Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

Calibos

Would I be right in assuming that all skeptics are also agnostic/atheist?

To me they go hand in hand. To be a skeptic and yet believe in God IMO would be like a skeptic who is skeptical about all the usual things except Homepathy for example.

ecksor

You assume that someone who believes in god hasn't seen evidence of god for him/herself.

Paddy20

Eh ?.. I can not vote in this poll, because I am very sceptical about the 2 answers.

P.:ninja:

davros

Originally posted by Calibos
Would I be right in assuming that all skeptics are also agnostic/atheist?

I don't think one implies the other. If there is a God, I don't believe His existence can be proved or disproved by the kind of experiments we advocate for, say, homeopathy. Since we can say nothing certain about an afterlife that has absolutely no interaction with this life, it's better to leave this topic in the realm of personal belief. That's my opinion, anyway.

It's also the position of the Irish Skeptics Society. Quoting from the about page:

Are Skeptics Anti-Religious?
No. People are sometimes concerned that skeptics are, by definition, anti-religious. This is not the case.

There are many skeptics who have religious beliefs and who distinguish clearly between questions concerning the material world (the realm of science), and a non-material world in which they believe and for which there is no physical evidence. Such belief is a matter of choice or faith and the majority of skeptics accept and respect this.

There are however, areas of overlap. If claims are made in the name of religion that concern physical phenomena and that can be tested, skeptics may engage in such testing. For example, claims of statues moving or of miraculous appearances or cures may be challenged.

Myksyk

I agree with Davros. It is not possible to prove the existence of God so it is not a question worthy of huge time and energy. It is a matter of belief.

One interesting question is 'is god an explanatory fiction which is becoming less and less necessary?' In other words, are there vast tracts of our experience of ourselves and the world which are inexplicable by science or are likely to remain inexplicable? I suggest there aren't. If you are attempting to understand something in the world, is it just habit (or intellectual laziness) which makes us explain it in terms of supernatural entities? Science is about 'natural' explanations of the natural world and assumes these explanations exist. If it is unable to answer something right now it leaves the gap rather than fill it with god. Mystery is not in itself evidence of god, just gaps in our knowledge.

Also, in my opinion, genuine understanding of processes like evolution by natural selection pose real issues for those of us who see the human race as qualitatively distinct from all other species. Religions can accept evolution and get around this thorny issue only by positing a particular supernatural phenomenon (the insertion of a soul at some indeterminate time during the process) which has no basis in fact.

In terms of explaining our history and our experience these philosophical gymnastics are only executed with preconceived answers to questions already in mind, with the subsequent need to fit new scientific information into existing supernatural accounts. It doesn't work and has always seemed particularly ham-fisted to me.

Talliesin

The poll seems a bit strange in lumping Atheism and Agnosticism together. Atheism means a belief in their being no deities, which is logically harder to prove than Theism, since a god could conceivably drop by for a chat and put all doubt out of the mind of at least one person, whereas no equivalent epithany is possible for Atheism.

mike65

As you can't be a vegitarian meat eater I have to be a atheiest sceptic.

Mike.

williamgrogan

There is absolutely nothing Science cannot investigate. People are part of the universe and their brains are part of physical reality and therefore they can be investigated as to how they work and in the way the work. The reasons why people believe in god are related to how brains formed from genes and how genes evolved and the subsequent “programming” of the brain by experience and education etc..

Because of the way god/gods have been defined by religious people it is difficult for someone to prove conclusively that there is no god. I mean how do you easily prove that something doesn’t exist when those claiming it exists will not tell you where it lives, have no photographs of it, don’t know how many of them there are, disagree about what they did and do, cannot prove it exists, have no physical evidence etc etc..

However, you can think about it, educate yourself and decide what the most likely answer is. Believe. Do not believe or sit on the fence.

sextusempiricus

I would hope a serious sceptic would look critically at all assertions whether scientific, moral, philosophical or theological. If a theist claims, for example, that 'God is loving' then a suitable sceptical response would be to question whether this is consistent with perhaps a child dying of hunger or leukaemia. I imagine the standard response from the believer is that God's love is difficult to understand and He (or She) works in mysterious ways. The sceptic should reject such a qualification which merely weakens the original assertion.
Does scepticism preclude a belief in a deity? Probably not. David Hume, supreme sceptic of the Scottish Enlightenment, could never-the-less profess to subscribe to the arguement for a deity's existence from design as when he wrote "A purpose, an intention, a design is evident in everything" and "the whole frame of nature besopeaks an intelligent author". Such statements were probably prudent for Hume counted prominent churchmen as his friends. In his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (surely required reading for any serious sceptic) little remains of the religious hypothesis.

davros

Originally posted by sextusempiricus
I would hope a serious sceptic would look critically at all assertions whether scientific, moral, philosophical or theological.

Separate from the question of whether these things are open for debate, is the question of whether it is polite to debate them with those of an opposing view.

In the case of chiropractic, I might merely annoy a believer by saying it has no basis in fact. But if I claim there is no God and religion is a farce, I risk deeply offending and distressing the person to whom I am talking. I insult not only them but their parents who passed on their faith and the memory of many of life's most significant events - marriages, births, deaths, etc. - which have an indelible association with the Church.

In Ireland, we allow a certain latitude in what we believe. Most people will allow that the Bible is not to be taken entirely literally. But the situation is a lot more stark in other faiths and in other countries. I have found it a handy rule-of-thumb, in matters of religion, to ask polite questions and keep my opinions to myself.

Calibos

Lets not debate, it would be impolite!

I know what you mean though Davros.

Well I personally don't go round telling anyone who will listen that I'm an atheist or that I think they're all deluded. Case in point being that I would never go into the christian forum and argue or troll etc. Like you say it could be deeply offensive and distressing. If I am asked about my faith, I will merely say that I'm an atheist (and have been asked if that was like a prespretyrian (sp?)! :D ). If they actually know the meaning of the word and they press farther as is often the case and say "how can you not believe in God?" then in my eyes its "Game On!"

williamgrogan

I can't believe what I am reading. Is it polite to debate religion?

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

Religion is the basis of much hatred (e.g. NI), many wars and conflicts & much of the current terrorist atrocities . Are the guys who flew planes into the Twin Towers polite? Is Ian Paisley polite?

Is it polite of the religious right in America to cancel Kyoto? Is it polite to try and ban contraception, divorce, abortion, Stem Cell research or as in NI playing football or swiming on Sundays?

Religion is wrong and very dangerous and those who know it is have a duty to try and convince people to see this.

Part of the many tricks religion use is, “we must respect everyone’s opinions”. Where was their respect during the Inquisition? Remember, religion doesn’t respect Atheism.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Religion is wrong and very dangerous and those who know it is have a duty to try and convince people to see this.

Religion is a source of division, sure. But can I convince someone who is deeply religious that they are wrong? No, I can't compete with someone who knows what God thinks. Nor can I point to irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist. The arguments on both sides are so insubstantial that I don't even find them interesting (I'm no philosopher ).

So I feel that the only outcome of arguing about religion with committed believers is upset and offence. I just don't want to go there.

With regard to the Irish Skeptics Society (and it's just a personal opinion - I'm an ordinary member of the society and I don't speak for the committee), I don't think adopting an anti-religious stance would help our public advocacy role with regard to science, medicine and other, worldly issues. It seems like antagonising people unnecessarily.

The Irish Humanists, on the other hand, do aim to remove religion from society (I hope that's a fair assessment of their views).

williamgrogan

I just joined the tread. I didn’t start it.

I find that “debating” about religion is not the only thing that “upsets” people. I think they are equally upset when you challenge them on Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Recki Healing, Reflexology, Nuclear Power, Politics, the war in Iraq, Globalisation etc.. If you want proof of this listen to Marian F.’s last two programs with Dr Hughes. How do we fight the inclusion of God in the EU constitution or the attempt to ban EU funding of stem cell research without challenging religion?

It’s not up to us to prove there is no God. If Dana wants God in the EU constitution she should have to prove there is a god and not expect me to disprove it.

