Skepticism and Religion

[rug]

May 9, 2013
John Shook

The divide within skepticism over religion is centuries old, and won't go away. Fasten your seatbelts.

PZ Myers just announced his divorce from the Skeptic Movement, based on manifestos by Jami Ian Swiss and others. Many have commented on this development. Daniel Loxton has supplied a lengthy defense of Skepticism's "No Comment" attitude towards the heart of religiosity, carefully explaining why Skepticism must give an exemption to essential religious claims about supernatural and transcendent gods and the like.

I can't say who really "speaks" for the skeptic movement. I can observe that much of the current leadership of Skepticism (capitalized and organized) advocates only scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism was not promoted by scientists centuries ago (few scientists could afford to even be openly agnostic). Nope, the biggest public advocates for scientific skepticism were modernizing theologians during the Enlightenment era and after.

Why does modern theology benefit from scientific skepticism? It's a simple matter: so long as religion's supernatural claims cannot be contradicted by anything science would ever say, then religion can continue to enjoy its own reasonable autonomy as a source of genuine knowledge about god. All scientific skepticism has to do is agree to this proposition: Where science can never disprove, science must fall silent. The Enlightenment bargain was struck: science is limited to knowledge about the natural world, and religion knows about the supernatural world. Not all of Christianity agreed to that bargain, of course -- fundamentalists insisted on observable miracles, visible angels, hurtful demons, and the like -- but much of Christianity has moderated to the point where plenty of good Christians don't really believe much of that outdated claptrap anymore. Which was one of the goals of modernizing theology.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/skepticism_and_religion/#When:15:56Z

[Warren Stupidity]

1. fine, as long as you all understand your "separate magisterium" is

approaching the vanishing point in size and long ago was obviously irrelevant.

[rug]

2. Wishful thinking is not a sign of healthy skepticism.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. feel good mumbo-jumbo that explains nothing

If in fact your last remaining god exists, it does so completely outside of the physical universe and has no effect on this universe. It is the divine irrelevance. Why you all waste so much time worshipping the useless hulk of a failed belief system is the only remaining mystery.

[rug]

4. Oh, it doesn't take much time at all.

[hrmjustin]

5. I think he gives me strength.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. This right here is why I find religion to be debasing, here's a secret, you give yourself your...

strength, no supernatural force is necessary. You have the strength, its just cultural conditioning and a need to humble yourself that you separate a part of yourself from the rest and call it "God".

[hrmjustin]

13. No I think God gives me strength.

I know I have an inner strength and I can be very strong when I need to be. When I am in crisis mode I do not pray, I just do what needs to be done. But I believe God is with me through it all. He is my refuge and strength.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Whatever you want, just seems like you are selling yourself short...

not to be offensive, but you sound like a child using their imaginary friend for emotional support.

[hrmjustin]

15. It is not imaginary friend. I control my life. I make my decisions. I must take the responsablity

for my actions. God is walking with me through it and that is all I ask that he be near me.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Imaginary friends don't run children's lives either...

at least not those that fall within normal spectrums of behavior. These imaginary beings are friends that support them, listen to them when no one else does, etc. God(s) are that for adults, just more socially acceptable version of this phenomenon.

[hrmjustin]

17. I understand what your saying I just disagree.

From a logical point of view you would have the stronger argument but as I said a thousand times faith is not nor was it meant to be logical. Now that can be very frustrating to some because you look and say how can you believe such stuff. I can only say that I believe it. God is not my crutch. God is just God to me. Very hard to explain. I am sorry I can not be more clearer. Faith is just hard to explain.

[Meshuga]

18. I Don't know why one would have to take offense...

...when there is a comparison between this use of belief and a child's use of an imaginary friend. In other words, I don't see the problem (or shame or one selling oneself short) when using a personal God to cope and/or to find some sort of strength.

Each person copes with life and find their strength in their own way and I don't see a problem when children use this approach or when adults use the same approach. Whatever works for you, do it.

How others judge you for naturally taking the personal god approach as an adult does not render the approach useless or harmful. Whatever works for the person is what should be prescribed in my opinion.

And if it the person finds no use in this approach then it should be obviously dropped.

[Skittles]

27. it becomes a problem when it becomes part of government

and bible thumpers are ALWAYS pushing legislation

[Skittles]

26. just keep it out of government, OK?????

THAT'S ALL I ASK

[hrmjustin]

30. I agree 100%

[dimbear]

6. " Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory." (the Argument sketch)

The biggest public advocates for scientific skepticism were modernizing theologians?

Boy howdy, you're exercising my skeptical muscles right there. If you said folk who had to pretend to an ostensible patina of faith, then maybe.

[Jim__]

7. Jamy Ian Swiss on skepticism at TAM 2012

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[struggle4progress]

11. Thanks for that interesting link

[struggle4progress]

8. PZ Myers quits skeptic movement, should we care?

Monday, May 06, 2013
by Massimo Pigliucci

PZ Myers, the cantankerous evolutionary biologist / blogger who writes at Pharyngula, has officially announced that he is leaving the skeptic movement ... Nothing like telling a scientist that he isn’t being scientific to piss him off, though admittedly PZ’s threshold for getting pissed off is pretty low ... Ah, yes, one should not dare to appropriate the label “scientific” without proper warrant. Except of course that “warrant” here shouldn’t be equated with “agrees with PZ Myers” ... I think the primary problem with the skeptic movement — of which I am and remain a proud member — is that too many people, both among the “leaders” and the rank-and-file, seem to be in it for the sheer pleasure of calling others out as idiots ... Phil’s comment introducing the talk to his readers was: “I can’t promise that I won’t be a dick. But I will strive mightily to try. That’s the most I can do, and the most I can ask of anyone.” Indeed, but somehow I can hardly imagine PZ coming even close to such a pledge ...

