Why does the skeptical movement ignore the claims of major religions?

[Kippers]

I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
available. Skeptisism is a methodology rather than a set of beliefs
so therefore it is possible for a skeptic to believe homeopathy is
effective beyond the placebo effect, that Elvis still walks the earth
and that Jesus was the creator of the universe who sent himself down
to earth to be sacrificed to atone for mankind’s sins.

However; to hold beliefs such as these whilst being a skeptic one must
be severely lacking in evidence relating to these propositions.

The more thoughtful Christians will claim there is evidence for some
form of divine entity engaging in the argument from design and the
ontological arguments whilst expressing their reasoned disbelief that
something could come from nothing and that everything is just the
consequence of random events.

These seem dubious arguments to many but in the eyes of some lend
support to a deistic god of some sort. However to be a Christian you
must then make a leap of faith from these arguments to then believe
the central tenet of Christianity; that Jesus was god and that he came
to earth to be tortured to death to atone for our sins.

There is no verifiable evidence for this position, it is a matter of
faith and not one I would be critical of someone for holding. I would
merely note that to do so means that one must suspend their skeptisim
in order to reach such a conclusion.

Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims about
the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of veil
is not realty an animal welfare proponent.

It seems quite clear that the reasons major religions (certainly not
the fringe ones such as scientology) are largely ignored by the
sceptical movement is a tactical play to avoid alienating the majority
of the world’s population.

Perhaps this is a tactic which will bear fruit but it is also
disingenuous to refuse to apply skepisism to dubious unsupported
claims about the world just because they are so popular. In my
opinion the very fact that they are so popular is what makes them
potentially the most dangerous forms of belief and therefore should be
addressed by the skeptical community in the same manner as all other
claims.

[Treebeard]

You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
general -- WERE ignoring the major religions. But they aren't: a
large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
equally vocal about both. They even tie skepticism and atheism
together.

While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
works here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizations_b.php

Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
world? Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?

[Kippers]

On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> together.
>

Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
religions.

This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
movement. It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
fringe religions such as scientology.

It is this fact which leads me to believe it is a tactical ploy rather
than anything else.

> While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
> works here:
>

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...
>

I agree with PZ that religion “is a gigantic sinkhole of ignorance and
absurdity” oh sorry wrong quote :)

I agree with PZ that there is a historical aspect to most religions
which should probably not be focused on by skeptical organizations
which mainly deal with current day claims but that certainly does not
rule out all religious claims. Even excluding the historical claims
of religion there is plenty of religious claims to get stuck into,
claims which TSGTTU seems very hesitant to address.

I also agree with PZ --as my OP makes clear-- that you can’t simply
claim someone is not a skeptic because they believe in a religion or
souls, it depends upon how they reached that belief and if it is open
to reasoned argument and possible change.

> Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?

Well first I want to make it very clear that I consider myself, as
with all other humans, to be an instinctively irrational being. I use
a skeptical outlook at a tool to help me sort between valid and
invalid claims about the world, so not by a long shot am I a “complete
skeptic” but I do strive to apply skepticism equally to all types of
claims about the world, all other things being equal.

If I were to take a position that I wouldn’t apply my skepticism to a
large body of claims, i.e religious or political or scientific or
medical or paranormal etc... Then I would consider that to be an
inconsistency, one which I can not think of a justification for yet it
is one which TSGTTU seems to engage in which is why I would be
interested in hearing their explanation.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...

The Professor asked "how do you believe the universe will end?" By
using "believe", he invited students to state their belief. So long as
an answer was a correct statement of the student's belief, the answer
was correct.

> Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> world?

It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
does Richard Dawkins fall short?

[Kippers]

On 13 July, 14:31, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<snip>

> > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > world?
>
> It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
> various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
> does Richard Dawkins fall short?
>

Good question. I assumed I knew what he meant by that but I would
like Treebeard to clarify by answering that.

[Ma-who?]

There is no "verifiable" evidence in the sense that we can't
conclusively carbon-date something, or set up a controlled experiment,
etc - but that applies to the bulk of all claims regarding knowledge
- including all of history. What we do have is an array of evidence
for and against the story of Christ - which can be weighed by a
reasonable observer to determine the explanation most likely to be
true.

That evidence includes the gospels, other early Christian writings and
related Jewish/Roman writings - as well as general historical
information on the early spread and nature of Christianity.

Considering both the revolutionary nature of Jesus message -which
sounded like blasphemy to ancient listeners- as well as the rapid
spread and devotion of Christ's followers - I consider it very
unlikely that the story of Christ is mythical or exaggerated beyond
normal storytelling standards of the time. The dozens and later
hundreds of Jewish men and women who spent their entire lives eagerly
spreading Christ's gospel - even refusing to recant upon the threat of
death, torture, etc - provide a strong testimony that these
individuals truly witnessed and believed Christ's message and claim to
divinity- a claim which, prior to meeting Jesus - would have appeared
to any Jewish person as blasphemy, lunacy, etc.

The alternative explanations, imho, seem less likely. The most
unlikely (sadly) being a very common idea now - that Jesus was a myth,
never existing - but instead some strange conspiracy put together by a
few individuals to create a religion out of a lie, and then struggle
and die for that lie all their lives- with no reward. Equally tragic
is the popular view in the Jesus copycat theories (Mithras, Osiris,
etc) - which are based on nothing more than fantasy and revisionist
history. Ironically , these theorists are guilty of their own
accusations towards Christianity - of basing their beliefs on poorly
researched evidence and outright lies

Less absurd but still unlikely in my view is the idea that the story
of Jesus was greatly exaggerated or a composite story of many early
revolutionaries. Reading the gospels, it's not hard to see the
cohesive and trascendent nature of Christ's message. In the synoptic
gospels especially - Christ's core message is corroborated in each
gospel - and throughout all his recorded teachings - one can see an
underlying, cohesive, and consistent philosophy- a philosophy which is
remarkably progressive and unique, in essence, Judaism part 2. The
progressive, unique, and transcendent nature of Christ's message makes
it unlikely we have false attribution or mythical status here -
because I find it unlikely a person with such a revolutionary and
forward-thinking message, a person who must be passionate about their
beliefs and work - would compose a timeless piece of philosophy - only
to disavow all credit and authorship - attributing instead to a man
that most Jews viewed as a heretical, failed revolutionary (one of
dozens, if this was true) - making it's success even more unlikely.

This consistent and transcendent nature also make the possibility of
composite authorship unlikely in my view - because composite
authorship would lack such a high degree of consistency (look at the
OT, which is full of duplication and contradiction because of
composite authorship - e.g. a little known fact, there are actually
two sets of the 'Ten Commandments') - and composite authorship would
be unlikely to result in such a passionate early following - which is
easiest explained if these early Christians were inspired,as they
claimed, by actually living and working with Jesus Christ- the true
author of the NT philosophy and salvific message.

I accept that each gospel author took poetic and dramatic license to
craft a story he found best fitting to his known audience - but the
core outline - of Jesus Christ performing miracles, teaching great
lessons, inspiring great crowds, claiming to be the son of God who
came for the forgiveness of sins, crucifixion, resurrection, etc -
those core outlines I consider more likely to be true, than not- based
on reasoned examination of the historical and literary evidence.

>
> > Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims about
> > the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
> > animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of veil
> > is not realty an animal welfare proponent.
>
> > It seems quite clear that the reasons major religions (certainly not
> > the fringe ones such as scientology) are largely ignored by the
> > sceptical movement is a tactical play to avoid alienating the majority
> > of the world’s population.
>
> > Perhaps this is a tactic which will bear fruit but it is also
> > disingenuous to refuse to apply skepisism to dubious unsupported
> > claims about the world just because they are so popular.  In my
> > opinion the very fact that they are so popular is what makes them
> > potentially the most dangerous forms of belief and therefore should be
> > addressed by the skeptical community in the same manner as all other
> > claims.
>
> You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> together.
>
> While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
> works here:
>

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 13, 11:42 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no "verifiable" evidence in the sense that we can't
> conclusively carbon-date something, or set up a controlled experiment,
> etc -  but that applies to the bulk of all claims regarding knowledge
> - including all of history. What we do have is an array of evidence
> for and against the story of Christ - which can be weighed by a
> reasonable observer to determine the explanation most likely to be
> true.
>
> That evidence includes the gospels, other early Christian writings and
> related Jewish/Roman writings - as well as general historical
> information on the early spread and nature of Christianity.