However, I agree that with so much money being made by those selling dubious “cures” that it may very well be better & more practical in the short term for the Irish Skeptics to concentrate on these matters. The poor unfortunates with serious and often terminal illnesses that are handing over their money for unproven treatments deserve legal protection and I do regard this as a priority. I personally know two people who went to faith healers shortly before dying of cancer.

Finally I can accept that you may find “The arguments on both sides are so insubstantial that I don't even find them interesting”, but then don’t subscribe to threads on religion. There is no doubt that religion is fair game to a Skeptic.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
...but then don’t subscribe to threads on religion. There is no doubt that religion is fair game to a Skeptic.

Well, this isn't a thread on religion - it's a thread on whether skeptics have an opinion on religion. And that is quite an interesting and important topic to discuss.

You are probably right that skeptics in general have strong opinions on religion, and they are not likely to be positive. I just offer an explanation of why I avoid the topic myself outside skeptical circles.

[Incidentally, to Dana, I would just ask that she keep her personal beliefs to herself and not put them in what should be a secular document that applies to all regardless of faith. For embryonic stem cells, I'd have to query the definition of what constitutes human life. I don't think I have to drag the existence of God into it.]

sextusempiricus

I want nothing more than polite debates on any issues including the existence of a deity. The aim of debate is to clarify our ideas and assumptions not to cause upset. A theist is free to attack my views. What's important is to sharpen our respective viewpoints, decide what might be a weakness in our arguements and seek new ones to support our cause. You cannot do that if debate turns into a slanging match. Of course nothing is likely to produce more heated arguments than those that ultimately have no final answer. Yet if believers put forward flawed reasons for the existence of a deity such as the 'ontological argument' and the 'argument from design' it is reasonable for the sceptic to point out the flaws. I'm not going out of my way to attack a religion that has deep roots in the community if this is likely to cause offense. Society has a way of evolving despite the strictures of religion. Look at the way the young adult population now has access to contraception ( I deliberately choose something that's no longer controversial just to avoid upsetting anyone).

williamgrogan

Perhaps a more interesting question is why does challenging someone’s opinions causes “upset” or “offence”? It seems from the Irish Skeptics web site that religion is off limits. We don’t want to upset the natives. Religions are pro-actively unfair in their treatment of the members of other religions and the non religious but we have to tip toe around the place. I have never heard a humanist call for a statement in a country’s constitution that there is no god. I don’t get upset if someone challenges my opinions. Laugh maybe, but never upset or offended.

I do actually think that being a Skeptic and being religious is contradictory. You can’t pick and choose your superstitions. You either believe in the Scientific Method or you don’t. Dr William Reveille who writes for the Irish Times on science matters claims you can be scientific and believe in god. I strongly disagree and even more so dislike the fact that one of the few writers writing about science in Irish newspapers is religious. It’s like being infiltrated.

There are theories beginning to crop up as to why people are superstitious and gullible. It is obviously related to how we evolved our intelligence and how it acts in a group. Maybe a certain degree of gullibility in the gene pool means there can be followers and leaders. Maybe this confers an advantage. There must be an advantage to gullibility or the genes for it would have been selected out.

I think the reason that religious people and people with opinions that are on shaky ground get upset is that their confidence, self esteem and understanding of who they are is in real danger of collapse when you zap some of their cherished beliefs. You can’t undermine a scientist. When quantum mechanics came along Einstein fought it but to the best of my knowledge he didn’t get upset and I never heard that he was offended.

I don’t think that we need to hone our debating skills; most arguments that the non-sketpic (ok I’ve put skeptic in my spelling checker) puts forward are poor and easy to overturn.

The Irish Skeptics Association is going to upset people. That’s what its there for. If we can convince the public to avoid charlatans and get the politicians to introduce legislation that outlaws the selling of bogus medicines & treatments then obviously we will seriously upset the guys making all the money out it. I don’t know what the total figure for CAM is in Ireland but I’ll bet it’s now in the 100’s of millions of Euros. So lets do a bit of upsetting!

ecksor

Good grief.

Einstein cited god in his reasons for not wanting to accept quantum mechanics. Descartes wrote a philosophical piece on the certainty of the existence of god in his 'Discourse on Method and The Meditations'. Stephen Hawking is of the view that modern theoretical physics is about seeing into the mind of god. Isaac Newton thought that Gravity was not a mechanical thing, but was directly under the control and whim of god.

If you want an excellent example of scepticism in the history of science, then examine Bishop Berkeleys attack on the notion of infinitisimals as proposed by Newton, a very sharp and insightful critique of the original theories of calculus.

Which of these were not scientists?

Perhaps if the typical debate about justification of belief in god didn't always reduce to this sort of drivel about the superstition and gullibility of anyone with a belief in god then people would be more open to discussion. In short, I think you could do with drastic honing of your debating skills before you touch a topic like this again.

I do not believe in god, but I can't prove that he/she/it doesn't exist. Are you going to attack me for my disbelief since I can provide no proof of my stance? I certainly do not believe that science can answer the question of his existence, nor do I have a good answer as to the origin of the universe beyond the current published best guesses of our astronomers and physicists.

Not all true things are provable. IMO The sceptic's job is not to wander into the territory of things which he/she can't offer a meaningful test or alternative theory of. Believe, or don't believe, but don't claim to know any better, because we can't.

williamgrogan

Einstein & Hawking are/were atheists as far as one can make out. Descartes was more a philosopher than a scientist. Einstein’s comment re “playing dice” was not meant to imply he believed in god, he said as much himself. Isaac Newton kept his opinions to himself but was probably a Unitarian. He couldn’t admit this publicly as he would have been fired. Newton was also quite possibly mad. Newton and Descartes lived a long time ago and it’s not fair to expect them to understand reality as well as we now do. If Newton were alive today would he believe in god?

Strictly speaking you may not be able to prove that god doesn’t exist but you certainly can prove that it’s highly unlikely, explain why religion came about, explain why people follow particular religions, explain & prove an alternative and show there is no evidence for a god. That’s not bad!

I didn’t know that “astronomers and physicists published guesses”. That’s a new one on me.

“Not all true things are provable.“ If you can’t provide evidence for something you shouldn’t believe in it.

“The sceptic's job is not to wander into the territory of things which he/she can't offer a meaningful test or alternative theory of.”

Who says we can’t offer a meaningful test? You can't decide that something is off limits unless you can prove it is.

Sorry if you were offended, I’m off to bed.

Calibos

I'm in total agreement with WG and Sextus.

Like them I don't get offended when someone challenges my views on religion but the reverse is not true. Often when the subject comes up and I am asked "but, but how can you not believe in God, isn't your life empty and without meaning....." Now thats offensive but I actually don't take offense I just...ahem.....'raise my eyes to heaven'.

Its this fear of the religious taking offense and the rejection by the religious majority that prevents what I imagine to be thousands upon thousands of celebrities, scientists and politicians etc from 'coming out' as the atheists or agnostics that they are. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean that I don't listen intently to what they have to say on a given subject. Again the reverse is not true. A lot of religious people will totally switch off because "what does the heathen know". To make sure religious people don't 'switch off' these celebs, scientists, politicians proclaim that they believe. I think a survey a few years ago revealed that 30-35% of churchgoers are atheist/agnostic but continue to attend mass to keep up appearances in the community!

The most extreme example I witnessed of the contradiction between scientific method and belief was a series of articles and letters in the UCD student newpaper that my brother showed me a few months ago. A female medical student at UCD wrote a creationist article which was followed the next month by a barrage of letters from students in the physics, biology, geology etc departments the following issue. In the next issue she defended her article and would not accept the arguements made by the other students.

