Is it Self-Defeating to Argue on Behalf of Skepticism?
The answer is a resounding NO! Christians claim that it is and then try to drive a whole truckload of assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If, after all, it's self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism then, well, anything goes, including the inspiration of a canonical set of documents written by ancient superstitious people and the beliefs that are entailed within them by interpreters today (yesterday's interpreters got it wrong, you see). So even if it is self-defeating to be skeptical about skepticism Christians are completely wrong to make such a huge leap.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.
53 comments:
How do you know that skepticism isn't self-defeating?
John, you've gotta give some criteria for coming to conclusions about reality. Otherwise this just slips into solipsism.
"Denial is easy": Exactly, it's much more difficult to stake a claim and commit to a position. Of course, it's the only way to move forward with knowledge.
Skeptic, because skepticism is not a set of beliefs. It's a method for arriving at beliefs, the only one that has proven reliable. Faith is not a method and is completely untrustworthy by comparison.
Brad other than an assertion could you please try to make that into an argument? I think it's clearly a non-sequitur. Deal with what I said, okay? I'll only respond if you do.
One criteria of the skeptic is that extraordinary claims demand a lot of evidence for them. Another is methodological naturalism, which is the hallmark of science.
Please no straw men arguments. I don't have time for them today.
I'll try not to waste your time, John.
I can imagine a pantheist being skeptical of all reality, believing that it is all an illusion and emanation of god, or the universal infinite, or whatever. Is he more reasonable than a Western skeptic who stops his skepticism at reality? I have no idea how you would prove that. Utility is meaningless for him, so pointing to the success of MN just won't cut it. Is ad-hom then the next step? (I can already feel one coming my way)
But you still don't get to any criteria. MN is just a method, and "extraordinary" is hopelessly subjective, on both ends. What is an extraordinary claim, and what constitutes extraordinary evidence?
I'm not saying credulity is automatically good, but why are you more reasonable for believing that there actually was a Jesus, when so many other skeptics don't see any evidence for him?
Estimated read time: 75 seconds
Estimated response time: 90 seconds
Okay, here's 90 seconds worth of my time. 70 seconds to go. You cannot possibly mean that we do not know what an extraordinary claim is, can you? 40 seconds. Thinking... 30 seconds. And where does it get you if we cannot specifically define one. 20 seconds. The Christian set of beliefs is definitely extraordinary claim. Done.
You didn't give me enough time. ;-)
Well said John.
To assert that Skepticism is Self-defeating is in itself a skeptical position. Worse than that though, it is absurd to discredit the very tool you use to make the assertion.
If it were not for "skepticism" we would still be living in the dark believing that the earth was the center of the universe & that this universe was created in a mere 6 days only 4 to 6 thousand years ago. We would also believe that diseases were caused by evil spirits & that stepping on the cracks could break my mother's back...
-evan
Let me make it more explicit, if you have another 90 seconds.
Is it extraordinary to claim that a failed messianic prophet inspired the writings we know as the Gospels?
Where do skeptics draw the line?
Take as much time as you have ;-)
You wrote:
"Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science."Where have you independently corroborated the claim that we should be skeptical about what we believe? You state it, I see no links to scientific studies that prove it. It seems you fail to hold yourself to the same standard you hold theists to, you ask us to accept your standard on faith with no concrete scientific evidence for it.
Futher you assume that theists are theists because they have been raised to be, because they have not evaluated all phenomena and theories. Firstly, this argument applies with equal force to cultural atheists and sceptics. Secondly, it does not apply to theists such as myself who were raised as atheists went on a sceptical exploratory balancing expedition and concluded that theism was the best explanation.
I've heard the claim before that skepticism is self-defeating. Perhaps you could answer this question for me. (I'm not trying to be snarky...I'm really looking for a good answer to the question that I can use.)
You indicate that skepticism is a process or tool - a method for determining the truth of claims. If that is the case, should we be skeptical of the claim, "We should be skeptical of claims"? I know this leads into an "infinite loop" of sorts, but there should be some way around it, right? Maybe my brain is just fried today...
I think John has this one right for the most part. Skepticism is a methodology more than a set of beliefs. Skepticism, to me, is the only way (that we know about) to reasonably verify if one's beliefs reflect reality.
If one has no concern for whether one's beliefs reflect reality, then you ought to have no concern for people being skeptical. If you DO have concern for the veracity of your beliefs, then you must ask the question, "Is this true?", which is the starting place of the skeptical method.
Just my two cents...
Hi John,
I think I agreed with most things in the post however, where do you stop your skepticism?
Descartes tried to answer that question and look where it got him? Should we all go down that path?
John, if skepticism is neither more nor less than being critical, open minded and being willing to criticise multiple belief sets in an effort to arrive at the best one, then surely you're aware that Christians agree that there is a lot of merit in being a skeptic.
What Christians are more inclined to say (and as I've said before), is that even if atheism is a true belief, there's no obvious reason to try to persuade other people to accept it.
The answer is Yes! Just as Dr. Geisler has pointed out.
