form). Classical deists usually considered themselves Christian deists, after all.

There are of course ways to blur the distinction, but in essence deism vs theism is used to answer a simple question:
Will the natural always remain constant, or can they be broken?
If someone thinks a God has intervened or will intervene, then they are a theist.
A deist would be someone who uses the idea of God as the "first cause" or the initiator of the Big Bang, but does nothing afterwards.

Again though, I don't think it's very useful as an informative label if everyone believes they are skeptical. You might disagree with what that mindset should be, but that makes about as much difference in personal identification as a Baptist not believing a Catholic is a 'real Christian.' Doesn't change that someone who says 'I am a Christian' could be referring to Baptists or Catholics or many other branches.

For the purposes of a discussion or a debate, I think saying "I am a Christain" is more helpful, because you're saying where the common ground is between you two, and you two will go on the discuss the differences between your positions.
Likewise, saying you're a skeptic makes sure you're speaking the same language. Many times when talking with someone with another view it seems like you're having two different conversation because they have different standards than you.
It makes more sense for a discussion than loading on a bunch of labels and having to spend most your time explaining them all.

If an observation (paranormal) can not be explained through the current paradigm (materialism), then it becomes appropriate to promote hypotheses including new things. Even Occam would agree.

"When a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions, it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation."
I think Occam would agree with this view much more than imposing an entirely new realm of existence to explain a phenomena.

Again? Huh? Where have I commented about this before in this thread? I don't understand.

I made the same point in the comment right before my response to you.

It seems you're conflating me with what some other people may have been posting in this thread, because I've said no such thing. I understand you're responding to multiple posters and it can be hard to keep track, so no worries. Since I didn't speak on this before, I'll tell you now I think no such thing.

I don't think there is any confusion here. Maybe a misinterpretation
You agreed with GA saying the word "skeptic" has been hijacked by people who aren't skeptical and only want to defend atheist materialism. You say those people aren't truly skeptical because they aren't using critical thinking, and I respond by saying those people just reached a different conclusion than you. That doesn't make them unskeptical.

 

[Laika]

Yes, the word has been hijacked. The type of skeptics you are referring to are frequently called pseudo-skeptics by many (myself included). They are not interested in open-minded consideration but in defending atheistic-materialism.

Perhaps why you are somewhat equating skepticism and atheism is because you are thinking of theism too much as the Abrahamic God with all its trappings. Some might think of it as the interconnectedness of individuals in One entity as opposed to a separate independent being for example.

Whilst I agree that most sceptics are "pseudo-sceptics" often with a very harsh attitude to beliefs they disagree with (such as using ridicule as a means to humiliate someone for there beliefs), virtually all sceptics reject materialism as a world view. The very nature of their scepticism means they treat materialism as a dogma, and therefore habitually attack stronger forms of atheism as dogmatic, religious, faith based or just impossible.

 

[George-ananda]

Whilst I agree that most sceptics are "pseudo-sceptics" often with a very harsh attitude to beliefs they disagree with (such as using ridicule as a means to humiliate someone for there beliefs), virtually all sceptics reject materialism as a world view.

I wonder if you are using the term 'materialism' differently than me???

From Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

This is the type of materialism the current popular skeptic movement adheres to.

The very nature of their scepticism means they treat materialism as a dogma, and therefore habitually attack stronger forms of atheism as dogmatic, religious, faith based or just impossible.

I have never known the popular skeptical movement to attack any forms of atheism. ???

 

[Laika]

I wonder if you are using the term 'materialism' differently than me???

From Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

This is the type of materialism the current popular skeptic movement adheres to.

I have never known the popular skeptical movement to attack any forms of atheism. ???

As you probably realise the definition of atheism is debated a great deal. A large portion of the sceptic-atheists attack concepts of atheism that reject the existence of god. Many would consider atheism as a "strawman" invented by religious people, ignore the historical evidence for strong atheists such as Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Freud or De Sade in favour of dictationary definitions, attack Communism as a faith or a dogma whilst ignoring evidence that atheism played a direct role in Marxist ideology. There scepticism consists in judging the validity of everyone elses beliefs often with highly selective use of rvidence, if evidence is even used at all.

The New Atheists are champions of this sort of anti-atheist intellectual assult because they attack any form of atheism that doesnt resemble their own- they try to monopolise it and eliminate diversity whilst simultaneously questioning the need for the term "atheism" because they think atheism as a rejection of god is impossible. You see it on RF when people start throwing the dictationary around and ignore evidence that shows atheism is a diverse series of philosophies, with often internal conflicts.

I think your saying is that sceptics attack supernatural and paranormal pheneomena, and are drawing the conclusion they are materialists. They aren't. In their own terms, these sceptics attack the paranormal as "lack of evidence" as pseudo-sceptics. They say it cant happen or didnt happen. They say a person is insane or mentally unsound and inventing things or is a liar and a fruad. Materialists dont- they have to explain paranormal activity in material terms based on assumptions about the nature of reality. There is a difference.

 

[Laika]

I wonder if you are using the term 'materialism' differently than me???

From Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

This is the type of materialism the current popular skeptic movement adheres to.

I have never known the popular skeptical movement to attack any forms of atheism. ???

Here's Sam Harris' attack on Communism as a religion or a "political dogma", just in case you don't believe me.

He literally says "the issue is dogmatism" as "strong conviction without evidence". So his understanding of atheism is not limited to attacking theism, but includes attacking those atheists he regards as "dogmatic".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, skepticism lets us accurately judge the likelihood of things being claimed. I think a skeptical analysis can lead one (such as myself) to a pantheistic world view as being the most reasonable view out there. All one can ever claim is what view becomes the most reasonable to hold after a skeptical review of all the evidence and argumentation. We judge reasonableness on things not provable as that is what makes us logical thinking beings.

What you're describing is not a skeptical worldview.

It's not enough to just choose the "most reasonable" out of the options available at the time. The skeptical position says that if a claim doesn't meet its burden of proof, then it shouldn't be accepted... even if it's the most well-supported option available. In that situation, the skeptical - and IMO rational - approach is to say "I don't know."