I mean this is a girl who accepts the scientific method where it relates to her field of study but totally disregards it in relation to Physics, Geology etc where it was used to argue against her creationist views. It reminds me of the story about the Biology lecturer who was fired in a Uni in the states because he asked his students to sign a piece of paper that said they believed in the theory of evolution. Everyone signed except for one girl who didn't believe in evolution. She complained and he was sacked. How can you study Biology at 3rd level and not believe in evolution?? :D

Finally as to whether I myself am atheist or agnostic. I believe that all religion in this world is based on superstition and myth. I do not believe that there is a deity floating around within this universe and interacting/intervening now and again. The closest I believe a deity has come to us is perhaps in creating the big bang in the first place and then leaving the universe to do its thing of which sentient life is a natural by product. So I would say I am atheist with regard to a deity within this universe or for a deity having anything to do with us since the big bang and I am agnostic with regard to there being a God like creator of the universe but outside it as....obviously we can never know.

sextusempiricus

Let me take williamgrogan up on a couple of points. He criticises ecksor for stating that "astronomers and physicists publish guesses." All knowledge is conjectural. Theories are indeed guesses and we give them credance when they stand up to severe tests. The best theories are those that are bold and have a high empirical content. They exclude more. Let me clarify this more. If I see a patient with a fever the conjecture that they have an infection is pretty likely. It is less than helpful in managing the patient. If I make the bolder assertion that they have meningococcal septicaemia and test this with my search for a purpuric rash and evidence of shock
then the administration of Penicillin on finding such signs will most likely save a life.
Secondly he argues that unless we have evidence for something we shouldn't believe it. We all make unwarrented assumptions and I'm afraid life's too short to seek evidence for them all. Although we like to be rational, especially if we belong to the Irish Skeptic's Society, life is impossible without those prejudices that Edmund Burke wrote about. We may not be fully aware of them but without them society just couldn't function. Prejudices can be good and bad of course. They have evolved over generations and attacking them will risk upsetting people especially if the prejudice is a person's religion. As a sceptic (excuse the spelling) I can hopefully nudge people in a rational direction that's more consistent with the facts. When it comes to God there are no facts. The deity is not a scientific proposition although I feel the sceptic should attack bad arguments to support Her existence.
If theists want to join the society let's welcome them with open arms. Its likely we share more views with them than those where we disagree. Calibos mentions the biology student with creationist views. I imagine we all at sometime have espoused some crackpot ideas. Doublethink might be the best term. It is the result of those prejudices I've mentioned above. It might be difficult to completely shake them off. In the meantime we must criticise, criticise and criticise.
PS Davros is not a philosopher, neither am I. A talk on the philosophy of science might be useful.

kiffer

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There is absolutely nothing Science cannot investigate.

I dont believe that. prove it.

...

...

the scentific methoid can be used to investigate many things. how ever there are things which are beyond our current level of understanding / ability. I'm not saying that in a few years we'll prove that spirits exist ...

but the important thing is to every now and then say thats CRAZY lets test it, now that we have new tools.

take gravity waves ... we're still testing for them, even though experiments in the past have failed to find them, because scientist believe they exist ... because they make sense under the current working thoery.


I'm not saying we should test the ideas of every nut job we come across but abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

we all believe things based on trust. we trust people to tell us the truth ... and we all trust different people.
when I was growing up I trusted my school when they told me things about god ... things that i now believe to be untrue. I also trust my Ex-Girlfriend who is an astrophysicists... but I cant understand many things that she can. but I've nothing to prove that she's right ... I cant do the maths but for some reason I believe that the speed of light for some reason the max speed that any thing can travel at... I can work out that speed for my self and test it ... but I cant test that it's the max speed... should i not be skeptical of that?

williamgrogan

II think you misunderstood me. I meant that there is nothing Science "should not" or "should be prohibited from" investigating.

It reminds me of one of my Science teachers who used to correct us when we misused, "can" and "may". He used to say, "Grogan, I'm sure you can go to the toilet, I presume you mean, may I ".

Anyway, with the corrected meaning/context, I don't think I "proving" means anything.

Your actual point that we need to trust is true with regards to what people tell you, which is why anecdotal evidence is not much use.

However, when it comes to scientific matters, trust is not necessary because if someone publishes a lie he will be found out.

My only need to trust is that say all the Biologists are not involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fool everyone in thinking that evolution is true on the back of fake evidence. I don’t believe this is remotely likely as it only takes one Biologist to squeal.

As regards “can science investigate”, in the sense of “is it able to” then the point is irrelevant and needs not be answered by me. The reason for this is that all it takes is for one person to publish a paper that contains a theory, evidence, logic, prediction etc.. on a matter and that opens up that area to comment and further research. How sucessful that research is determines the answer to the question.

kiffer

Originally posted by williamgrogan

My only need to trust is that say all the Biologists are not involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fool everyone in thinking that evolution is true on the back of fake evidence. I don�t believe this is remotely likely as it only takes one Biologist to squeal.

A very good point ... it only takes one person to stand up and say, "It's lies! all lies!" and no one would call him a wackjob for standing in the face of the status quo... scientists would never do that...


if there was a conspiracy ...

As regards �can science investigate�, in the sense of �is it able to� then the point is irrelevant and needs not be answered by me. The reason for this is that all it takes is for one person to publish a paper that contains a theory, evidence, logic, prediction etc.. on a matter and that opens up that area to comment and further research. How sucessful that research is determines the answer to the question.

Do I trust people? yes , do i understand peer review? yes.
do I think it possible for things to slip through the cracks ... yes for a time.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992848

ok i know he was caught but still it took long enough...

pooka

I don't see any great problem with being a theistic (or to specify further, Christian) sceptic. It's not so different from being an atheistic sceptic.

I would say that the perfect sceptical position is agnosticism (about pretty much everything), but I don't think many human beings are capable of perfection in any discipline. Nor do I particularly appreciate that level of questioning and testing - what is it all for, if not to bring us closer to the truth?

Yes, yes, I believe that things can be true. ;o)

Overall, I think one ought to allow a good deal of leeway for veering to the theistic or atheistic points of view within a sceptical society, while recognising that the sceptical position (even if only adopted as a disciplined way of thinking) should ideally be agnostic - not professing perfect knowledge of anything.

Cian

Myksyk

Overall, I think one ought to allow a good deal of leeway for veering to the theistic or atheistic points of view within a sceptical society, while recognising that the sceptical position (even if only adopted as a disciplined way of thinking) should ideally be agnostic - not professing perfect knowledge of anything.

This is essentially the position of the Irish Skeptics Society.

Two questions seem to be being discussed here. The question of ultimate origins which currently is unanswerable and about which some are happy to posit the existence of a 'starter' - this is Deism. The second question relates to Theism and the idea of a personal god who interacts, intervenes and manages the whole ball game. This is obviously strongly related to organised religion while the former isn't necessarily. The main difficulties seem to be with religion and its claims and practices. I think these are fair game for the sceptical mind and can be rigorously but respectfully questioned, without unwaranted hubris. Arguments over ultimate origins seem a little pointless in the absence of evidence on either side. However, thinking about ultimate origins is fascinating and perhaps will lead to evidence which allows potent arguments to be made on one side or the other.

Talliesin

Originally posted by mike65
As you can't be a vegitarian meat eater I have to be a atheiest sceptic.

Only if you can prove there is no deity.
I can see how agnostics have a point here (though I disagree with it) but arguing atheism follows from scepticism lacks any logic.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Einstein & Hawking are/were atheists as far as one can make out.

Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

Originally written by Albert Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Descartes was more a philosopher than a scientist.

He was both (Cartesian coördinates aren't scientific?) He was a philosopher who attempted to rebuild philosophy from the ground up on sceptical principles. Personally I don't believe he succeeded in this apart from the cogito, which successfully proving to himself that he existed and allowing each of us to prove to ourselves that we exist.

Einstein’s comment re “playing dice” was not meant to imply he believed in god, he said as much himself.

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

Isaac Newton kept his opinions to himself but was probably a Unitarian.

Well hardly an atheist then. He was also a strong defender of astrology against those sceptical of it, hell I know astrologers more sceptical of it that he was.

Newton and Descartes lived a long time ago and it’s not fair to expect them to understand reality as well as we now do.

LOL. Generally that argument is made on the basis that the person describe lived before Newton and Descartes had shaped our modern view of the world!
Newton's physics are of course disproven in many ways, but at the psychological level it still relates to our immediate experience of the world than the physics that succeeded it.

If Newton were alive today would he believe in god?