Hi John
I'm not sure if you've adequately defined 'skepticism' as you're using the term here. For example, we can distinguish skepticism about any particular proposition from skepticism about all propositions. Let's call the former 'doubt,' and the latter 'skepticism.'
Now, with respect to doubt, if you question the truth of a specific proposition, I can at least in principle respond to the grounds of your doubt by adducing other propositions as evidence that are not themselves doubted (or that are not doubted to the same degree). For example, let's say you doubt that it's the case that I have a thousand dollars in my pocket. I can take it out and show it to you. In this case, you won't doubt the evidence of your senses, and you wouldn't have doubted the truth of the proposition, 'John would be persuaded that Eric has a thousand dollars in his pocket if Eric took it out of his pocket and showed him.' Now, given your grounding of what you call 'skepticism' on the sciences, it would seem to me that you're referring to what I've called 'doubt' above. (Note, I'm not quibbling about labels at all, and I'm not claiming that you're not using the term skepticism 'properly'; rather, I'm just trying to make some distinctions that seem to me to be important if we're to get at a more precise understanding of how you're using the term 'skepticism.')
We can contrast the sketch I've given of 'doubt' above, in which a specific proposition (or set of propositions) is doubted, with what I'm calling 'skepticism,' which would entail doubting all propositions. In other words, in this case we can't adduce other propositions to remove the ground of doubt, because these propositions will themselves be doubtful. (I'm of course simplifying here; there are sundry varieties of this sort of skepticism, as I'm sure you well know.) I said above that it seems, when we consider your reliance on science, that you're using the term 'skepticism' to mean something like what I've called 'doubt.' However, we seem to have grounds for thinking that you're using it in accordance with what I've called 'skepticism' as well: you say that skepticism is 'an approach to truth claims.' You also say that after concluding an investigation of seven theories that a particular theory is correct, we could still be wrong because 'there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet.'
Now, you also go on to say that 'no one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.' So it seems that we're back at 'doubt,' in which case it seems as if you understand skepticism to be an approach to *certain* truth claims.
So, my tentative conclusion is that be 'skepticism' you mean the doubting of certain truth claims, but not of all truth claims. My first question would be, is this an accurate representation of your conception of skepticism? If so, I'll quickly add that while this form of skepticism may not be self defeating, it does raise a new set of problems. Rather than go through them, I'll ask a second question. It seems to me that this form of skepticism is consistent with Victor Reppert's maxim, viz. "You ought to believe what you already believe, unless you have evidence that what you believe is not true." Since we're only to be skeptical of certain beliefs, and not of all beliefs (if I understand your use of the term skepticism correctly), we need some criteria to guide us as we determine which beliefs to doubt. So, my second question is this: Is Reppert's maxim consistent with your conception of skepticism, and if not, why not, and what criteria would you put in its place? (Okay, maybe that's more than one question!)
John, Christians have already accepted the existence of an impossible deity along with dozens of events that are all-but-impossible by natural law. Once you do this, nothing seems extraordinary.
Did I miss the definition of skepticism here? Does it involve external world skepticism? Skepticism about purported mathematical truths? Skepticism about evolutionary biology?
Jason, unless you mean on preaching to the choir, to those who will not challenge you, I am going to assume that you will show some skepticism to claims of impossibility and you'll want to see what reasons there are for believing them.
You say that Christians believe in a God who is not merely nonexistent, but who is actually "impossible." As a skeptic, how would you go about persuading another person that the existence of God is actually impossible?
Thanks.
It's nice when Atheists and Christians can agree. About what Jason Long said, Dito.
Enjoy the week end! feeno, but I kinda like Harry's new name for me as well? Peace Out, freeno
Jeff asked, should we be skeptical of the claim, "We should be skeptical of claims"?Is is a fact that we are illogical people that we are gullible, that we misunderstand, and that we believe what we were taught to believe. Scientific studies have shown us that. We know this. So how can we be skeptical of these facts? I don't see how.
Rev Phillip said: I think I agreed with most things in the post however, where do you stop your skepticism?..Descartes?I think the history of philosophy has taught us that we cannot be too skeptical. We must be reasonable. I don't see a problem.
Glenn, the alternative is not atheism, although that's what I embrace. There are a mutifacted number of worldviews and religions that are the alternatives to what you believe. I claim you should use the same standards to evaluate your own beliefs as you do the other religions your reject. I claim you operate on a double standard. I don't.
John, I agree with what you're saying. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be skeptical about these things. I'm a big fan of skepticism. I'm just wondering if there is some sort of argument for escaping the infinite loop that you get into when you start being skeptical of skeptical claims. Can I be skeptical about whether we should be skeptical? I don't know. I think perhaps the only way out of that is to argue for skepticism on a pragmatic level, i.e. we should be skeptical because it works. Same with methodological naturalism.
Eric, I think I already mentioned some criteria earlier.
"You ought to believe what you already believe, unless you have evidence that what you believe is not true."This principle seems somewhat reasonable to me but I cna think of exceptions. And surely Vic is not an epistemological foundationalist to based everything he believes on evidence anyway.
Vic, we should be skeptical to some degree about everything we were taught to believe unless we can verify it for ourselves. That verification process is not Cartesian though, and we cannot verify everything.