Actually, there is little historical information on the early spread
and nature of Christianity. What historical information is available
on what was preached by the missionaries sent by Jesus according to
Luke 10? What historical information is available on the beliefs of
Jesus' followers in Galilee at the time of his unfortunate and
untimely demise and the beliefs of the very same Galileans on the
first (say) anniversary of his crucifixion?

> Considering both the revolutionary nature of Jesus message -which
> sounded like  blasphemy to ancient listeners- as well as the rapid
> spread and devotion of Christ's followers - I consider it very
> unlikely that the story of Christ is mythical or exaggerated beyond
> normal storytelling standards of the time.

What were the normal storytelling standards of the time? If even
historians had miracles in their histories, storytellers must have had
even taller tales to tell. Tacitus has Vespasian healing a blind man.
Josephus has the Sea of Pamphylia parting for Alexander.

> The dozens and later
> hundreds of Jewish men and women who spent their entire lives eagerly
> spreading Christ's gospel - even refusing to recant upon the threat of
> death, torture, etc

Can you name one Jewish woman who refused to recant Jesus' gospel
under threat of death?

> - provide a strong testimony that these
> individuals truly witnessed and believed Christ's message

Only those who attended one of Jesus' sermons truly witnessed his
message.

> and claim to
> divinity- a claim which, prior to meeting Jesus - would have appeared
> to any Jewish person as blasphemy, lunacy, etc.

It would have appeared to be blasphemy IF he had claimed to be divine.
Do we know of any Jew who attended one of Jesus' sermons and reported
that Jesus had claimed to be divine?

[flying gorilla]

considering the thousands of eye-witness accounts of people seeing the
Loch Ness monster, are you more or less skeptical of its existence
than you are of Jesus' miracles? Far more people have reported seeing
the Loch Ness Monster, and for a much longer period of time. The
number of people that could have been present when Jesus allegedly
performed miracles would pale in comparison. Not that such numbers
mean much to a skeptic, as any number of people could be wrong about
what they think they saw. Now, I know you didn't claim to be a
skeptic, but surely, you don't believe ALL fantastic claims that
people have made throughout history. You've explained while you find
the bible authors convincing, but why do you find it more convincing
than the Koran? I have not read the Koran, but I understand there is
some bit about Mohammad ascending into heaven on a winged horse. Is
that something you find credible? Or do you simply avoid being
informed about other supernatural claims so that you don't have to
measure them against the ones you've chosen to accept?

On Jul 13, 11:42 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[flying gorilla]

considering the thousands of eye-witness accounts of people seeing the
Loch Ness monster, are you more or less skeptical of its existence
than you are of Jesus' miracles? Far more people have reported seeing
the Loch Ness Monster, and for a much longer period of time. The
number of people that could have been present when Jesus allegedly
performed miracles would pale in comparison. Not that such numbers
mean much to a skeptic, as any number of people could be wrong about
what they think they saw. Now, I know you didn't claim to be a
skeptic, but surely, you don't believe ALL fantastic claims that
people have made throughout history. You've explained while you find
the bible authors convincing, but why do you find it more convincing
than the Koran? I have not read the Koran, but I understand there is
some bit about Mohammad ascending into heaven on a winged horse. Is
that something you find credible? Or do you simply avoid being
informed about other supernatural claims so that you don't have to
measure them against the ones you've chosen to accept?

On Jul 13, 11:42 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Deidzoeb]

On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

Does the skeptical movement ignore major religions? There's a Skeptic
magazine produced by the Skeptics Society http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/
and Skeptical Inquirer produced by the Committee for Skeptical
Inquiry. http://www.csicop.org/si/

I haven't read the Skeptic lately, but both of these journals have
articles and reviews expressing skepticism towards Christianity and
the major religions, ads for books by Dawkins and Dennet and Hitchens,
etc.

Maybe they avoided religion in the past, but not lately.

[Deidzoeb]

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...

>
> Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?

Like the secret president of the galaxy in the Hitchhiker's Guide
series: a guy who questions every aspect of his experience, whether
his cat exists, whether the house or beach or things around him exist,
whether his experiences are all illusions. He goes through life
assuming some things are true in as far as it pleases him to believe
them, but remains open to the possibility that everything might be an
illusion. It would be a difficult way to live.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 13, 12:25 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've explained while you find
> the bible authors convincing, but why do you find it more convincing
> than the Koran? I have not read the Koran, but I understand there is
> some bit about Mohammad ascending into heaven on a winged horse.

Winged centaur (equine body but human face) that could move as fast as
light if not faster.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EW0EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22al+barak%22+face&source=bl&ots=LvCwbi0_tr&sig=NOXhNi8Kp1CQYHW3R92OXPkbN38&hl=en&ei=7RE9TJCkKcT68AaFhuSnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22al%20barak%22%20face&f=fal

What's more, this centaur was once ridden by Abraham.
http://newine.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/the-red-horse-the-second-seal/
Gabriel told him that the horse once belonged to Abraham, and that his
name was El Barack.

> Is
> that something you find credible? Or do you simply avoid being
> informed about other supernatural claims so that you don't have to
> measure them against the ones you've chosen to accept?

> On Jul 13, 11:42 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

[Kippers]

As I clarified in my response to Treebeard, it is not the case that
the entire skeptical movement ignores the claims of major religions
but a great many of them, including the flagship podcast The Skeptics
Guide to the universe, do.

This post is a modified email I sent to The Skeptics Guide which I
thought I would post here for discussion. It is my opinion that to
apply a sceptical outlook to all truth claims about the world apart
from those made by mainstream religion is intellectually dishonest.

Much like the accommodationist approach of some atheists it seems to
be more of a tactical PR ploy than an exercise in intellectual
honesty.

[Kippers]

You are not keeping up with my schedule again Treebeard. I thought we
spoke about this?

:)

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

<snipped>
 

As I clarified in my response to Treebeard, it is not the case that
the entire skeptical movement ignores the claims of major religions
but a great many of them, including the flagship podcast The Skeptics
Guide to the universe, do.

This post is a modified email I sent to The Skeptics Guide which I
thought I would post here for discussion.  It is my opinion that to
apply a sceptical outlook to all truth claims about the world apart
from those made by mainstream religion is intellectually dishonest.

Much like the accommodationist approach of some atheists it seems to
be more of a tactical PR ploy than an exercise in intellectual
honesty.

I tend to agree with both PZ and you that to avoid such discussions would be intellectually dishonest and accommodationist.

That said, I do believe that Christians and other theists can be skeptics while exercising cognitive dissonance where their religious beliefs are concerned.

So, I wouldn't see that as a reason to exclude them from the Skeptic community (not saying that you're advocating that but that's a direction that has to be considered).

As you said, skepticism is a methodology rather than a belief system and I think a lot of us religious or not, probably have some beliefs that we don't apply skepticism to or find it hard to change certain beliefs no matter how reasonable an argument is presented.

What it is, is an education to atheists, that in order for us to maintain intellectual honesty we do have to try to be open where our own beliefs are concerned.

Not so open "that our brains fall out" but if we can't offer a rational argument in response to a critique, we should be prepared to re-examine it.

And we should not be afraid to openly discuss, challenge any and all "Holy Grails" whether they are offered up by theists or atheists or anyone else.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[Kippers]

The same argument can be put forth for many other religions and
ideologies. They testify to the loyalty of humans to an idea more
than they do to any one of these ideologies being the one true way or
the divine message of the creator of the universe.