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/05/pz-myers-quits-skeptic-movement-should.html

[struggle4progress]

9. PZ Myers to Skeptics, “Back off, man. I’m a scientist.”

Posted on May 6, 2013

... Incidentally, if this group I’m describing also had a taste for debate and had been honing their skills at it for some time, its members might get tired of shouting at chess-board-crappers and savor a real challenge, an argument with another skeptic once in a while. Shocking, I know.

... there are people who might still be religious in some way who are still perfectly good Skeptics when attacking other problems. There are people who are interested in debunking Bigfoot claims, and there are people who want to stop homeopaths. There are people who specifically want to fight religion, even where it doesn’t intrude on established scientific knowledge. Some people will blur these lines, and some will still have some cognitive dissonance operating on them when they look at some topics. At the end of the day, we are only human, and I don’t see the problem with any of this, nor do I see a reason why we should exclude any of it from the “label” Skepticism ...

Is atheism a form of Skepticism? I would define atheism by breaking it up: “a” as in “no”, “not”, “a lack of”, and “theism” as in “belief in a god or gods”. Atheism is a refutation of claims made without evidence. Is that skepticism? Yes. I think so. Is it necessary that we’re all atheists? Or that we all tackle religion in order to get our Skeptic Card? No. I don’t think so. Does a lot of this debate boil down to a metaphorical dick measuring contest (and I hope those of you in “atheism plus” will forgive my genitocentric slurs)? Probably.

So, how about we stop being children and recognize that some things aren’t as clearly defined and quantifiable as we wish they were, and that opinions are like assholes, and there are a lot of assholes in Skepticism (even if they’re my kind of assholes)?

http://badskeptic.com/?tag=pz-myers

[struggle4progress]

10. PZ Myers Crys Yet Another River

... After I read the pathetic butt-hurt sniveling post PZ wrote. I watched the &feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">video of the talk Jamy Ian Swiss gave PZ was so upset about. I didn’t have a problem with it. I had never heard of Jamy before PZ brought him to my attention. He fits in with many of the other reasonable people I have heard chime in on the complete bullshit going on among some skeptics/atheists. Barbra Drescher, Michael Shermer, DJ Grothe, Steve Novella. They have all kicked the shit out of PZ’s flawed logic directly or indirectly. Jamy can be added to that list now too ...

The title of PZ’s post is I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement We can only hope that this holds up. The problem is PZ has removed himself from the atheist/skeptic movement quite some time ago. It is clear that PZ does not have the best interests of skeptics or atheists in mind. He fights almost any attempt to find a calm. If some parties do manage to act like mature adults and work things out PZ always has to add spin making it look like the people who disagrees with him somehow gave in or realized it was in their own best interest. It’s like he thinks that he and his regular commenters are actually causing some sort of change. The only thing I see changing is the amount of support for PZ and his unfair, biased and just plain willfully stupid behavior ...

http://atheiststoday.com/blogs/reapercussions/?p=125

[cbayer]

19. Good article that makes some great points.

The debate about what is and is not truth continues to rage, despite there being virtually no possibility of anyone ever definitively answering the question when it comes to a god or gods.

In the end, it's not a team sport and each individual must reach their own conclusion.

[Jim__]

20. The difficulty with knowing the truth is not limited to questions about god.

Epistemological questions could well be irresolvable.

[cbayer]

21. I agree with that.

For me, there are many unanswered and unanswerable questions.

I don't spend a lot of time on them, but can enjoy a good conversation with open thinking people about them....

as long as we all realize that none of us is likely to be right or wrong.

[cleanhippie]

22. That would be ignoring reality, cbayer.

as long as we all realize that none of us is likely to be right or wrong.

While no one my lay claim to being right or wrong absolutely, we CAN, and SHOULD, look at what is more likely right or wrong, and go from there. To ignore what is most likely in favor of giving even the most unlikely equal weight, them we are ignoring reality.

And that is dangerous. For ignoring reality brings us things like creationism/intelligent design. Unless you give that idea the same chance of being likely as evolution?

[2ndAmForComputers]

23. That sentence indicates a way of thinking that is pernicious. It denies logic itself.

"as long as we all realize that none of us is likely to be right or wrong."

WTF? If a person says "X exists" and another person says "X does not exist", it is obvious that one of them is RIGHT and the other is WRONG. It may be beyond human capabilities to ascertain which is which, but that one of them is right and the other wrong is a fact.

[skepticscott]

31. So when you call creationists

"A bunch of dumbasses", you're not saying that they're likely to be wrong? You actually, seriously think that creationists are as likely to be right as evolutionists?

[Zoeisright]

24. "Where science can never disprove, science must fall silent."

That has to be the dumbest statement ever. Those who make extraordinary claims must not only provide evidence, they must provide extraordinary evidence.

A negative cannot be proven.

And if I actually see the TINIEST bit of real evidence for the supernatural, my mind might be changed. But there is none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

God, the stupid. It burns.

[rug]

25. That's just another way of saying "If I don't know it, it does not exist."

[Jim__]

28. You do realize that's a straw man argument from John Shook. Right?

[skepticscott]

32. Science can never "disprove" anything

or prove anything, for that matter. So yeah, it is a totally brainless statement. If you took it to be true, science could never say anything about anything.

Just another hack who doesn't even grasp the first level of depth of what they're talking about.

[goldent]

33. "A negative cannot be proven."

That is true in some cases, but in general negatives are proven all the time in science and mathematics. Usually it is done by assuming the converse, and prove this leads to a contradiction.

Now when it comes to proving that God does not exist, yes, that is a tough one.

[on point]

29. Sorry. Anything about the unknown is at best thoughtful speculation

Regardless of philosophical source.