Glenn, I do not say the existence of God is impossible. I'm an agnostic atheist.
Gotta go.
Madeline said: I see no links to scientific studies that prove it.I didn't think it was necessary since this should be common knowledge for any thinker. Look at Jason Long's book. These kinds of books are almost ubiquitous. Become informed, okay?
John, I think your post unwittingly lacks an actual grasp of the subject matter 'Skepticism'.
Additionally, based upon your delineation of the skeptic's and non-skeptic's approach to the inquiry and justification of knowledge, and your hypothetical "odd sort of phenomena" scenario, it seems that your arguments are more concerned with the question "is skepticism self-defeating" rather than "is it self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism".
It is for these reasons, despite whatever connectedness you make or conclusion you arrive at, I don't know what thesis to agree or disagree with (although I disagree with a number of your points).
HI John,
But Descatres arrived at almost doubting everything? This is where is reason left him?
P.
Jeff, when I argue for a Pragmantic form of Christianity, I am always told by the would-be Skeptics that this doens't address if its true and is useless. SOmehow though, a self-defined "Skepticism" that relaly isn't Skeptical is osmehow noble becaus e"It works".
Well, Christianity works for me, and I've seen peopels lives greatly improved, showign that it works for them too.
Why is Christianity then ever so horrible that it has t be subjected to endless Skeptisism? Hey, it works, so why not join in?
That said, I am skeptical that anyone here is really Skeptical.
Most of the Athissts on DC who claim to be Skeptics also tend to recycle other peoepls argumetns that don't always make sense and never seem to wquesiton them. Harry recently posted about Ashterah as Yahweh's wife for example, of Valarie Tarico postign that Easter came form Sumeria and started as a Fertility festival in honour of Ishtar. Both of these claism have acutlaly been long since set aside by modern scholarhsip, yet find currency in the always logical and raitonal Skeptical community. I find it less rational to hold to outdated ideas that have been dispirven, btu hey, I'm a Christian so what do I know?
Really, I can't even convince John that Faith isn't beleif withotu evidence, so when he argues that Skptisism is better htan Faith and Faith is useless, he's goign to stick to that even though his statmen is in and of itself a statement of Faith because Faith is just a firm conviction about the veracity of a claim, or confidence in an external object, and not "Beleiving a claim even though the claim has no evidence".
His argument is built on several critical faults that render his post indefensable, btu hey., lets not be skeptical...
Oops, I mean, lets be Skeptical, at leats towards CHristianiy...
Because even if on a pragmantic level Christianity works and imprives lives, it fpenst make it true.
We shdul embrace the views of SKeptics, because, hey, just liek matwirlaistic naturlaism, it workzs...
No Hypocracy here.
Glenn, the attributes assigned to the Judeo-Christian deity in the bible are contradictory, therefore it is logically impossible for it to exist as described (e.g. a being described as omnipotent who cannot repeal the rules of logic that he himself created, a being described as omniscient that sets rewards based on principles of freewill, etc.)
Atheists to Christians: We are all skeptics. We are just skeptical of one more god than you are. The reason you are skeptical of all other possible gods is the same reason that we are skeptical of yours.
Glenn said..."What Christians are more inclined to say (and as I've said before), is that even if atheism is a true belief, there's no obvious reason to try to persuade other people to accept it.."
Wars are still being fought worldwide complete with religious faith undertones in tow and even in some cases at least providing some fuel for continuation of fire.Faith belief groups are often actively involved in laws governing many things that effect (all) of our futures,such as progression of medical science practices etc.These faith belief groups are often highly involved in the implementation of laws which help depict what rights (we all) do or do not have as humans,things such as abortion or who should be allowed to marry or not etc.
We (all) as humans on this planet then do rely somewhat on the judgment and intelligence of these (groups) of people of faith,hopefully to help provide whats actually best for us (all) in the long run.
History tells us in the past peoples many faith beliefs have often over ruled their personal ability to be able to continue to think intelligently making judgments based on proved merit etc!, rather than with use of overpowering ancient old biased religious indoctrinations.
Non faith belief or atheism."There's just no obvious (reason) to try to persuade other people to accept it"
?????!......??
I suppose there really is not any good reasons, if looked at (only) from a biased faithful ostrich like head in the sand type situation.
Its all good , its all just so perfectly wonderfully rosy aint it.. :)
What the hell good reasons would people ever have to wish for possibilities of there being less faith beliefs in this world in future??
Hell no non believers spend so much time debating with faithful folk over these matters,simply because they really have nothing better to do!.
For no good reasons whatsoever :)
Jason, although you've not support them (I'll set that aside for now), what you've alluded to are your purported reasons for not believing in the Judeo-Christian God. But what does that have to do with what I said earlier, which is that if you think God does not exist, there is still no apparent reason to get other people to accept that belief, and I provided a link to an argument to that effect.
Gandolf, if your view is that we should always try to persuade people to give up the sorts of beliefs over which wars are fought, then I'm afraid all beliefs must go. Given the absurdity of that conclusion, I think you need to revisit the argument. I think your suggestion that debunking religion is a philanthropic activity is less than compelling.