If you were to apply this standard of proof consistently to the claims
of all ideologies you would be an Islamic Christian Hindu Nazi
Communist pacifist. (amongst other things).

Again; try applying this line of reasoning to all ancient mythologies,
religions and ideologies. Consistently and rationally balancing the
evidence would not lead you to reject all other than one brand of
Christianity.

Your belief is faith in something you have been indoctrinated in to
the exclusion of all competing hypotheses. At least have the honesty
to acknowledge that rather than pretending you have arrived there
after a sober evaluation of all the relevant evidence.

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> available.

An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
epistemologically.

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Do you believe these two equally?
1) The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander.
2) Alexander made a foray into India.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

What does ranjit mean to believe "equally"?

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 16, 5:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com

>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 3:29 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> >> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> >> > available.
>
> >> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> >> epistemologically.
>
> > Do you believe these two equally?
> > 1) The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander.
> > 2) Alexander made a foray into India.
>
> What does ranjit mean to believe "equally"?

Do you think the likelihood of #1 being accurate is the same as the
likelihood of #2 being accurate?

> Regards,
> Brock

[Deidzoeb]

> > magazine produced by the Skeptics Societyhttp://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

> > and Skeptical Inquirer produced by the Committee for Skeptical

> > Inquiry.http://www.csicop.org/si/

>
> > I haven't read the Skeptic lately, but both of these journals have
> > articles and reviews expressing skepticism towards Christianity and
> > the major religions, ads for books by Dawkins and Dennet and Hitchens,
> > etc.
>
> > Maybe they avoided religion in the past, but not lately.
>
> As I clarified in my response to Treebeard, it is not the case that
> the entire skeptical movement ignores the claims of major religions
> but a great many of them, including the flagship podcast The Skeptics
> Guide to the universe, do.

I think you're generalizing way too broadly about the skeptical
movement. You should have limited your criticism to that podcast from
the start. Do you have any other examples besides that podcast to
support your generalization?

> This post is a modified email I sent to The Skeptics Guide which I
> thought I would post here for discussion.  It is my opinion that to
> apply a sceptical outlook to all truth claims about the world apart
> from those made by mainstream religion is intellectually dishonest.

You mean making an exception for mainstrea religion? Yeah, that would
be kind of hypocritical. I just don't think the skeptical movement is
guilty of that. If anything, the current popularity of Dawkins,
Hitchens, Harris, et al, disproves your generalization. Atheists are
more vocal and more visible than they have been for a long time.
Skeptic publications talk about them constantly. I often have the
opposite concern, that skeptics will spend so much time talking about
religion that they won't devote enough time to being skeptical about
scientific claims, snake oil medicines and cures, half-baked Oprah
philosophies like "The Secret". They seem to balance it well most of
the time. But I'm just judging from what I've seen of covers or
headlines of the major skeptic publications.

[Kippers]

On 17 July, 16:45, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > As I clarified in my response to Treebeard, it is not the case that
> > the entire skeptical movement ignores the claims of major religions
> > but a great many of them, including the flagship podcast The Skeptics
> > Guide to the universe, do.
>
> I think you're generalizing way too broadly about the skeptical
> movement. You should have limited your criticism to that podcast from
> the start. Do you have any other examples besides that podcast to
> support your generalization?

The link which Treebeard referenced in the second post shows there is
an ongoing debate within the skeptical movement as to whether the
claims of mainstream religions should also be critiqued. That you are
unaware of such a debate does not mean it does not exist.

Check out the link if you want some more info on this.

>
> > This post is a modified email I sent to The Skeptics Guide which I
> > thought I would post here for discussion.  It is my opinion that to
> > apply a sceptical outlook to all truth claims about the world apart
> > from those made by mainstream religion is intellectually dishonest.
>
> You mean making an exception for mainstrea religion? Yeah, that would
> be kind of hypocritical. I just don't think the skeptical movement is
> guilty of that. If anything, the current popularity of Dawkins,
> Hitchens, Harris, et al, disproves your generalization. Atheists are
> more vocal and more visible than they have been for a long time.
> Skeptic publications talk about them constantly. I often have the
> opposite concern, that skeptics will spend so much time talking about
> religion that they won't devote enough time to being skeptical about
> scientific claims, snake oil medicines and cures, half-baked Oprah
> philosophies like "The Secret". They seem to balance it well most of
> the time. But I'm just judging from what I've seen of covers or

> headlines of the major skeptic publications.-

There is a distinction (albeit a blurred one) between the skeptical
movement and the atheist movement. The latter should merely be a sub-
set of the former but this is not always the case which was the point
of my post.

[Kippers]

Thanks, that’s quite helpful in explaining some of the funny beliefs
you hold.

Cheers
Kippers

[Kippers]

I agree with all of this but I would find it hard to take a self
proclaimed Christian skeptic seriously. They do exist because, well,
they claim that’s what they are but if you apply a skeptical approach
to tackling the question “was Jesus the creator of the universe?” you
are just not going to come up with the answer “Yes!”

A Christian skeptic then is surely a skeptic who wont apply their
skeptisism to their religion so a more fitting (though less pithy)
title for such a person would actually be: a Non-skeptical Christian
who is skeptical in all other areas relating to truth claims about the
world.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 19, 6:02 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
...

> A Christian skeptic then is surely a skeptic who wont apply their
> skeptisism to their religion so a more fitting (though less pithy)
> title for such a person would actually be: a Non-skeptical Christian
> who is skeptical in all other areas relating to truth claims about the
> world.

So long as it is understood that this is what a Christian skeptic is,
why not continue using the pithy term? BTW, a Christian skeptic might
also be skeptical of claims made by Christians. For example, if the
Pope were to order a crusade and claim "God wills it", a Christian
skeptic might express skepticism at the accuracy of the Pope's
knowledge of God's will.

[Kippers]

ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 19, 6:02 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> > A Christian skeptic then is surely a skeptic who wont apply their
> > skeptisism to their religion so a more fitting (though less pithy)
> > title for such a person would actually be: a Non-skeptical Christian
> > who is skeptical in all other areas relating to truth claims about the
> > world.
>
> So long as it is understood that this is what a Christian skeptic is,
> why not continue using the pithy term?

I doubt very much that any self labelled “Christian skeptic” would
accept my definition which makes them sound pretty hypocritical. I
would expect someone using that term would claim their skeptisism is
applied equally to all their beliefs, including their religious ones.

>BTW, a Christian skeptic might
> also be skeptical of claims made by Christians. For example, if the
> Pope were to order a crusade and claim "God wills it", a Christian
> skeptic might express skepticism at the accuracy of the Pope's
> knowledge of God's will.

But why apply a skeptical approach to claims of the pope while not
doing so for the claims of the bible? Again this would seem to be
cherry picking when and where to be skeptical without any apparent
justification.

[Kippers]

On 19 July, 09:48, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> > I just don't think the skeptical movement is
> > guilty of that. If anything, the current popularity of Dawkins,
> > Hitchens, Harris, et al, disproves your generalization. Atheists are
> > more vocal and more visible than they have been for a long time.
> > Skeptic publications talk about them constantly. I often have the
> > opposite concern, that skeptics will spend so much time talking about
> > religion that they won't devote enough time to being skeptical about
> > scientific claims, snake oil medicines and cures, half-baked Oprah
> > philosophies like "The Secret". They seem to balance it well most of
> > the time. But I'm just judging from what I've seen of covers or
> > headlines of the major skeptic publications.-
>
> There is a distinction (albeit a blurred one) between the skeptical
> movement and the atheist movement.  The latter should merely be a sub-
> set of the former but this is not always the case which was the point
> of my post.

Just to clarify; I don’t meant to imply that skeptisim necessarily
leads to atheism but the arguments being put forth by those atheists
you listed are skeptical arguments regarding the claims of religions
and as such should be viewed as a sub-set of the skeptical movement in
general.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

That's not the issue I was addressing. Why call a Catholic a Christian
skeptic for being skeptical that the Pope is correct in claiming that
something is God's will? In order to distinguish him from a Catholic
who is never skeptical about a Pope's claims!