Maybe he'd be writing yet another one of the many books on chaos theory and quantum mechanics that quote liberally from the Bhagavadgîtâ and compare the big bang to the Shinto creation myth!
Then again, since astrology and astronomy are very much divorced these days, and he had a great love for both, maybe he would have followed a career in astrology rather than in science.

Strictly speaking you may not be able to prove that god doesn’t exist but you certainly can prove that it’s highly unlikely, explain why religion came about, explain why people follow particular religions, explain & prove an alternative and show there is no evidence for a god. That’s not bad!

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

That argument would have some validity if all religious people did this. Given that some religions actually proscribe any form of prosyletisation that is easily disproven.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

williamgrogan

Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

The above is just an insult so I will skip it.

I am reluctant to get into defining God in a way that means that it can be anything. God was invented by many men, many times throughout history & pre-history and is defined in all sorts of MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE ways and because of this one can state that most interpretations of god must be wrong, unless he can be 1 person, 2 people or 5,000 people, a cat, or the King of Egypt at the same time, not to mention being on both sides in a war.

E. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland would reject that E. meant above the god they believe in. I do not think E. believed in God as most people would define God.

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

That’s true, but using a religious metaphor doesn’t prove someone believes in god which is what you were arguing. I often say, "Jesus" when I drop something on my foot, but I don't believe he exists.

Newton was a rebel against the current orthodoxy is all I was saying. He was a Skeptic.

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Have you something against Statistics?

I cannot go around believing in everything that I am told by other people. I think it is perfectly logical and reasonable to decide to believe in that which has evidence and logic. God fails both. I think there is a small probability that there is a god but it is a very very small probability. God doesn’t exist; people just say that there is one. Therefore it’s up to them to prove it. Not alone have religious people failed to prove their particular interpretation of god, they have less and less functions for him as science unravels how the universe actually works. God is “God of the gaps” and the gaps are closing.

Religion is forced on the children of the religious without any regard to their rights. They are essentially brainwashed. Is that polite?

That argument would have some validity if all religious people did this. Given that some religions actually proscribe any form of prosyletisation that is easily disproven.

Point 1.

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

Point 2

Because a religion doesn’t call door to door doesn’t mean that the don’t brain wash their children.

Point 3

The vast majority of people who ever lived subscribed to the religion of their parents. Is this a co-incidence? All these beliefs are contradictory. It would be a doubly amazing thing if people believed in the religion of their parents based on reasoning, logic and evidence and yet by co-incidence came to the same conclusions as their parents BUT all the other children of parents of different religions came via the same reasoning logic and evidence to belive in the religion of their parents which are completly different. Brain washing children is what is behind it.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

I’ll take this as another insult as no doubt it was intended to be and also ignore it.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Well, that's inevitable if "one" hasn't read any of Einstein's many writings on the subject of Religion.

The above is just an insult so I will skip it.

No, it was not an insult, this is:

You are an idiot, you call yourself a "sceptic" because it validates your sense of yourself as an intelligent person who relies on logical thought, yet you merely assume you are right and that logic would provide the same answer and that you are hence logical. This kind of thinking is foolish and often dangerous.

unless he can be 1 person, 2 people or 5,000 people, a cat, or the King of Egypt at the same time,

That would hardly be a unique view of divity. The idea that any given religious teaching is but a reflexion of a greater truth and that other religions also reflect that truth can be found in Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism and Bahá'i; and hence God can be 1 person, 2 people, 5,000 people, a cat, and the King of Egypt at the same time.

not to mention being on both sides in a war.

Hey, if America can provide both sides of a war with arms, why can't God?

E. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland would reject that E. meant above the god they believe in.

The vast majority of religious people in Ireland wouldn't have the same beliefs about divinity as I do, yet I am a religious man.
Indeed Einstein goes much further than I ever would in saying "What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."

I do not think E. believed in God as most people would define God.

Well once you go out to "most people" you've got a pretty nebulous idea of God. Some statistics would indicate that the most prayed-to deity is Ganesh, by which standard the religious views of Einstein and "the vast majority or religious people in Ireland" (why did you even use that as a standard for the beliefs of a man from a German Jewish background anyway?) seem pretty close (Granted, other statistics indicate it is Jehovah/Allah).

Einstein directly compared his beliefs with those of Spinoza. Are you going to try to tell us that Spinoza was an atheist? That Spinoza didn't influence the beliefs of a large number of people, most of whom would consider themselves to be either Christians or Jews, and indeed has been an influence behind entire spiritual movements (the Christian Transcendentalists in particular)?

Yes, you can use a religious metaphor even if you are not religious, however you can use a religious metaphor, as a religious metaphor, even if you are.

That’s true, but using a religious metaphor doesn’t prove someone believes in god which is what you were arguing. I often say, "Jesus" when I drop something on my foot, but I don't believe he exists.

I didn't seek to prove Einstein was religious at that point, just debunk your using it in arguing that he wasn't. For goodness sake, Einstein didn't just say "god" in passing one day, he wrote frequently and eloquently about his religious beliefs. In particular he wrote frequently on the very subject of this poll - whether religious belief is reconcilable with scepticism, and he very strongly argued that it could.

Newton was a rebel against the current orthodoxy is all I was saying. He was a Skeptic.

Newton was a sceptic, he was also a believer in god, astrology and a practiced occultist.

You cannot prove that it's highly unlikely at all. The only science that "unlikely" belongs in as anything other than a personal opinion is statistics.

Have you something against Statistics?

No, I'm just saying that it is perfectly in line with a sceptical and scientific use of statistics to declare something "unlikely". However declaring something "unlikely" in a "hard" science is just opinion, not science and not sceptical.

I cannot go around believing in everything that I am told by other people. I think it is perfectly logical and reasonable to decide to believe in that which has evidence and logic. God fails both. I think there is a small probability that there is a god but it is a very very small probability. God doesn’t exist; people just say that there is one. Therefore it’s up to them to prove it.

"Burden of proof" only lies with one side or another in a court of law, which does not seek to determine the exact nature of things, but to dispense justice as best it can for the benefit of society.

In science the burden on proof is on whoever makes a claim. The only position on divinity that is fully justified from an sceptical perspective is agnosticism.

When you claim there is no deities you have to either prove this or concede that you have to proofs and are offering only opinion, just as I do when I claim that there is.

God is “God of the gaps” and the gaps are closing.

Janus is screwed then!

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

That's an interesting and statistic with a large number of digits after the decimal point, I'm sure you can cite a source.

Because a religion doesn’t call door to door doesn’t mean that the don’t brain wash their children.

Granted, some religions ban prosyletising to members of other faiths, but not to one's own children, Bahá'i would be an example.

The vast majority of people who ever lived subscribed to the religion of their parents.

This is also true of many atheists, who either teach their children atheism because it is what they believe to be true, or because that atheism is part of a wider philosophy that prosyletises it's views, such as Marxist Dialetical Materialism.

It always amazes me how fast many people who consider themselves "sceptics" are to assume their assumptions are correct without bothering to research them in the slightest.

I’ll take this as another insult as no doubt it was intended to be and also ignore it.

Well your reasoning for arguing Einstein wasn't religious seems to be:

1. Einstein is very smart
2. I am very smart
3. Therefore Einstein agrees with me

Which is frankly dumb.

williamgrogan

You call yourself a "sceptic" because it validates your sense of yourself as an intelligent person who relies on logical thought

Wrong. The reason I call myself a Skeptic (I don’t really but lets simplify things) is because the various Skeptics associations seem to have similar positions on matters that I have.

If god can be anything that anyone decides that he can be, then by definition he is nothing, e.g. because we call a thing that looks like a cat, mews, puts hair all over the place a cat and not god. If god is indistinguishable from cats then he doesn’t exist as a separate entity. In fact most religious people are quite dogmatic on EXACTLY what god is. There have been major splits in Christianity not to mention wars, burnings and torture based on whether there are three “(virtual) gods” in one or just one.

The fact that all the people who believe in god differ as to what that means, means that it means nothing. What is really happening is that people have the capacity to believe in things that have no evidence, proof or logic and then try, as you are, to justify their illogical & irrational beliefs.