Andre, I'm arguing on behalf of skepticism, okay?
Rev. Philip, did you say you've read the background to every post I write to found in my book? I do not defend Cartesian skepticism for good reasons. and I cannot write everything I know about a topic here, nor can I say everything I know.
Glenn said.."Gandolf, if your view is that we should always try to persuade people to give up the sorts of beliefs over which wars are fought, then I'm afraid all beliefs must go. Given the absurdity of that conclusion, I think you need to revisit the argument. I think your suggestion that debunking religion is a philanthropic activity is less than compelling."
Well Glenn im certainly not posting here expecting people to ever need to agree.
You are quite welcome to continue to beat the old simplistic "baddy non believer" drum if you wish.
I dont mind ! .In fact i think its even (quite helpful) in showing the youth of today, just how stagnant and stale and even self righteous faith belief really is.That faith overall is really not very willing to accept any blame,yells rather loudly with complete ignorance and bigotry i think.
Strangely some folk even have (great faith) that people only ever bother to become involved in discussing matters of global warming for instance,for absolutely no good reason! also.
These faithful folk never see no compelling reason to ever likely see these things otherwise either,just like you.No!in these faithful folks minds people only ever bother to spend time bitching about weather patterns etc,for their own personal fun etc.
Its often said old dogs dont easily learn new tricks.And im sure the old dogs of faith feel much more comfortable with keeping to continued old mantra`s such as "non believers have no reasons"etc.
Strangely it seems people with the suggested "no reasons" for some reason :) are still very much around and have even really grown greatly in numbers lately !.
Seems that these stats then suggest the phenomenon of people acting for no reasons, is even a growing phenomenon worldwide somehow.
Still the same as before the old dogs blissfully continue along with their "no reason" lines.After all its just so much more palatable and easier to swallow that way isnt it.
Personally im not so interested in changing old dogs tricks,mostly they only link to the past that cannot ever really be changed.
The real key to any future lies with the youth :)
I guess maybe it depends a whole lot on whether the youth see it the same way as you do Glenn.
Glenn, I'm not addressing what you said to John. I'm addressing what you said to me. That's usually how these things work.
And I wasn't attempting an argument, I was talking to John about what we already know is the contradictory nature of the Judeo-Christian god.
John, I know it sounds simple to argue on behalf of skepticism, because it can be a good thing, but it is obviously a continuum.
Which is why I still want to know why it isn't more reasonable to doubt the existence of an apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Judea than to say there actually was a Jesus who inspired what is now called Christianity. Is Robert Price's position inherently more reasonable than Bart Ehrman's?
Since I suspect you agree with Ehrman, then using a general concept of skepticism as a blanket argument against orthodox Christian belief is just rhetoric.
Brad your questions are both ignorant and irrelevant. That people come to different conclusions based on the same methodology is both inevitable and obvious. If you think that because we don't agree it provides you with some kind of reason to reject the methodology itself then you are quite simply ignorant. And unless you can propose a better methodology your question is also irrelevant. Shall we base our beliefs on faith instead then? If so, anything goes.
No more ignorance or irrelevancies from you on this.
Glenn wrote: ...if you think God does not exist, there is still no apparent reason to get other people to accept that belief, and I provided a link to an argument to that effect.First, this statement is only "apparent" if you assume that meaning only exists in the cosmic / eternal sense, etc. However, it's not clear that this is a mature view of meaning, given what we now know about human perception, etc.
Second, it assumes that your beliefs will not effect your actions, which would not effect anyone other than yourself.
For example, those who believe in the Judeo-Christan God tend to subscribe to the apocalyptic view, which suggests things in this age will continue to get worse until Jesus returns to usher in a second age. They also hold that any peace we may experience until Jesus returns will be false. This sort of belief makes it difficult to build a sustainable future for humanity.
A concrete examples of this include the controversy over the environment in the evangelical community. Since God is in control (being all knowing and all powerful), who's to say that any coming global environmental catastrophe isn't his way of ushering in a second age? Should we pre-emptivly attack Iran because they are a threat to the nation of Israel, which must remain intact if Jesus is to return?
So, to answer your question, I think there are good reasons to accept atheism, even though you might not find them obvious.
Scott, most Christians are not Evangelicals. Globally Catholics are the largest number, and even int he US, you have plenty of others who do not hold to that view.
Also, even Evangelicals tend no to see it as the way pu descrube, instea seeing the world as capable of improving. They do work toward that. They see the "worse and worese and only a false peace possible" scenario ony as effetive in "The end times".
Rev. Philip Brown,
I'm a fan of Descartes, and I think if you actually read what he wrote, you'll notice that he didn't end up doubting everything. That was his starting point. He started from nothing and built his way up. I don't agree with everything he said, but he did wind up saying essentially that we should believe what makes the most sense and is most reasonable. People remember the "universal doubt" of Descartes, but miss out on the rest of it.