> Again this would seem to be cherry picking
> when and where to be skeptical without any apparent justification.

The Christian in the term "Christian skeptic" identifies a person as
one who picks some issues relating to Christianity to not be skeptical
about. IOW, if he were skeptical about every Christian issue, then
he'd be a skeptic, not a Christian skeptic.

[Trance Gemini]

It depends on their approach to their beliefs though.

For example, if you have a Christian who basically considers the Bible a mythology but one that advocates a philosophy that they agree with and their conception of their God is more of a deist one they could rationalize their skepticism and their belief.

And there are Christians who do take that approach.

Of course, on this debating site, many of us atheist skeptics will challenge that approach but that's a separate question.

From their perspective their approach is coherent, rational and consistent with their skepticism.

A Christian skeptic then is surely a skeptic who wont apply their
skeptisism to their religion so a more fitting (though less pithy)
title for such a person would actually be: a Non-skeptical Christian
who is skeptical in all other areas relating to truth claims about the
world.

Haha. In many cases, I'm sure that's true.

[Brock Organ]

It probably wouldn't be profitable for me to speculate on what ranjit
means ... so I'll wait for a specific objection from him.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Kippers
<ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 July, 20:29, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
>> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
>> > available.
>>
>> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
>> epistemologically.
>

> Thanks, that’s quite helpful in explaining some of the funny beliefs
> you hold.

No skeptic I.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

If a skeptical person is called a "skeptic", perhaps we should use the
word "gullib" to descibe a person such as yourself who is completely
lacking in skepticism.

- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Deidzoeb]

How bout a face-valuist? A first impressionist?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 19, 4:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 5:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jul 16, 3:29 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> >> >> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> >> >> > available.

> >> >> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> >> >> epistemologically.

> >> > 1) The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander.
> >> > 2) Alexander made a foray into India.

> > Do you think the likelihood of #1 being accurate is the same as the
> > likelihood of #2 being accurate?

> It wouldn't be profitable for me to speculate on what ranjit means ...

It seems that according to Brock logic ...
1) "The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander" and "Alexander went to
India" are equally likely to be true.
2) Requiring more evidence for the parting of a sea of Alexander than
is required for Alexander's foray into India is imposing an untenable

subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate epistemologically.

If there be some errors in the above illustration of your logic, what
would those errors be?

> Regards,
> Brock

[Treebeard]

On Jul 13, 9:26 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> > general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> > large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> > equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> > together.
>
> Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
> didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
> religions.

You did seem to imply that it was a general approach in that movement,
which it likely is not.

>
> This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
> The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
> listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
> movement.  It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
> criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
> fringe religions such as scientology.

What do you mean by "It does go out of its way to avoid criticising
religion"? Does that mean that it just doesn't mention them, or does
it go further?

>
> It is this fact which leads me to believe it is a tactical ploy rather
> than anything else.
>
> > While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
> > works here:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...
>
> I agree with PZ that religion “is a gigantic sinkhole of ignorance and
> absurdity” oh sorry wrong quote :)
>
> I agree with PZ that there is a historical aspect to most religions
> which should probably not be focused on by skeptical organizations
> which mainly deal with current day claims but that certainly does not
> rule out all religious claims.  Even excluding the historical claims
> of religion there is plenty of religious claims to get stuck into,
> claims which TSGTTU seems very hesitant to address.

I was more referring to the first point, of division of labour. Since
there are atheist organizations that deal with the major religions,
and since those probably do focus more on the mainstream ones, it
would be a waste of time for skeptical organizations to do so as
well. So, fringe religions and non-religious claims do seem like
better places for them to spend their time and effory.

>
> I also agree with PZ --as my OP makes clear-- that you can’t simply
> claim someone is not a skeptic because they believe in a religion or
> souls, it depends upon how they reached that belief and if it is open
> to reasoned argument and possible change.

Is all that is required to be a skeptic that your beliefs could be
changed? If so, then I'm a skeptic ... but I deny that I'm a skeptic.

>
> > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the

> > world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> > philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?
>
> Well first I want to make it very clear that I consider myself, as
> with all other humans, to be an instinctively irrational being.  I use
> a skeptical outlook at a tool to help me sort between valid and
> invalid claims about the world, so not by a long shot am I a “complete
> skeptic” but I do strive to apply skepticism equally to all types of
> claims about the world, all other things being equal.

What are some of the things that wouldn't make things equal so that
you wouldn't apply skepticism to a claim about the world, or at least
not equally?

>
> If I were to take a position that I wouldn’t apply my skepticism to a
> large body of claims, i.e religious or political or scientific or
> medical or paranormal etc... Then I would consider that to be an
> inconsistency, one which I can not think of a justification for yet it
> is one which TSGTTU seems to engage in which is why I would be
> interested in hearing their explanation.

The issue here though is that they probably don't see it as them
taking that position, and they could very well say that some of the
things that you are not skeptical about are the same sort of things.
So, it would be a case of a person living in a glass house throwing
stones.

However, this doesn't answer the question, which was: do you think
that you could, in fact, be skeptical about absolutely everything?
Putting aside simple psychology, if everyone could, in fact, be
skeptical about everything do you think that, in the end, that that
would be a good thing?

[Treebeard]

On Jul 13, 10:13 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 July, 14:31, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
> > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > world?
>

> > It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
> > various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
> > does Richard Dawkins fall short?
>
> Good question.  I assumed I knew what he meant by that but I would
> like Treebeard to clarify by answering that.

It doesn't matter. Richard Dawkins might not himself know. The key,
though, is that P.Z. Meyers says that no one is a complete skeptic,
and I'm asking you, basically, how you think things would work if
anyone ever was.

There are issues with that statement because the so-called "skeptics"
might not be properly skeptical about things that are relevant to the
debates they have with those that they think are not being properly
skeptical. But we can put that aside for now.

[Brock Organ]

Completely lacking in skepticism? What a nice thing to say. *sigh* :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 16, 5:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 16, 3:29 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
>> >> >> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
>> >> >> > available.
>
>> >> >> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
>> >> >> epistemologically.
>
>> >> > 1) The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander.
>> >> > 2) Alexander made a foray into India.
>> > Do you think the likelihood of #1 being accurate is the same as the
>> > likelihood of #2 being accurate?
>> It wouldn't be profitable for me to speculate on what ranjit means ...
>
> It seems that according to Brock logic ...

Or according to Ranjit logic ...

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 20, 8:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com

>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 4:06 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jul 16, 5:10 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Jul 16, 3:29 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Jul 13, 7:24 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> >> >> >> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> >> >> >> > available.
>
> >> >> >> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> >> >> >> epistemologically.
>
> >> >> > 1) The Sea of Pamphylia parted for Alexander.
> >> >> > 2) Alexander made a foray into India.
> >> > Do you think the likelihood of #1 being accurate is the same as the
> >> > likelihood of #2 being accurate?
> >> It wouldn't be profitable for me to speculate on what ranjit means ...
>
> > It seems that according to Brock logic ...
>
> Or according to Ranjit logic ...

I didn't even dream of this logic till you taught it. Now, instead of
bullshitting that it's my logic, why don't you show what errors I've
made in illustrating your logic.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Kippers]

On 20 July, 16:49, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:26 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> > > general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> > > large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> > > equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> > > together.
>
> > Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
> > didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
> > religions.
>
> You did seem to imply that it was a general approach in that movement,
> which it likely is not.

Ok a valid nitpick; I should have titled the post “should the
skeptical movement ignore the claims of mainstream religions?” and
then listed those that did and didn’t.