The answer to the question, “what is the meaning of a human’s life”, is evolution and nothing else. At least not until someone comes up with some further proof or evidence.

Einstein was not religious in the acceptable sense of what that means to most people in the world.

People do not “pray-to god”. There is no god so whatever they do its not praying TO anything.

"Burden of proof" only lies with one side or another in a court of law

No it doesn’t. I & presumably everyone else have to make decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. I agree I cannot be 100% sure of anything so I must decide based on probability.

The only position on divinity that is fully justified from an sceptical perspective is agnosticism.

I disagree, I do not say that I don’t know if there is a god or not. I say that there is no evidence of any description that there is a god/s, most of the people who put forward the notion of a god are religious because of the accident of their birth in time & location, everyone who believes in him disagrees as to what he is, there is no logic in the proposition, no predictions, contradictions galore, he has no function and therefore with a very high degree of probability does not exist.

OK, only 99.999% of religious people force their religion on their children.

That's an interesting and statistic with a large number of digits after the decimal point, I'm sure you can cite a source.

What percentage of all the children in the world say for the last 2000 years were thought the religion of their parents? I estimate it is between 99% and 99.999%. Telling a child whose capacity for critical thinking that the world was made by your version of god is forcing religion upon him. I do not think it’s important whether the figure is 95%, 99% or 99.999% because I am making the point in support of my contention that people are mainly the religion of their parents AND that the reason they are is that they were “programmed” into the religion before their brains developed the ability to question this teaching. In the main people believe in their version of god because of brain washing and not logic and evidence. Even the “ability” to believe such nonsense must be something that is brainwashed.

This is also true of many atheists, who either teach their children atheism

I reject this argument. How can you teach Atheism? Can you teach say non-Catholic Atheism and non-Hindu Atheism? Do I teach my children that the King of Egypt is not god nor his cat is? There are thousands of superstitions. Do I have time to teach my children the opposite to all these superstitions? I agree I do not teach my children religion, but then what religion would I teach them? Perhaps pick one at random?

I dislike being called an Atheist as this defines me as the opposite to something. I am not an Atheist. Other people are Theists.

I DO teach my children a little about Science but even religious people don’t have a problem about that (generally speaking).

Well your reasoning for arguing Einstein wasn't religious seems to be:

Einstein is very smart
I am very smart
Therefore Einstein agrees with me

Which is frankly dumb.

You are wrong again. I certainly do not need Einstein to be religious or not as regards what I believe. Presumably you are not suggesting that if I discovered that Einstein was a religious fanatic that I would then believe in God? This would be true if your above statement was correct.

Whether Einstein was religious or not is actually irrelevant. He was wrong about aspects of Quantum Mechanics and possibly many other matters.

God cannot be pulled into existence based on your faulty logic or for that matter by dishing out childish insults.

Whether I am an idiot or not has no bearing on the existence of god. God does not exist. It’s got nothing to do with me.

Whatever your definition of an idiot is, I am inclined to believe that those who believe in witchcraft would probably qualify first.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Wrong. The reason I call myself a Skeptic (I don’t really but lets simplify things) is because the various Skeptics associations seem to have similar positions on matters that I have.

Sharing the conclusions and positions of sceptics on various matters obviously doesn't make one a sceptic so I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate upon your simplification.

I think it would also be helpful if you shared any other simplifications you make in your arguments, such as your narrow view of what god is. I realise that you've explained your position and that's fine, but it isn't helpful when putting your point across to make the assumption that god = personal god, especially since that assumption seems to have little effect upon your own views. (However, I'd note that it reveals evidence of a certain bias).

No it doesn’t. I & presumably everyone else have to make decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. I agree I cannot be 100% sure of anything so I must decide based on probability.

And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

You are wrong again. I certainly do not need Einstein to be religious or not as regards what I believe.

I cited Einstein originally here along with some others, and merely as a counter example to your assertion that anyone who believes in the scientific method could not consistently believe in God. (which was why I cited Descartes' method since it promotes both. How well it does that is another argument of course).

God cannot be pulled into existence based on your faulty logic or for that matter by dishing out childish insults.

Whether I am an idiot or not has no bearing on the existence of god. God does not exist. It’s got nothing to do with me.

Whatever your definition of an idiot is, I am inclined to believe that those who believe in witchcraft would probably qualify first.

You've had a few nasty things said about you which is unfortunate, but these things can happen when you come in all guns blazing with talk of 'brainwashing', 'feeble-mindedness' and similar. Once again I would suggest that you adopt the highest standard of argument that you are capable of, rather than resort to attacking anyone's religion directly and unsceptically, or assume that anyone who believes differently to you is incapable of posing any sort of valid argument. (even if you believe that, actually saying it reveals that you're at an immediate weakness when attempting such arguments).

Finally, if people are inclined to believe what their parents believe without questioning, then I find that unfortunate, but I do agree that it happens. However, I have known and met several people who have adopted various religions that were not what their parents had thought them, for various reasons that may or may not meet with someone else's selection criteria for "what to believe" and "what not to believe", but disproof of those beliefs is no more possible than it is for anyone to prove to you that God exists. I respect (and share) your disbelief in the existence of god, but until you can provide a scientific test one way or another, then the lack of proof for one standpoint is no better than the lack of proof for the other standpoint. Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

williamgrogan

A quick definition of a Skeptic (spelt that way) is someone who seeks to find evidence and proof before accepting something as true. Therefore Skeptics tend to disbelieve many commonly held ideas that are not based on evidence and proof such as CAM, luck, UFO’s=Aliens, the supernatural and I would argue religion. That after all is what this thread is about. Skeptics question things. There are thousands of different ideas that are commonly held that have no basis in fact. Under that definition I am a Skeptic.

I suspect that there are traits and therefore genes that make certain people more skeptical than others. Likewise I suspect that there are genes or groups of genes that make people more likely to believe in things without evidence. I admit it, my mother used to call me “Doubting Thomas”. There is hard science to back this up.
I cannot see much of a difference between believing in Astrology, Homeopathy, faith healing or that god exists. I don’t even think “a personal god” means anything. The fact that the “god” superstition is a “bigger” issue than water divining is not relevant to whether it’s true or not. It is perfectly possible to fool most of the people all of the time.

If god does not exist or one does not believe that god exists it is a perfectly valid discussion to enquire as to why people believe in him. The fact that such a discussion annoys people is not relevant to the discussion itself and the points raised during the discussion. In fact why people get annoyed is the basis of another perfectly valid discussion.

People may get insulted that you say that they believe in say the Islamic God because they were brainwashed into believing it as children but I defy you to argue that this is untrue. The evidence is there. It is patently obvious for reasons I already stated. Either all Muslims are brainwashed or it is an amazing coincidence that 99% of Muslims have Muslim parents. The exceptions you mentioned may be Skeptics?
If one defines god as most people do then I do not believe there is such a thing and I don’t believe there is any evidence for it. On the contrary there is a great deal of evidence, logic and the accidents of history that can explain why people believe in god.

If you define god as beauty or wonder or order in the universe then I don’t really think that means a lot and isn’t a definition of god that means anything. Order=order, beauty=beauty, cat=cat.

I think many people start off religious and then realize that religious organizations are obviously illogical and decide against them but then still hang on to the basic idea that there is a god. In a sense those people haven’t quite finished thinking about the matter. Gods that do not involve themselves in mundane matters like their followers violence but do start the universe are “cop out” gods.
And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

Fine. Throw it at me. What’s the evidence?

………..Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

I do not “disrespect belief in God” any more than I disrespect belief that certain numbers are lucky or unlucky in the Lotto or copper bracelets ward off illness. I believe that there is little of no chance there is a god, if that annoys people I must ask why?

A more interesting question is why do people feel insulted when you question the basis for their belief? And they certainly do.

Maybe its time for the religious skeptics to ask themselves why they get upset when their beliefs are challenged. I don’t ask this frivolously. I genuinely would like to know.