Zarove,
I see what you're saying, but that's really apples and oranges. Skepticism as defined by John here is a methodology or process. Christianity, on the other hand, is a set of truth claims. Thus, skepticism is something that may be applied to Christianity. Now, you can argue about the pragmatism of believing a comfortable lie, but comparing the pragmatism of Christianity to the pragmatism of applying skepticism is an unbalanced comparison. Skepticism is meant to determine truth, and as such, we can see whether it "works" at achieving its ends. But what is Christianity meant to do? Achieve salvation? Provide comfort? It's not meant to determine truth because it presents itself as a set of truth-claims itself. In other words, it's not a process but an end result.
Now, as for your thing about what faith is, I think the word "faith" is a nebulous term. It gets equivocated all over the place. I tell people that I don't have any reason to believe in God, and they tell me to "just have faith." Then I say that I can't just blindly accept something, and they tell me, "no no, we have reasons for having faith!" Well which is it? Either you have reasons or you don't, and if you've got reasons, then what's the point of having faith as well anyways? Make up your mind as to what definition you're going to use, and stick with it.
Good call on the definition of faith Jeff.
Zarove,
I see what you're saying, but that's really apples and oranges. Skepticism as defined by John here is a methodology or process. Christianity, on the other hand, is a set of truth claims. Thus, skepticism is something that may be applied to Christianity. But my point is, its not really apples and oranges, since he so-called Skeptics also make regular truth claims.
What is being defined as Skepticism on Debunking Christianity, and in other popular Atheist hangouts today, isn’t really about methodology at all. Its about accepting a set of doctrines that comprise a modern, Humanist outlook on life.
Its like reading Dan Barkers Non-tract about being a Freethinker, only the word is now Skeptic. (Which are used as synonyms in these communities.) In order to be a Skeptic, you have to doubt or deny God exists. To be a Skeptic, you have to adhere to a Materialistic naturalism. To be a Skeptic, you have to deny miracles exist. Not doubt, deny. And that’s the point I am raising here, that most of the people who address themselves as Skeptical and who want to argue for its benefits aren’t really using Skepticism as a methodology, but rather as a set of truth claims in and of itself.
This is why when you visit Prometheus books and find books about Skeptisism, the books never try to teach you actual methodology except in a basic formulae, and why the bulk of the books tend to talk about the arguments to use against Christianity.
The books, blogs, tracts, and essays, along with their authors, really aren’t interested in promoting the use of a method to arrive at truth claims, but are instead interested in discrediting Christianity, and often theism generally. ( I am not paranoid when I mention it as an attack on Christianity, as this is the target for most of the Criticism.)
In the end, people cannot be seen as Skeptical if they adhere to the Christian Faith, or any other Religion that is not a product of the same doctrines of this Skeptisism. It doesn’t matter if they apply the same methodology, it doesn’t matter if they subject their beliefs to rigorous examination and deep questioning and undergo a process of systematic doubt. All that matters is the conclusion, and if they do not arrive at at least Agnostism, and at best Atheism, they will not be accepted as truly Skeptical. We see this in your complaint of Des Carte when you claim he didn’t really doubt everything. Your conclusion that he didn’t really doubt everything is based on the fact that he remained a Theist.
Had he become an Atheist he’d have doubted everything, because to you, the ONLY way to have doubted everything is to doubt God existed, and anyone who doubts God existed and applies skepticism must inevitably arrive at Atheism. You can’t imagine someone disagreeing even after such doubts and skepticism.
This is because you have accepted the Doctrine that Skeptisism produces Atheism, just as you have accepted the Doctrine that Skeptisism is a method and not a belief system. But the question I’d have to ask you is, is it possible to be a Skeptic and remain a committed Christian? Can you accept that this is possible?
I know that modern Day Atheists love to profess their own independence of thinking and how rational and logical they are, and Skeptisism is a big part of that Identity, but I just don’t see it as anything but Rhetoric, much the same way as Christians who say Christianity is not a Religion but instead a Relationship. As silly as that sounds to you, it sounds just as silly to me to say Skeptisism as understood on DC is really all about a neutral methodology when clearly its limited to those who hold to the “Correct” view.
Now, you can argue about the pragmatism of believing a comfortable lie, but comparing the pragmatism of Christianity to the pragmatism of applying skepticism is an unbalanced comparison. This is why actual dialogue is impossible. The longer you remain a “Skeptic”, the less you are capable of considering the position of your opponents. By saying I am arguing over the Pragmatism of believing a comfortable lie, you prevent the possibility form emerging that Christianity isn’t a lie. Instead we both agree that it’s a lie, I’m just arguing that its pragmatic to believe in the lie whilst you reject the lie.
Is that even a Fair argument?
Christianity is not presented here as a “Comfortable lie”, and when I argued for the pragmatic value of it, I did so to show the hypocrisy of pragmatic belief in Atheistic ideals, because when Christians use the same argument they are scorned greatly.
This hardly means its meant to convey Christianity as a Comfortable lie.
Skepticism is meant to determine truth, and as such, we can see whether it "works" at achieving its ends. But what is Christianity meant to do? Achieve salvation? Provide comfort? It's not meant to determine truth because it presents itself as a set of truth-claims itself. In other words, it's not a process but an end result.That’s my point in challenging the Skeptisism John uses. It is not really designed to determine truth at all, its instead designed to undermine Christianity.