>
>
>
> > This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
> > The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
> > listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
> > movement.  It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
> > criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
> > fringe religions such as scientology.
>
> What do you mean by "It does go out of its way to avoid criticising
> religion"?  Does that mean that it just doesn't mention them, or does
> it go further?
>

They don’t mention them; in hundreds of shows over many years. I am
not just imagining this, it is part of the stance taken by the show
and by some other branches of the skeptical movement.

I think its a PR exersise, I am wondering if anyone has an arguement
that it is something else.

>
> > It is this fact which leads me to believe it is a tactical ploy rather
> > than anything else.
>
> > > While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
> > > works here:
>
> > >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...
>
> > I agree with PZ that religion “is a gigantic sinkhole of ignorance and
> > absurdity” oh sorry wrong quote :)
>
> > I agree with PZ that there is a historical aspect to most religions
> > which should probably not be focused on by skeptical organizations
> > which mainly deal with current day claims but that certainly does not
> > rule out all religious claims.  Even excluding the historical claims
> > of religion there is plenty of religious claims to get stuck into,
> > claims which TSGTTU seems very hesitant to address.
>
> I was more referring to the first point, of division of labour.  Since
> there are atheist organizations that deal with the major religions,
> and since those probably do focus more on the mainstream ones, it
> would be a waste of time for skeptical organizations to do so as
> well.  So, fringe religions and non-religious claims do seem like
> better places for them to spend their time and effory.
>

But the issue is that they do criticise religions so long as they are
not popular mainstream ones. If anything the popularity of a belief
should make it a more important candidate for skeptical analysis, not
the other way round. Unless of course you engaging in a PR exercise.

>
> > I also agree with PZ --as my OP makes clear-- that you can’t simply
> > claim someone is not a skeptic because they believe in a religion or
> > souls, it depends upon how they reached that belief and if it is open
> > to reasoned argument and possible change.
>
> Is all that is required to be a skeptic that your beliefs could be
> changed?  If so, then I'm a skeptic ... but I deny that I'm a skeptic.
>

No that’s not what I said, re-read the paragraph you are responding to
paying close attention to the part which says it depends upon how
beliefs are reached rather than what those beliefs are.

>
> > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> > > philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?
>
> > Well first I want to make it very clear that I consider myself, as
> > with all other humans, to be an instinctively irrational being.  I use
> > a skeptical outlook at a tool to help me sort between valid and
> > invalid claims about the world, so not by a long shot am I a “complete
> > skeptic” but I do strive to apply skepticism equally to all types of
> > claims about the world, all other things being equal.
>
> What are some of the things that wouldn't make things equal so that
> you wouldn't apply skepticism to a claim about the world, or at least
> not equally?
>

A couple of examples for you:

1) Beliefs about the world which have never been questioned or have
not even occurred to you as being controversial. An example for
myself might be the belief that capitalism is the only valid economic
system, something I implicitly believed in my youth due to lack of
knowledge of other systems and lack of exposure to critiques of
capitalism.

2) Beliefs about yourself. We naturally have a whole suite of
implicit beliefs about ourselves. These need not be skeptically
examined unless perhaps they are questioned by others around you.

>
> > If I were to take a position that I wouldn’t apply my skepticism to a
> > large body of claims, i.e religious or political or scientific or
> > medical or paranormal etc... Then I would consider that to be an
> > inconsistency, one which I can not think of a justification for yet it
> > is one which TSGTTU seems to engage in which is why I would be
> > interested in hearing their explanation.
>
> The issue here though is that they probably don't see it as them
> taking that position,

Yes they do, they acknowledge this is their stance.

> and they could very well say that some of the
> things that you are not skeptical about are the same sort of things.

What kind of things are you suggesting I am not skeptical about?

> So, it would be a case of a person living in a glass house throwing
> stones.
>

Perhaps if you could demonstrate that I am not applying my skeptisism
to areas in which I should I would accept this critisism but I am
unaware that I engage in such cherry picking. Perhaps you can
enlighten me?

> However, this doesn't answer the question, which was: do you think
> that you could, in fact, be skeptical about absolutely everything?

No.

As already explained there are implicit default beliefs about
ourselves and the world which we must hold and it is impossible to
skeptically examine or even know what all of these are.

> Putting aside simple psychology, if everyone could, in fact, be
> skeptical about everything do you think that, in the end, that that
> would be a good thing?

Putting aside phycology and basic human nature makes the question
meaningless. I can only speak of skeptisism as being good or bad
within the context of human nature.

My point is simply that skeptisism is an outlook which should be
applied to all domains of knowledge equally and I see no reason to
claim that, for example, religious or paranormal or political claims
should be exempt.

Do you?

[Kippers]

On 20 July, 16:51, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:13 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 July, 14:31, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > > world?
>
> > > It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
> > > various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
> > > does Richard Dawkins fall short?
>
> > Good question.  I assumed I knew what he meant by that but I would
> > like Treebeard to clarify by answering that.
>
> It doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

>  Richard Dawkins might not himself know.  The key,
> though, is that P.Z. Meyers says that no one is a complete skeptic,
> and I'm asking you, basically, how you think things would work if
> anyone ever was.

How can we answer the question if you wont define what you mean by a
"complete skeptic"?

>
> There are issues with that statement because the so-called "skeptics"
> might not be properly skeptical about things that are relevant to the
> debates they have with those that they think are not being properly

> skeptical.  But we can put that aside for now.-

I repeat my position which relates to applying skeptisism to all
domains of claimed knowledge about the world. Religion, politics,
medical, paranormal etc...

As irrational imperfect human beings we are not going to be equally
skeptical of all individual claims but I see no good reason for ring-
fencing one domain such as religion and claiming our skeptical
analysis shall not be applied within.

[Treebeard]

On Jul 21, 9:43 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 July, 16:51, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 10:13 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 July, 14:31, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > > > world?
>
> > > > It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
> > > > various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
> > > > does Richard Dawkins fall short?
>
> > > Good question.  I assumed I knew what he meant by that but I would
> > > like Treebeard to clarify by answering that.
>
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> Yes it does.

No, it doesn't ... and I'd thank you to READ my comments about why it
doesn't matter before making such comments.

>
> >  Richard Dawkins might not himself know.  The key,
> > though, is that P.Z. Meyers says that no one is a complete skeptic,
> > and I'm asking you, basically, how you think things would work if
> > anyone ever was.
>
> How can we answer the question if you wont define what you mean by a
> "complete skeptic"?

A complete skeptic is someone who applies skepticism to every single
proposition they hold. Meyers says that he doesn't think that anyone
does. My question is if anyone ever really can.

So, are you skeptical about every single proposition you hold?

Note that we will have to get into discussions about what it means to
be skeptical, because as already stated I think yours might be too
broad.

>
>
>
> > There are issues with that statement because the so-called "skeptics"
> > might not be properly skeptical about things that are relevant to the
> > debates they have with those that they think are not being properly
> > skeptical.  But we can put that aside for now.-
>
> I repeat my position which relates to applying skeptisism to all
> domains of claimed knowledge about the world.  Religion, politics,
> medical, paranormal etc...
>
> As irrational imperfect human beings we are not going to be equally
> skeptical of all individual claims but I see no good reason for ring-
> fencing one domain such as religion and claiming our skeptical
> analysis shall not be applied within.

So the question remains: what do you think would be the case -- and
would it be feasbile -- for someone to be equally skeptical of all
individual claims? Could you, for example, treat what you get from
your sense perceptions as skeptically as you do religious claims?

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:48 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > It seems that according to Brock logic ...
>>
>> Or according to Ranjit logic ...
>
> I didn't even dream of this logic till you taught it.

No teach your statement I.

> Now, instead of
> bullshitting that it's my logic

Google mail indicates its your post, not mine:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> , why don't you show what errors I've
> made in illustrating your logic.