There is a biological puzzle here. Why did humans evolve they way they did? Why is superstition a trait that evolved? It is possible to imagine a world where the intelligent species are coldly logical and never in their history believed in gods. The Vulcans?

sextusempiricus

Perhaps it was a mistake to start this thread now that the discussion has become so heated. At least the debaters in Hume's 'Dialogues' (published 1779) discussing the attributes of a the deity enlightened their statements with some wit and humour (particularly the sceptical Philo).

The immunologist Sir Peter Medawar has written:

'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer. These are the questions that children ask- the "ultimate questions" of Karl Popper. I have in mind such questions as:
How did everything begin?
What are we all here for?
What is the point of living?
Doctrinaire positivism- now something of a period piece- dismissed all such questions as nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans of one kind or another profess to be able to answer. This peremptory dismissal leaves one empty and dissatisfied because the questions make sense to those who ask them; but whatever else may be in dispute, it would be universally agreed that it is not to science that we should look for answers.'
("The Limits of Science" Peter Medawar, Oxford University Press. 1984)

I accept perhaps a majority find satisfactory answers to such questions in their religion. I'm happy enough to accept our universe and our place in it as a mystery and get on with more important questions to think about; ones that can actually be answered or tested such as 'are large doses of vitamin C a protection from the common cold?' Much more interesting.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
People may get insulted that you say that they believe in say the Islamic God because they were brainwashed into believing it as children but I defy you to argue that this is untrue.

I have no interest in trying to prove any such thing. I have already stated that I believe that some people blindly accept the doctrines of their parents. I'm interested in the people that don't.

The evidence is there. It is patently obvious for reasons I already stated. Either all Muslims are brainwashed or it is an amazing coincidence that 99% of Muslims have Muslim parents. The exceptions you mentioned may be Skeptics?

The specific exceptions that I cited are people who are religious, but are not believers in their parents faith (or people who disbelieved and then came to believe later based upon a re-examination). Or perhaps you realised this and you are calling these religious people skeptics now?

And other people have the ability and the right to apply whatever standards of evidence they see fit, even if you do think they have been brainwashed.

Fine. Throw it at me. What’s the evidence?

I think you missed the point of that particular statement. I was specifically referring to things that are not provable and I have no evidence to offer you.

………..Do you accept this? If not, why not? If so, why do you continue to disrespect belief in God?

I do not “disrespect belief in God” any more than I disrespect belief that certain numbers are lucky or unlucky in the Lotto or copper bracelets ward off illness. I believe that there is little of no chance there is a god, if that annoys people I must ask why?

You didn't mention if you accept the first statement or not.

But ok, if you do not disrespect such beliefs, why do you express annoyance that a certain scientist is religious, and why do you use the phrases that you do? 'feeble-minded', 'brainwashed' etc do not seem to be words that one would use about someone the respect. You specifically said that anyone who was religious wouldn't be capable of posing a good argument to you.

A more interesting question is why do people feel insulted when you question the basis for their belief? And they certainly do.

That is an interesting question, and some people certainly are insulted by such questioning. I would suggest that such people are not very confident in their beliefs (but that's just a guess). I'm not sure where it comes in here though, since it's certainly possible to question such beliefs in a far less insulting manner than you have.

There is a biological puzzle here. Why did humans evolve they way they did? Why is superstition a trait that evolved? It is possible to imagine a world where the intelligent species are coldly logical and never in their history believed in gods. The Vulcans?

I'm whimsically inclined to point out to you that we have no evidence for the existence of Vulcans ...

As a serious answer, all that is true is not provable or deducible from first principles in a logical way. Logic is fundamentally limited in this regard. Humans arrive at true conclusions every day through intuition and we get by on this basis reasonably well. Stopping to think and criticise every little aspect of our lives would simply take too much time and cripple us (and would be ultimately futile). Unfortunately, our intuition can let us down and lead to us being conned or believing in things which are untrue. Overall it works well enough to let us get through the day and function in society.

williamgrogan

How did everything begin?

What this question meant hundreds of years ago is different from what is meant by it today. If the people who first asked this question were to know what we now know about biology, chemistry & physics, evolution, the formation of the planets, creation of elements in stars, creation of the stars and the big bang they probably would feel we had the answer. I do not accept that science cannot answer this. It is answering it. In 2003 it has answered it fairly fully and in 2103 it may explain the big bang and what it exists in or whatever.

What are we all here for?

DNA.

What is the point of living?

DNA. (+Personally speaking, horse racing, reading, etc.)

In my opinion there are no limits to science except in time, i.e. just what we currently know.

I believe that some people blindly accept the doctrines of their parents

…..or most people?

I think you are not being honest in a couple of comments you made which seem to downplay the relationship between someone’s religion and the religion of their parents.

Finally, if people are inclined to believe what their parents believe without questioning, then I find that unfortunate, but I do agree that it happens.

It happens or is it what mainly happens?

It is a very important distinction. I am saying, and maybe this bit is causing offense, that people are mainly the religion they are because of what their parents were and not via any investigation or analysis or evidence or re-examination. Maybe people find this insulting when you point out that their strongly held religious beliefs are actually 99% related to the fact that they were born in a particular place and time. But that is a fact. Can facts be insulting?

I'm interested in the people that don't.

Each of them has to be looked at individually. They do fall into groups though. There are those that become more religious within their parent’s religion, e.g. charismatics, neo- Neo-Catechumenists, nuns etc.

A gay organization claims that a quarter of London vicars are gay, about 10 times the population average. Why?

Then there are those that wander about in similar religions, say Church of Ireland into Anglicism or Ch. of Ireland into Catholicism as many are doing because of homophobia. Very little difference here with their parents religion.

Then there are those who “find Jesus”. Jehovah Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons etc.. Very often they are religious to start with but go through a stressful experience, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, job loss etc.. You often hear “born again” types speak of their evil past. W. Bush is an example. I think it is far more common than you would imagine.

A lot of people are easily conned, as we all know. Look at Scientology, a religion started by a SF writer in the 50’s and based on the notion that we have aliens in our heads. Millions of people have paid this organization up to £20,000 for “auditing” sessions.

Obviously those that drop religion altogether may just learn that it just doesn’t make sense.

As an aside, there is a friend of mine who like me is non-religious but he is not scientifically inclined. I have often said that I have spent decades reading science to disprove god and he hasn’t and I once asked him why he no longer believed in god and he said, “why should I?”

You have me at a disadvantage, you refer to friends of yours but I know nothing of their background or why they have changed.

If you disagree with someone you can’t just say “it’s not provable”.

I claim again that it is possible to prove that the belief in god is wrong and explain why people believe in her.

You didn't mention if you accept the first statement or not.

You ask can I disprove God exists. Obviously the first thing is your are going to have to define what you mean by “God” or I cannot begin to disprove it.

Did I say “feeble-minded”?

I don’t believe that I questioned anyone’s beliefs in an insulting manner. I maintain that if people are insulted it might come about because they don’t like what they are hearing. I am well aware of the concept of “respecting everyone’s opinion”, its very PC at present. However, that doesn’t mean respecting the opinion itself. You can respect the person but hate the opinion.

Aside: I spoke to demonstrators in Memphis a couple of years ago. They were protesting about a Blues Festival, hundreds of them. The devils music, that type of thing. One of them insisted that the Sun went around the Earth, he said to me, “ya can see it going around the Earth!”

ecksor

This is getting nowhere, so I'll make some clarifications and closing remarks.

I'm happy to change that sentence to read 'most' instead of 'some', or explain/elaborate upon any sentences that you feel misrepresent connections between religion and family if you specify which of them you mean.

This is beside the point though. Picking the term 'mutually exclusive' out of the thread title, the natural course of argument is to attempt to find apparently sceptical people who also believe in god and examine those positions. You are specifically picking upon the people who can easily be shown to be non-sceptical. If we only ever consider those people, then you can never be proved wrong. You have dismissed well known examples by redefining terms. I'd attempt to narrow in on a definition of god for you, but firstly you equate god with personal god, and then you claim that it doesn't actually matter if you make that equation or not. Exactly what good a specific definition would do is unclear.

Apologies for incorrectly attributing the phrase 'feeble-minded' to you. You said that religion was a crutch, and I para-phrased.