The name of this website is “Debunking Christianity”, not “Finding truth”. All of the arguments form the contributors are designed to argue against Christianity, and each contributor, yourself included, compose each post for the ole purpose of arguing against Christianity. This doesn’t tell me you are interested in exploring all options; Instead, it tells me your mind is made up, and now you are setting out to prove your proposition.
Thus, I would say you aren’t really Skeptical in the true sense of the word, and your Skeptisism is Skeptisism of Christianity only, not of Atheism.
Just look at how many discredited arguments are employed routinely. From Valarie Tarico’s claim that the origins of Easter rest in Ancient Samaria, with the worship of Ishtar, to Harry McCalls endless ranting about such things as Gods sex life, to ay number of complaints about Christian theology, of varying quality, its very apparent to event he most casual of observer that the intention is to promote Atheism and discredit Christianity, not to pursue a methodology that helps us find truth and to promote it.
You may think, as an Atheist, that the two are in fact one in the same, but they aren’t. Your mind is made up to such a large extent that you can’t even Hypothetically imagine Christianity is true and instead must endlessly belittle and criticise it so as to promote your own worldview.
So, I do not see this as “Skeptisism” at all.
Christianity may be a set of truth claims and thus an end result, but so is what you present her eon Debunking Christianity. It is an end result, a worldview that is mainly rooted in the 18th and 19th century Enlightenment and modernist philosophies, and development of Humanist thinking. In the end, your just promoting a set of beliefs and truth claims, and not really promoting a system of Skeptisism, and the same applies to John.
Which is why I don’t think anyone here lacks religion. Other than content, I see no difference between the actual methodologies and establishment of doctrines, and defence of the same.
Now, as for your thing about what faith is, I think the word "faith" is a nebulous term. It gets equivocated all over the place. I tell people that I don't have any reason to believe in God, and they tell me to "just have faith." Then I say that I can't just blindly accept something, and they tell me, "no no, we have reasons for having faith!" Well which is it? The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. Faith is a synonym for Confidence. So what they are telling you is to have confidence. And usually they are simply approaching it form a different mental perspective, so they just fail to see where your at if they say this. Much like how many Atheists here fail to see where I am mentally before replying.
Either you have reasons or you don't, and if you've got reasons, then what's the point of having faith as well anyways? Make up your mind as to what definition you're going to use, and stick with it.This is actually my main problem with people who attack Religion base don it being rooted in Faith. Its like the famous Ventura quote. If you know, you don’t need faith.
Somehow, you don’t need Faith if you have evidence and a reason to believe something because Faith is belief without evidence.
But the truth is, Faith isn’t belief without evidence, and the pint of having Faith if you have reason to believe is because Faith is a synonym for confidence.
Would you ask “What’s the point of having confidence if you have reason to believe?” well, the thing is, the reason to believe is why you have confidence. The reasons I believe in God and am a Christian are the reason I have Faith.
I don’t have reasons to believe and in addition to those reasons I have faith. The Faith is a natural and inevitable result of those reasons. You act as if they are separate and Faith is redundant, which is not really the case.
You can’t remove my Faith by asking me why I need it if I have reasons to believe in Christ, because the Faith is emergent form the reasons.
Just as if God appeared to you personally and told you everything you wanted to know, you wouldn’t know, thus not need faith, your personal knowledge of God would produce Faith because Faith is another word for Confidence or trust, and knowledge can produce confidence or trust.
Zarove, you should be pleased that I actually took the time to read through your impressively long rant. I really shouldn't have. It was filled with nothing but generalizations, stereotypes, and straw men. I'm sure you don't like it when atheists lump Christians (or religious people) into one big pile and say, "They're all the same." Well, I don't appreciate it, either. I don't agree with everything that is written on this blog. I have never declared any statement of faith to follow John Loftus to my death. So please save your unnecessary generalizations. You can't say anything about me because you don't know enough about what I believe.
So let's talk about it. And let's be a little more civilized. I think I was being more than civilized in my response to you, and I expect the same. Let's be reasonable people, alright?
First off, what "skepticism" is defined as and what the term is actually applied to may be very different things. Right? I would agree with you - if something labelled "skepticism" is making truth claims about something, it is overstepping its bounds. Not that it is automatically wrong, but it should be relabelled. And I also agree with you that skepticism is not inherently atheistic. Again, if we are defining it as a methodology, it is not making positive claims about anything. It's a-theistic in the sense that it makes no claims about theism, period. Now, some atheists also claim to be skeptics, and that's okay. I would say that it is possible to be a skeptical Christian. I may not agree with the conclusions that such a person reaches, but if they make a habit of critically applying skepticism to truth claims, then they should be able to label themselves as skeptics. I would argue that they aren't being skeptical enough, or that they may be withholding some beliefs from skeptical rigour, but I wouldn't deny them the right to call themselves skeptics. I probably have areas in my life that I have not been skeptical enough about, and I would still consider myself a skeptic as well.
So despite your assertions about me that I am some atheist trying to undermine and attack Christianity, I actually agree with some of what you say, which is why your generalizations do more to harm your argument than help it.