Sorry, I'm defending my positions, not yours. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Kippers]

On 21 July, 14:52, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:43 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 July, 16:51, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 10:13 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 July, 14:31, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > > > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > > > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > > > > world?
>
> > > > > It's a difficult question to consider without knowing in what ways
> > > > > various people fall short of being complete skeptics. In what ways
> > > > > does Richard Dawkins fall short?
>
> > > > Good question.  I assumed I knew what he meant by that but I would
> > > > like Treebeard to clarify by answering that.
>
> > > It doesn't matter.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> No, it doesn't ... and I'd thank you to READ my comments about why it
> doesn't matter before making such comments.

I did. I read entire responses before I start my reply and below I
explain why it matters and you seem to accept this as you go on to
define what you meant.

>
>
>
> > >  Richard Dawkins might not himself know.  The key,
> > > though, is that P.Z. Meyers says that no one is a complete skeptic,
> > > and I'm asking you, basically, how you think things would work if
> > > anyone ever was.
>
> > How can we answer the question if you wont define what you mean by a
> > "complete skeptic"?
>
> A complete skeptic is someone who applies skepticism to every single
> proposition they hold.  Meyers says that he doesn't think that anyone
> does.  My question is if anyone ever really can.

I agree with PZ, no one can apply skeptisism equally to every
individual claim they hear, nor should they do so.

I dont think anyone thinks this and I am not sure why you are bringing
it up?

>
> So, are you skeptical about every single proposition you hold?
>

No. As well as being impossible its also a terrible idea. We need to
use heuristics to cut corners due to our limited brains. A trusted
source making an unsurprising claim recieves less skeptisim from
myself than a non-trusted source making a spectacular claim.

I dont know why you keep asking this though as my point is about
applying skeptisim to all domains which make claims about the world
not that every individual claim must undergo an equal amount of
skeptical scrutiny.

> Note that we will have to get into discussions about what it means to
> be skeptical, because as already stated I think yours might be too
> broad.
>

I know you enjoy debating semantics so feel free to put foward a
definition of Skeptisism that you approve of. :)

[Treebeard]

On Jul 21, 9:38 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 July, 16:49, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:26 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> > > > general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> > > > large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> > > > equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> > > > together.
>
> > > Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
> > > didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
> > > religions.
>
> > You did seem to imply that it was a general approach in that movement,
> > which it likely is not.
>
> Ok a valid nitpick;

How can something be a valid nitpick? If it was unclear -- as you
state below -- then just say that. There's no need to try to portray
it as somehow an invalid complaint despite remarking that my
interpretation was valid.

> I should have titled the post “should the
> skeptical movement ignore the claims of mainstream religions?” and
> then listed those that did and didn’t.

Um, you should have dropped the "skeptical movement" and talked about
specific organizations, since that's really what you're talking about.

>
>
>
> > > This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
> > > The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
> > > listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
> > > movement.  It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
> > > criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
> > > fringe religions such as scientology.
>
> > What do you mean by "It does go out of its way to avoid criticising
> > religion"?  Does that mean that it just doesn't mention them, or does
> > it go further?
>
> They don’t mention them; in hundreds of shows over many years.  I am
> not just imagining this, it is part of the stance taken by the show
> and by some other branches of the skeptical movement.

So, the stance is that they don't talk about mainstream religions,
right? This will be important later ...

>
> I think its a PR exersise, I am wondering if anyone has an arguement
> that it is something else.

I gave you two.

> > > It is this fact which leads me to believe it is a tactical ploy rather
> > > than anything else.
>
> > > > While I'm not fond of him, P.Z. Myers has a good summary of how it
> > > > works here:
>
> > > >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/should_skeptic_organizatio...
>
> > > I agree with PZ that religion “is a gigantic sinkhole of ignorance and
> > > absurdity” oh sorry wrong quote :)
>
> > > I agree with PZ that there is a historical aspect to most religions
> > > which should probably not be focused on by skeptical organizations
> > > which mainly deal with current day claims but that certainly does not
> > > rule out all religious claims.  Even excluding the historical claims
> > > of religion there is plenty of religious claims to get stuck into,
> > > claims which TSGTTU seems very hesitant to address.
>
> > I was more referring to the first point, of division of labour.  Since
> > there are atheist organizations that deal with the major religions,
> > and since those probably do focus more on the mainstream ones, it
> > would be a waste of time for skeptical organizations to do so as
> > well.  So, fringe religions and non-religious claims do seem like
> > better places for them to spend their time and effory.
>
> But the issue is that they do criticise religions so long as they are
> not popular mainstream ones.

Because, as I said, atheist organizations focus on the mainstream
ones, and pay less attention to the fringe ones. Again, they'd all be
criticizing the same things.

> If anything the popularity of a belief
> should make it a more important candidate for skeptical analysis, not
> the other way round.  Unless of course you engaging in a PR exercise.

But not if atheist organizations are already doing it. Then you're
all doing the same thing, which is a waste of time.

>
>
>
> > > I also agree with PZ --as my OP makes clear-- that you can’t simply
> > > claim someone is not a skeptic because they believe in a religion or
> > > souls, it depends upon how they reached that belief and if it is open
> > > to reasoned argument and possible change.
>
> > Is all that is required to be a skeptic that your beliefs could be
> > changed?  If so, then I'm a skeptic ... but I deny that I'm a skeptic.
>
> No that’s not what I said, re-read the paragraph you are responding to
> paying close attention to the part which says it depends upon how
> beliefs are reached rather than what those beliefs are.

Examples of how to do it? And does it being open to change matter?

> > > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > > world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> > > > philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?
>
> > > Well first I want to make it very clear that I consider myself, as
> > > with all other humans, to be an instinctively irrational being.  I use
> > > a skeptical outlook at a tool to help me sort between valid and
> > > invalid claims about the world, so not by a long shot am I a “complete
> > > skeptic” but I do strive to apply skepticism equally to all types of
> > > claims about the world, all other things being equal.
>
> > What are some of the things that wouldn't make things equal so that
> > you wouldn't apply skepticism to a claim about the world, or at least
> > not equally?
>
> A couple of examples for you:
>
> 1) Beliefs about the world which have never been questioned or have
> not even occurred to you as being controversial.  An example for
> myself might be the belief that capitalism is the only valid economic
> system, something I implicitly believed in my youth due to lack of
> knowledge of other systems and lack of exposure to critiques of
> capitalism.

Why don't most religious beliefs fall into that category? After all,
you couldn't have been unaware of communism, even young, and yet you
didn't consider it important enough to sway you from your skepticism,
so why would that not be okay for religions as well?

At any rate, why is this actually ACCEPTABLE? Shouldn't a real
skeptic refuse to take anything at face value? Shouldn't they even
examine their beliefs to see if THEY can find an objection or problem
with it?

>
> 2) Beliefs about yourself.  We naturally have a whole suite of
> implicit beliefs about ourselves.  These need not be skeptically
> examined unless perhaps they are questioned by others around you.

Why not? If you know that you can be wrong about them, why should
they be immune from critical and skeptical examination?

>
>
>
> > > If I were to take a position that I wouldn’t apply my skepticism to a
> > > large body of claims, i.e religious or political or scientific or
> > > medical or paranormal etc... Then I would consider that to be an
> > > inconsistency, one which I can not think of a justification for yet it
> > > is one which TSGTTU seems to engage in which is why I would be
> > > interested in hearing their explanation.
>
> > The issue here though is that they probably don't see it as them
> > taking that position,
>
> Yes they do, they acknowledge this is their stance.

Cite?

Anyway, I was referring more to the people who ARE religious. I
highly doubt that TSGTTU members refuse to be skeptical about
religion, and all you have provided so far is a claim that they don't
talk about it on their podcast, which doesn't support the contention
you are assigning to them here.

As for people who are religious and who are still religious, again, I
doubt they see it the way you do.

>
> > and they could very well say that some of the
> > things that you are not skeptical about are the same sort of things.
>
> What kind of things are you suggesting I am not skeptical about?

I don't know, but even you admit that you are not skeptical about
everything, so ...