I claim again that it is possible to prove that the belief in god is wrong and explain why people believe in her.

And when we have a test for it, then it will rightfully become a scientific question. Whether such a test is possible or plausible must be answered by the philosophers.

If you disagree with someone you can’t just say “it’s not provable”.

I don't see why not. If something is not provable either way, then argument is futile. It is at this point that I would agree to disagree with someone who has an opposite belief.

Finally, the reasons you have for not believing in God, or more accurately, the absense of reason for believing in God is something you keep repeating. You are just one specific case, as am I. Continual reference to one specific case that fits the model you subscribe to isn't useful. One counter-example of a sceptical person who believes in God is all that's needed to solve the question posed by the topic.

Talliesin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Maybe its time for the religious skeptics to ask themselves why they get upset when their beliefs are challenged. I don’t ask this frivolously. I genuinely would like to know.

I do not get upset when by beliefs are challenged. There are two things in this thread though that I do get upset about. One is untruth presented as fact, whether through ignorance or deliberate deceit. Einstein was a deeply religious man (indeed I would never say the things he said about atheists - I have far more respect for atheism and atheists than he) saying otherwise is simply an untruth, and I have "brought forth the proofs" (using an Islamic expression of the sceptical burder for deliberate comic value - don't read too much into it) for that, though there are plenty more (he really did write a lot about his faith).

Another thing I get upset about is irrational beliefs presented as rational.
Now my religious beliefs are clearly irrational, and even if I have had personal experiences that may strengthen my personal conviction in those beliefs those experiences are in themselves irrational and there is no rational basis on which I can offer proof to another of them, nor for that matter that I can prove completely to myself that there is not a rational explanation that goes counter to my experiences (unlikely but still possible coincidences, hallucinations, wishful thinking, etc.).
As such there is no sceptical justification for my beliefs - I have to either abandon them or concede that they are not something to which I am applying sceptical thought (or at least not depending on sceptical thought alone when considering them).

Agnosticism is a religious stance that can be purely justified on sceptical grounds. Literally it of course means "not knowing" and in this context that you don't know whether there is a god or not, and by extension that you do not know whether various other things are true such as the existence of the summerlands/heaven/valhalla, the need for a particular figure as a personal saviour, the inevitability of judgement, the operation of Karma, etc.
This is the position that requires no proofs, and indeed the position that those of us with a religious belief must take when engaged in a scientific endevour (we might base a hypothesis on a mere hunch, but become agnostic when testing it).

Atheism - the belief that there is no God is not justifiable purely on sceptical grounds. Leaving aside belief systems which are atheistic but which do entail belief in some unprovable or unproven concepts (Buddhism, Dialectic Materialism) and taking the simple statement "there is no god" on its own, where is the proof?

This does not invalidate atheism, but without proof it is no more justifiable on sceptical grounds than any other religious belief. Even claims that the existence of God is unlikely is not justifiable on sceptical grounds - there is no data on which to determine the likelihood of Deities existing.

Why do I care about this? Historically presenting religious beliefs, including atheism, as rationally justified has gone hand in hand with the persecution of other beliefs and with the very same brainwashing complained of in this thread. Whether it is the Catholic Church using Anselm's Argument or Communists using historical materialism, these claims are dangerous.

Typedef

From the strictest point of view, in terms of logical propositions, god has not been proved to exist.

Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

In such propositions of logic, the owness is not on the observer to disprove 'anything'. In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

In the strictest sense of boolean logic, god is an invalid proposition.

Sure maybe people have all sorts of personal allegories for god and all sorts of ideas for what god is, but, in the world of logic or science, god is still not proved. One could say "I don't know for sure the universe doesn't stand on top of a giant turtle", but, there is no rational path that would lead one to any such conclusion, so the proposition is invalid, it is for all intents and purposes, rhetoric.

I used to be an agnostic, but, exposure to the rigorous standards of logic, precludes agnosticism, god is not proved, therefore god does not exist.

There are many societally imposed constrains on predicating agnosticsm to atheism as above, but, I would accept the general proposition that an organism is a product of it's environment as is a person and that the majority of deity belief is in fact merely a society imposed, highly predicated value-set (aka belief), similar to other standards of social discourse, wearing clothes and use of language appropiately, for example.

If by sceptic, one means a person who only accepts what has been proved and challenges what has been said to be 'proved', until the proof stands or falls, then yes, being a sceptic excludes acceptence of the existence of a deity or at least places a deity as the reason for the universe much lower on the list of possible logical conclusions, then say any number of current popular quantum/theoretical physics theories on the start of the universe.

Holding up my hands though, my parents are both lapsed-Catholic-atheists, unlike their god fearing parents. My parents remembered the 60s and 70s and thus were products of their environments. I entirely accept that my ... well... belief in (from what I call fact) in systems of logic, is in reality subjective, since my background precludes me as being 'exactly' the sort of person who would grow up, not believing in god, so maybe I've been brainwashed into believing I'm rational (there must be elements of truth in that), even though, my ideas of the universe are all proven.

That's a long winded way of saying people are products of their environment and that as science advances, human civilisation is shirking one set of beliefs (which are becoming increasingly out of kilter with observed 'proven' facts) for another set of beliefs, which is based on scientific method. The fact is, that most people don't examine, their belief or disbelief in god, it' simply a fact of life in that particular person's environment.

On this point, many psychologists would propose that if a child belives in god at the age of 12 (when one goes through a process called individuation) that one is highly likely to hold on to this belief (the collorary hold true also), not based on rationale, but based on one's own ideas of self and individuality (things which are instinct driven as opposed to intelligence driven).

So you don't believe in god at 12, you're highly like not to ever believe in god and vice versa.

http://www.wynja.com/personality/jungarchf.html

Talliesin

Originally posted by Typedef
From the strictest point of view, in terms of logical propositions, god has not been proved to exist.

Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

This I agree with.

In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

"Not proved" yes, "invalid and false" no.
Would you say that string theory is invalid and false?
Would you say that 10 years ago Fermats Theorem was invalid and false?

ecksor

Originally posted by Typedef
Sort of like propositional calculus a proposition lies in a not proved state, until all the logical steps to it's conclusion can be set forth and scrutanised.

Yes.

In such propositions of logic, the owness is not on the observer to disprove 'anything'. In fact, until such time as the proponent has proved his case, an observer can (quite rightly) call any proposition not proved, invalid and false.

No. Such a proposition is undecided until either proved or disproved, (or a counter-example is given, which doesn't quite fit into propositional calculus I think, but I can't help mentioning it anyway ). What's more, calling it false is no more correct than calling it true. There are propositions in any given logical system which are undecidable, as was proved by Kurt Godel in 1931.

As I've said a few times on this thread, all that is true is not provable ...

Typedef

Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no system can ever be complete, since it cannot accuretly describe itself in a state of error, thus it is an incomplete system.

Would you say that string theory is invalid and false?

Until it is proved (within reason) it is at best, a theory and lies in a state of 0, in boolean terms, we haven't hit it's base case, so in the strictest sense, yes it is false, until proved elsewise, since in a logical porposition, it cannot evaluate to a true base case through predicated logical steps.

That's a bit of bait though.

Considering the number of false propositions that have been proved to have occured 'elsewhere' when 'god' was in bygone times used as the reason behind many happenings, I would say the likelyhood of 'god' being proved as a 'true' theorem, as against string theory being proved as a 'true' theorem, are quite low.

I suppose for a 10,000 year old theorm, which has thousands of different forms (all of which can be shown to have serious flaws), the god theorm for the origins of the universe, is quite long lasting. I guess when one continually changes the goalposts on a theorm and discounts evidence to the contrary (like dinosaurs and such), it is possible to continually trumpet theorem (x) in perpetuity, but, on that note, I'd be highly sceptical of the god theorm.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Typedef
Until it is proved (within reason) it is at best, a theory and lies in a state of 0, in boolean terms

Null would be a better value that 0.

Myksyk

This is an interesting discussion but I'm not sure we haven't strayed substantially from the initial question which asked if skepticism and belief in god are mutually exclusive. This is not asking if they are consistent necessarily, just mutually exclusive.