(As a side note, you apparently didn't understand my comment about Descartes. I was not saying anything about his theism. I was merely pointing out that he didn't end at a point of universal doubt - that was his starting point. So even with "extreme skepticism" we may not need to be limited to denying everything. That's all I was saying. If you don't understand what I mean by that, then let's just drop it, as it's not important anyway.)
Anyway, in regard to the "comfortable lie" thing that I was saying, perhaps I was misunderstanding what you were saying about the "pragmatism of Christianity." Essentially I was taking that to mean that you were saying that even if Christianity were false, it would be useful to believe it anyway because of some other benefits that it brings. If this wasn't what you were saying, perhaps some clarification is in order. I was not trying to imply in that that Christianity was a lie - even though I don't believe it is true, that wasn't the point of the argument.
The rest of your post (before we get to the faith stuff) deals with the blog here. I am not a contributing member, so I don't see why you are lumping me in with them. I just visit regularly and post comments. Like I said, I don't agree with everything they write. But while you point out that the title of the blog is "Debunking Christianity" and not "Finding Truth", it's also not called "Defining Skepticism". I don't understand why you're so shocked that people are writing about arguments against Christianity on a blog that's called "Debunking Christianity." It seems rather self-evident to me. But that's all I'll say about that, because I really don't have any need to defend what they do or don't say. I only need to defend what I say.
Now, let's move on to faith. You define it as "confidence", essentially. That's a decent definition. I tend to like the definition of "the leap in logic from the premises of an inductive argument to the conclusion." It's one I've made up myself, but I think it works fairly well. It at least gives us a starting point, and the two definitions we have are fairly close. The strength of inductive arguments lies in their probabilities, and presumably you would place more confidence in more probable events, so I think the two might hold. See, I agree with more of what you say than you seem to give me credit for!
The problem that I was pointing out, though, is that faith gets used in a variety of ways, and they mean very different things depending on the context. The fact is that to some people (yes, including Christians), faith really does mean "belief without evidence." And to other people, faith means "belief based on evidence," which is very similar to my definition. But when a person starts switching back and forth between the two meanings, it gets very confusing, and it destroys the usefulness of the term.
So you're right. According to our definitions, if God appeared to me personally and told me everything I needed to know, I would have very strong faith. Suddenly God's existence would become very probable (not 100%, as few things in life are, but still very high). But seeing as that hasn't happened, my faith should, understandably, be much lower. I place more faith in things that I can see, taste, touch, smell, and hear. Again, not 100% faith, but it is very high. I have faith that the chair I'm sitting in will continue to hold my weight, because the inductive argument supporting that proposition is extremely high. But to me, the arguments supporting the existence of God are weak. And therefore, I have little faith. I don't know where I'm going with this now, but essentially as long as you don't now tell me to just "believe and have faith anyways," we're fine. You can provide arguments, you can dispute my arguments, but as long as we are using the same definitions for words like "faith," we can have a meaningful discussion. As soon as those words are equivocated, we're lost.
Now that I've probably made a reply about as long as Zarove's, I had better end this off. Like I mentioned, though, I expect a response to this that is at least as polite as I have been to you. No more generalizations, no more "you guys are all the same." Don't assume that you know what I would or would not say, and I will do my best to give you the same respect.
"if something labelled "skepticism" is making truth claims about something, it is overstepping its bounds. Not that it is automatically wrong, but it should be relabelled... Again, if we are defining it as a methodology, it is not making positive claims about anything."
Hi Jeff
Can you sketch a skeptical methodology that doesn't presuppose the truth of at least one positive claim? I don't think that it can be done. But if it can't, then what you've written above is false.
Eric, we all hold to positive claims. What I'm arguing for is that the claims we accept should pass through the methodology of skepticism, although not a Cartesian type, and we cannot test everything we accept as true.
Is it a positive claim to say we should be skeptical? Yes it is, but it has the overwhelming weight of evidence to it. That positive claim is well established. Only well-established positive claims can be used to judge other claims.
If we revise your question to read: "Can you sketch a skeptical methodology that doesn't have the overwhelming weight of evidence for it," then no I shouldn't, nor can I, because that's what's demanded when it comes to methods for arriving at positive claims.
So if the question is whether we can judge a positive claim without any other well-established positive claims then I would say we shouldn't do this. And I do think that when judging other positive claims we can indeed have no positive claims about that particular claim, other than the well-established methodology of skepticism.
"Hi Jeff
Can you sketch a skeptical methodology that doesn't presuppose the truth of at least one positive claim? I don't think that it can be done. But if it can't, then what you've written above is false."While I see what you're saying - that skepticism may have certain presuppositions within it - I don't know that these are necessary in order for skepticism to function. Once again, I think skepticism can be argued for based on a purely pragmatic basis. It helps us determine truth, and so it is useful in that regard. We don't necessarily have to assume that there is even an outside world. Indeed, Descartes took skepticism to the extreme and essentially removed all the presuppositions. I'm not going to argue that his approach was necessary, but that could be seen as one form of skeptical methodology without presuppositions.