>
> > So, it would be a case of a person living in a glass house throwing
> > stones.
>
> Perhaps if you could demonstrate that I am not applying my skeptisism
> to areas in which I should I would accept this critisism but I am
> unaware that I engage in such cherry picking.  Perhaps you can
> enlighten me?

If you're going to hold skepticism as ANY kind of a philosophy, it has
to apply to every proposition. If it doesn't -- and you admit that it
doesn't for you -- then there's no reason to accept that you're doing
it in an acceptable manner and they aren't just because you don't like
what they aren't skpetical about.

>
> > However, this doesn't answer the question, which was: do you think
> > that you could, in fact, be skeptical about absolutely everything?
>
> No.
>
> As already explained there are implicit default beliefs about
> ourselves and the world which we must hold and it is impossible to
> skeptically examine or even know what all of these are.

So, on what grounds do you determine which of these you must hold and
so you don't have to skeptically examine them? It's not a good
argument to say "I don't know about these beliefs" because all that
means is "I don't know that I believe that", and so the immediate
reply is "But if you knew that you believed that, wouldn't you agree
that you have to skeptically examine it?". So, is there any
proposition that you think doesn't have to ever be skeptically
examined.

>
> > Putting aside simple psychology, if everyone could, in fact, be
> > skeptical about everything do you think that, in the end, that that
> > would be a good thing?
>
> Putting aside phycology and basic human nature makes the question
> meaningless.  I can only speak of skeptisism as being good or bad
> within the context of human nature.

No, no, it doesn't make it meaningless. It is, in fact, the key
determining factor in whether or not this is a good outlook on the
world. Saying that your outlook works because you psychologically
can't actually follow it doesn't help you if the answer is "But if you
could follow it, it would be disastrous". It's not a good outlook if
you couldn't follow it successfully even if you were psychologically
capable of following it, and we need a new outlook.

>
> My point is simply that skeptisism is an outlook which should be
> applied to all domains of knowledge equally and I see no reason to
> claim that, for example, religious or paranormal or political claims
> should be exempt.

Ah, but again you dodge the issue, which is: should skepticism be
applied to all -- or even any -- domains of knowedge? And my
challenge is this: we can determine that it SHOLULDN'T be applied to
at least all domains of knowledge if applying it consistently to all
domains of knowledge leads to disastrously impractical results. So,
can we properly apply it consistently to all domains of knowledge,
assuming that there's no odd human psychology getting in the way, and
get good results?

[Kippers]

On 21 July, 15:11, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 20 July, 16:49, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 9:26 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> > > > > general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> > > > > large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> > > > > equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> > > > > together.
>
> > > > Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
> > > > didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
> > > > religions.
>
> > > You did seem to imply that it was a general approach in that movement,
> > > which it likely is not.
>
> > Ok a valid nitpick;
>
> How can something be a valid nitpick?  If it was unclear -- as  you
> state below -- then just say that.  There's no need to try to portray
> it as somehow an invalid complaint despite remarking that my
> interpretation was valid.
>

I explicitly stated that your complaint was valid. I considered it a
nit pick because I thought we had moved on after I clarified my
position, yet here we are still picking over it.

> > I should have titled the post “should the
> > skeptical movement ignore the claims of mainstream religions?” and
> > then listed those that did and didn’t.
>
> Um, you should have dropped the "skeptical movement" and talked about
> specific organizations, since that's really what you're talking about.
>

This is a less valid nit-pick. But your corrections to my
hypothetical thread title are noted.

>
>
> > > > This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
> > > > The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
> > > > listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
> > > > movement.  It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
> > > > criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
> > > > fringe religions such as scientology.
>
> > > What do you mean by "It does go out of its way to avoid criticising
> > > religion"?  Does that mean that it just doesn't mention them, or does
> > > it go further?
>
> > They don’t mention them; in hundreds of shows over many years.  I am
> > not just imagining this, it is part of the stance taken by the show
> > and by some other branches of the skeptical movement.
>
> So, the stance is that they don't talk about mainstream religions,
> right?  This will be important later ...
>

Not quite, there is the rare reference to them but they don’t question
the tenets of those religions.

You should try listening to a few episodes. Its a good show and might
give you more of a feel about what I mean. It is certainly a
christian friendly skeptical show.

>
>
> > I think its a PR exersise, I am wondering if anyone has an arguement
> > that it is something else.
>
> I gave you two.
>

Yes you did, which I find strange given your request for citations
below.

You seem to be simultaneously arguing for two contrasting positions
and I don’t feel I can continue until you clear this up.

You are trying to put forward a justification for why some skeptical
organisations ignore the claims of mainstream religion, which is good
as that is what this thread is about. Yet at the same time you are
asking me to prove that such a debate exits within the skeptical
community, which seems a waste of time given you (both previously and
in this thread) seem to accept it does exist.

I don’t feel I can continue until you clarify if you accept that my
premise about there being a debate in the skeptical comunitiy on this
very topic is valid or not. I don’t want to spend time finding
citations for you, especially as your first response provided a link
for PZ discussing this very issue!

[Treebeard]

On Jul 21, 10:05 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21 July, 14:52, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > >  Richard Dawkins might not himself know.  The key,
> > > > though, is that P.Z. Meyers says that no one is a complete skeptic,
> > > > and I'm asking you, basically, how you think things would work if
> > > > anyone ever was.
>
> > > How can we answer the question if you wont define what you mean by a
> > > "complete skeptic"?
>
> > A complete skeptic is someone who applies skepticism to every single
> > proposition they hold.  Meyers says that he doesn't think that anyone
> > does.  My question is if anyone ever really can.
>
> I agree with PZ, no one can apply skeptisism equally to every
> individual claim they hear, nor should they do so.
>
> I dont think anyone thinks this and I am not sure why you are bringing
> it up?

I'm bringing it up because if you want to defend the skeptical
worldview against challengers, you're going to have to be able to show
either that it can be applied generally or that it has a good and
reasonable set of methods for determining when you don't have to be
skeptical.

At any rate, I don't know if you read this the first time you were at
my blog, but I REJECT skepticism -- at least as something that we
should universally hold -- and here is the basic reasoning why, and
definitions of skeptical and non-skeptical:

http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/an-answer-to-larry-moran/

>
>
>
> > So, are you skeptical about every single proposition you hold?
>
> No.  As well as being impossible its also a terrible idea.  We need to
> use heuristics to cut corners due to our limited brains.  A trusted
> source making an unsurprising claim recieves less skeptisim from
> myself than a non-trusted source making a spectacular claim.

The problem I can see, though, is that you're going to use those same
heuristics to decide what's a trusted source and what isn't, and get
into a GIGO situation; your skepticism will be applied to what you
don't belief and suspended for that which you do or want to believe,
just like what you accuse religious people of doing.

So, let's test your skepticism: imagine that someone that you know to
rarely, if ever, lie and who is not prone to exaggerations or any sort
of perceptual errors tells you that they had a clear experience that
indicates a ghost as the most reasonable explanation. Do you accept
it, or are you skeptical of that claim?

>
> I dont know why you keep asking this though as my point is about
> applying skeptisim to all domains which make claims about the world
> not that every individual claim must undergo an equal amount of
> skeptical scrutiny.

If you apply skepticism to a domain, you apply it to the propositions
and claims in that domain, no? It's ridiculous to suggest that you
could do otherwise; applying skepticism to a domain JUST IS applying
it to the propositions in that domain.