I think it is clear that people can believe in god, deistically or theistically, and still be appropriately skeptical and critical about any number of issues. This may or may not betray a certain level of inconsistency but it hardly excludes the person from being described as skeptical.

For example, the author Kenneth Miller who wrote 'Finding Darwin's God' executed a brilliant defence of Darwinism against creationist fundamentalist nonsense in a riveting read which was scientifically erudite, critical and deeply skeptical of the creationist position. The fact that one may disagree with one of his theses, i.e. the possibility of a personal god, can be argued to be to some degree, beside the point; or at least a different point. And perhaps this is the kernel of the matter. We may have an easier time being appropriately skeptical of some ideas than others, (presumably a fairly normal feature of the human condition).

Embracing skepticism means a willingness to critically analyse and question all ideas and practices and a desire to develop critical thinking skills. It does not necessarily mean the wholesale and immediate abandonment of one's belief and opinions. Nor, by the way, does it mean the immediate acceptance of a scientific/naturalistic view of the world. It may or may not lead too this positon but that is not a foregone conclusion. So while skepticism forms part of the bedrock of science it is not the exclusive intellectual property of science.

Skepticism usually brings people through a long process of examination of cherished views and beliefs. This process may take years or perhaps a lifetime and does not have a definitive end point which marks the person out as having achieved 'skepticism'. As Susan Rama pointed out to James Randi and Michael Shermer in a letter to 'SKEPTIC' recently, people who are willing to drop long-held beliefs without deep critical analysis are hardly the type of people we want championing the skeptical cause.

Presumably therefore one can curently hold many 'unscientific' beliefs and still be appropriately described as skeptical. This would suggest that belief in God and skepticism are not mutually exclusive at any given time in this process of examination.

sextusempiricus

williamgrogan makes some interesting replies to my 'ultimate questions'.

'What are we all here for?

DNA.

What is the point of living?

DNA. (+Personally speaking, horse racing, reading, etc.)

In my opinion there are no limits to science except in time, i.e. just what we currently know.'

I guess DNA is important. About 60 % of my genes are basically the same as found in a fruit fly and my knowledge of 'ultimate questions' is just about the same as a fruit fly's. The concept of God is not one upon which can be scientifically investigated.
The so-called proofs don't hold water and are logically flawed. As the concept has no empirical content it is not scientifically testable. People will often seek peace of mind
by seeking some kind of answers to 'first and final questions' in their religion. This is a matter of faith. I don't (probably like my relation the fruit fly) have a faith like this. I can of course look for contradictions in the theist's beliefs. I can also ask what would for the theist be a disproof of God's existence. Sometimes I feel that theists are too caught up in 'doublethink' to reject the idea of a loving God even in the face of a heartless and indifferent world. This has nothing to do with science however.

Sceptics accept that even if knowledge is not impossible it is at least very difficult to get. We have the imagination (sadly absent in my winged friend ) to state what might be the case and can subject our theories to rigorous testing. We can see if our theories fit the facts.
Such an atitude does not exclude those that believe in a deity. Profession of atheism doesn't of course preclude pseudo science. What about Lysenko's ideas in the USSR of Stalin re the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Sceptics have to be on their guard wherever dubious claims are put forward although that might neccessitate more than a little courage in the face of political incarceration in a latter day equivalent to a Siberian prison camp.

Limits to science can occur through failure of nerve, political oppression, lack of imagination, human extinction in a nuclear wasteland or whatever.

williamgrove's interests that give point to his life fail to include being arguementative. I'm sure he is a great assett to the Irish Sceptics Society's debates.
If he didn't exist I'm sure, to paraphrase Voltaire, he would have to be invented!

williamgrogan

I'm waiting on someone to define god so I can disprove him. (While you are at it can you give him a name so when referring to him that we know that we are not referring to all the other gods/goddesses.)

Thanks.

sextusempiricus

Here is a parable you might be interested in.
Two explorers came across a jungle clearing in which there grew a lot of flowers and a good few weeds. One of the explorers said, "Some gardener must tend this plot" The other, a williamgrogan-type person perhaps, disagreed but being scientifically inclined suggested that they set up a watch from the thicket to see if a gardener appeared. They didn't see the gardener and our first explorer suggested that the gardener may be invisible. The two set up a barbed wire fence, electrified it and, recalling that H.G.Well's 'Invisible Man' could be both smelt and touched, had the area patrolled with bloodhounds. There were no cries of pain to suggest that an intruder had received an electric shock or pricked himself on barbed wire. The bloodhounds didn't bay or vigorously sniff at an invisible intruder. The Believer was still not convinced that there was no gardener insisting that he was invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks and without a scent and that he still came to the clearing to tend the garden he loved. The williamgrogan-type loosing his patience with his friend hotly responded,"What remains of your original assertion? How does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

Whilst they continue to disagree about the existence of this mysterious gardener to this day they are in absolute agreement that large doses of Vitamin C are not a protection from the common cold and amicably support the Irish Skeptic's society.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I'm waiting on someone to define god so I can disprove him. (While you are at it can you give him a name so when referring to him that we know that we are not referring to all the other gods/goddesses.)

Thanks.

I don't consider definitions important. That is merely replacing one word with a lot of words each of which may have to be further defined. This leads to an infinite regress that gets nowhere. To talk about God in any meaningful way presumably means that one can give him attributes viz 'All powerful, loving, good etc'. Whilst such statements are not subject to scientific scrutiny in a way williamgrogan would like we can look for consistency of such attributes with the the presence of evil. As my previous parable hopefully made clear believers may try and further qualify their original assertion by claims that He works in mysterious ways. This is hardly convincing.

williamgrogan

Here is a parable you might be interested in.

One of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by “explaining” via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

The problem with Skeptics believing in God is that they then have a major problem arguing against Faith Healing, Reiki, Spiritualism, Physic Healing, Mediums etc.. In fact if someone simply says that, “I believe that Acupuncture cured me”, how can you say that just because they believe it, it may not be true, if this is the only argument you yourself have for your god?

In fact what a Religious Skeptic (an OxyMORON?) is saying is that he must be allowed to believe in his superstitions but others cannot believe in theirs.

Defining God

There are two approaches.

1/ The person proposing that there is a god proves it or
2/ They demand I disprove it.

I have no problem with option 2 (as religious people have failed with option 1), but I cannot disprove god until I know what it is you think it/him/her/them is/are/were/did? I need a definition, otherwise when I am finishing disproving him, you will just change the goalposts and I’ll have to start again.

It is bizarre to argue that you will not define god because, “…is merely replacing one word with a lot of words…”. Have you something against words? Is there a word shortage?

ecksor

The parable didn't try to prove anything, it asked interesting questions about your stance that you completely dismissed. He even seems to share your beliefs, but has put the argument on a surer framework than you have attempted to. You don't believe in god, which is fine. I'm not sure if you've quite grasped that most people here are not trying to convince you of the existence of god, merely to show that a sceptical argument can't really say anything useful about the situation one way or another (not yet anyway).

williamgrogan

The parable didn't try to prove anything

I didn't say it did. I just pointed out that it is very often used to try and do so.

I'm not sure if you've quite grasped that most people here are not trying to convince you of the existence of god,

I didn't say they were.

We are debating whether or not a Skeptic can be religious. You either believe in evidence, logic, proof or not. You can't pick and choose which superstition to believe in and which to reject. Either everything is up for grabs or nothing is. Simply saying that Science cannot investigate something as a way to "kick it to touch" because it upsets people is unacceptable and "unprofessional" and obviously a cop out.

I have often noticed that believers in one superstition often "respect" the "beliefs" of others. They have to, don't they?

To believe that god kicked off the big bang but argue that he doesn't cure people at Lourdes is illogical.

....merely to show that a sceptical argument can't really say anything useful about the situation one way or another

I obviously disagree with that point. Science can understand why people believe in god and other superstitions. It can be studied and researched.

However, suggesting that we analyse ourselves seems to annoy people or to suggest that the reason they believe in silly things is because of a failure in their programming.