But I think that we could draw a distinction between presuppositions and truth claims. It's one thing to assume that an outside world exists; it's another thing to assert that it does. We have many assumptions that are made for "ease of calculation," so to speak. Otherwise we might all have to start back where Descartes did, and that's a headache. It's different than skepticism making a truth claim, though. To give an example of the opposite, Christianity asserts, "God exists." Or perhaps, "Salvation comes through Jesus Christ." The Christian starts with presuppositions, goes through arguments, and then ends with these sorts of conclusions. Thus the presuppositions are the starting point, and the truth claims are the end point.
Skepticism, on the other hand, I view as the in between process. We may hold certain presuppositions (laws of nature, existence of the outside world, etc.), then we use skepticism to evaluate arguments based on those presuppositions, and finally reach conclusions (such as atheism, to give an example). The skeptical part is the process in between. It doesn't presuppose anything, nor does it conclude anything. It's just a way of sifting through evidence and analyzing it critically.
At any rate, that's my take on it. I just think that skepticism is most aptly described as a methodology, so it doesn't as such form truth claims. It takes the input, processes it, and produces output.
Eric wrote: Is Reppert's maxim consistent with your conception of skepticism, and if not, why not...
When it comes to religion, I'd say no, it's not. To quote one of my comments on Dangerous Ideas...
The ability to construct a "logically possible" theology around a belief in the supernatural shouldn't be a sufficient reason to claim "you're stuck" with a specific definition of God's nature. IE. what you already believeTo review, the maxim roughly states... "You ought to continue to believe what you already believe unless you have evidence to believe otherwise."It's not that all beliefs that are acquired though social means are "bad", but social factors, along with geographical location and chronological presentation appear to be a unusually strong factors in accepting a particular religious belief.
For the sake of argument, even if we assume that one of the many religions that exist are true, it seems clear the particular belief you may acquire first isn't necessarily true. And since the very definition of what is reasonable to expect from God is defined by each particular religious doctrine, it's no surprise that insiders of each religion continue to think the particular actions or nature of their God are the most reasonable once established.
So, in the case of religious beliefs, the means by which you've acquired the belief you already hold seems highly questionable. And it continually conflicts with conclusions drawn by others who claim to experience the same phenomenon.
Once acquired, is there a means of determining if this belief is accurate? The very definition of what you call God, the supernatural, etc. makes this very difficult. Any evidence that refutes a particular belief can be simply be deemed metaphorical. When doctrine conflicts with new evidence, it could be said that we simply cannot comprehend what the author really intended, instead of being wrong, etc.
By definition, an all knowing and all powerful God could have intentionally created a universe that appears to have been created naturally. And he could have done so five minutes ago. You could always construct some logical possible motivation for him doing anything.
...and what criteria would you put in its place? Skepticism and agnosticism when warranted. To quote Lao Tzu...
The wise man knows he doesn't know. the fool doesn't know he doesn't know.Even if a God like being exists, how do you know if any of our current religions are even remotely correct instead of being merely an amalgamation of our desires and fears?
To quote another comment I made at Dangerous Ideas...
"Out of all religions, Just because Christianity has the most plausible description of God's nature doesn't mean such a description must be accurate or is plausible when compared to agnosticism. If you say we must use faith to "plug the holes" in God's nature, then why plug them with a God who judges our choices based on incomplete information? Why plug them with a God who eternally exiles us from his presence without a chance to learn from such an exile? Why plug them with a God who found the smell of burnt offerings "pleasing" or demanded the violent death of a himself as a man, before he would forgive us of our own nature, which he himself supposedly created?"I'd note that if God's existence is going to be relevant, merely saying God exists isn't enough. You must define God's nature to the level of detail where it can "make sense" out of what you experience. Otherwise, he might as well not exist. But it seems clear that we really have no method of determining which definition of God's nature is accurate at this level.
Nor does God seem to be particularly interested in clearing up this confusion. I find this most puzzling behavior for a personal being who is supposedly an active agent in our world today - especially given his supposed actions in the past. Again, you could create some logically possible motivation to explain God's failure to help clear things up, but is this more plausible than agnosticism?
When you step back, it seems like a desperate attempt to hold on to a particular ancient belief system, simply because we'd rather not say "I don't know", or because they want a supernatural spokesperson that supports our particular beliefs.
John, one more irrelevant post and I'll leave this alone.
All of my comments on this thread have been directed at this statement: "The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far..." You are using this argument for skepticism to piggyback agnosticism or atheism. But I've wanted to show that skepticism a priori is no more reasonable than any other position. I'm surprised you haven't even attempted to argue why you are more reasonable to accept Jesus' existence, if "The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far.."
I think you should argue for critical methodology, rather than just skepticism. Historical criticism requires study and coming to conclusion, skepticism is just scoffing.
Brad,
Skepticism is not 'Scoffing'.
From an online Dictionary:
skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism (skpt-szm)
n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets."Cynicism" is a more negative attitude with a decidedly negative presupposition which precedes the presentation of the evidence. From the same dictionary:
An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.I suspect that many folks equate Skepticism with Cynicism but this is unfair to the idea that one should test & evaluate assertions before accepting them as true.
-evan
Post a Comment