[Treebeard]

On Jul 21, 11:14 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21 July, 15:11, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 9:38 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 July, 16:49, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 9:26 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 13 July, 12:43, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You'd have a point if skeptical organizations -- and skeptics in
> > > > > > general -- WERE ignoring the major religions.  But they aren't: a
> > > > > > large number of prominent skeptics are also prominent atheists, and
> > > > > > equally vocal about both.  They even tie skepticism and atheism
> > > > > > together.
>
> > > > > Of course the skeptical movement is not a monolithic entity and I
> > > > > didn’t mean to imply that all skeptics ignored the claims of major
> > > > > religions.
>
> > > > You did seem to imply that it was a general approach in that movement,
> > > > which it likely is not.
>
> > > Ok a valid nitpick;
>
> > How can something be a valid nitpick?  If it was unclear -- as  you
> > state below -- then just say that.  There's no need to try to portray
> > it as somehow an invalid complaint despite remarking that my
> > interpretation was valid.
>
> I explicitly stated that your complaint was valid.  I considered it a
> nit pick because I thought we had moved on after I clarified my
> position, yet here we are still picking over it.

Okay, here's why your clarification didn't clarify:

Your claim: "The movement ignores the claims of religions".
My reply: "It doesn't seem like it does in general."
Your reply: "Well, I never meant to say that ALL of them did."
My reply: "No, but you seemed to be implying that in general the
movement does."

It's not a nitpick to try to clarify whether or not you're talking
about one or two isolated organizations, or most of them. It seems
like you're actually talking about one, specifically.

>
> > > I should have titled the post “should the
> > > skeptical movement ignore the claims of mainstream religions?” and
> > > then listed those that did and didn’t.
>
> > Um, you should have dropped the "skeptical movement" and talked about
> > specific organizations, since that's really what you're talking about.
>
> This is a less valid nit-pick.

The movement and the organizations that make it up are not the same
thing. And there's an interesting debate here, where members of the
"movement" (ie people that accept skepticism) ARE skeptical about
religion, too, but a lot of the formal organizations may not be, which
would tie into you're utterly unproven claims about that being a PR
move. Although considering the success of some atheist organizations,
being skeptical about major religions doesn't actually seem to be a
problem.

>  But your corrections to my
> hypothetical thread title are noted.
>
>
>
> > > > > This post is actually a slightly modified email which I just sent to
> > > > > The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (TSGTTU) which is a podcast I enjoy
> > > > > listening to every week and one of the flagships of the skeptical
> > > > > movement.  It’s a great podcast but it does go out of its way to avoid
> > > > > criticising mainstream religion even though it is happy to critique
> > > > > fringe religions such as scientology.
>
> > > > What do you mean by "It does go out of its way to avoid criticising
> > > > religion"?  Does that mean that it just doesn't mention them, or does
> > > > it go further?
>
> > > They don’t mention them; in hundreds of shows over many years.  I am
> > > not just imagining this, it is part of the stance taken by the show
> > > and by some other branches of the skeptical movement.
>
> > So, the stance is that they don't talk about mainstream religions,
> > right?  This will be important later ...
>
> Not quite, there is the rare reference to them but they don’t question
> the tenets of those religions.

Now THIS is a nitpick ... and a bad one, since you say "they don't
mention them" above, I take that to a summary of your stance of "they
don't talk about them", and then you say "Not quite" despite the fact
that that was, well, what YOU said.

Unless when they talk about them it's supportive you don't have a
claim beyond "They don't talk about them" from what you've said so
far.

>
> You should try listening to a few episodes.  Its a good show and might
> give you more of a feel about what I mean.  It is certainly a
> christian friendly skeptical show.

I don't listen to podcasts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian friendly". So far, all
you've said is that they don't really talk about it, but that's hardly
supportive of Christianity. Are you really trying to claim that they
AVOID talking about Christianity, even when relevant?

>
>
>
> > > I think its a PR exersise, I am wondering if anyone has an arguement
> > > that it is something else.
>
> > I gave you two.
>
> Yes you did, which I find strange given your request for citations
> below.

Um, wait. I asked you for citations that it was a PR EXERCISE, and
that they STATED that. I gave you two other explanations for why it
might legitimately not be a PR exercise. How does that lead to any
strangeness?

And I think I've just answered what you wanted answered below ...

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 10:04 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:48 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > It seems that according to Brock logic ...
> >> Or according to Ranjit logic ...
> > I didn't even dream of this logic till you taught it.
> No teach your statement I.
> > Now, instead of
> > bullshitting that it's my logic
> Google mail indicates its your post, not mine:

If I am illustrating your logic, it would naturally be my post.

> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > , why don't you show what errors I've
> > made in illustrating your logic.
> Sorry, I'm defending my positions, not yours. :)

It is not my position that the two are equally likely. It is a
synthetic position that I arrived at by applying your logic to some
data I dug up. If you don't think I applied your logic, please explain
what errors there are in my understanding of your logic. To explain
how I went about illustrating your logic:

1) You, not I, claim that making degree of belief dependent on amount
of evidence is an untenable standard.
2) I produced two claims of events whose only evidence is that they
are found in writing.
3) Since both events have evidence (the evidence being that someone
wrote about them which is the sort of evidence you seem to accept for
scriptures), then they are equally likely to be true even if there is
much more evidence for Alexander's visit to India, AS PER YOUR CLAIM
that it is an untenable standard to base degree of belief on the
amount of evidence available.
4) Therefore, as per YOUR logic, not mine, both claims are equally
likely to be true.
5) Since I illustrated your logic, not mine, it's not Ranjit logic;
it's either Brock logic or Ranjit's understanding of Brock logic
depending on whether I understood your logic correctly or incorrectly.

If my understanding of your logic is incorrect, I can't correct it
till you explain how and where I have gone wrong in understanding your
logic.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 10:04 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:48 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > It seems that according to Brock logic ...
>> >> Or according to Ranjit logic ...
>> > I didn't even dream of this logic till you taught it.
>> No teach your statement I.
>> > Now, instead of
>> > bullshitting that it's my logic
>> Google mail indicates its your post, not mine:
>
> If I am illustrating your logic, it would naturally be my post.

But not my position. :)

>
>> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > , why don't you show what errors I've
>> > made in illustrating your logic.
>> Sorry, I'm defending my positions, not yours. :)
>
> It is not my position that the two are equally likely. It is a
> synthetic position that I arrived at

I invite you to consider the limitations of such a synthesis and the
inadequate possessiveness of so many of your accusations. I respond
that I defend my positions, not yours. :)

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 11:54 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

... but you don't defend your logic. I'm giving you an opportunity to
defend the logic by which you arrive at your positions.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Kippers]

On 21 July, 15:11, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<snip stuff already replied to>

I am continuing under the assumtion that you accept my premise as you
have already indicated.

> > But the issue is that they do criticise religions so long as they are
> > not popular mainstream ones.
>
> Because, as I said, atheist organizations focus on the mainstream
> ones, and pay less attention to the fringe ones.  Again, they'd all be
> criticizing the same things.
>
> > If anything the popularity of a belief
> > should make it a more important candidate for skeptical analysis, not
> > the other way round.  Unless of course you engaging in a PR exercise.
>
> But not if atheist organizations are already doing it.  Then you're
> all doing the same thing, which is a waste of time.
>

But this makes no sense.

There are indeed special atheist organisations which focus on religion
but there are also organisations which only focus on, for example
dubious medical claims or UFO claims, or scientific claims etc… yet
the show also investigates these areas.

So that cant be the reason.

>
>
> > > > I also agree with PZ --as my OP makes clear-- that you can’t simply
> > > > claim someone is not a skeptic because they believe in a religion or
> > > > souls, it depends upon how they reached that belief and if it is open
> > > > to reasoned argument and possible change.
>
> > > Is all that is required to be a skeptic that your beliefs could be
> > > changed?  If so, then I'm a skeptic ... but I deny that I'm a skeptic.
>
> > No that’s not what I said, re-read the paragraph you are responding to
> > paying close attention to the part which says it depends upon how
> > beliefs are reached rather than what those beliefs are.
>
> Examples of how to do it?  And does it being open to change matter?
>

Yes being open to change does matter but you said "is that all thats
required?" ignoring the other point that its how beliefs are reached
which should include looking at counter claims, being aware of ones
own inbuild bias's, employing critical thinking etc..

> > > > > Now, the question I'd have for you is this: bearing in mind the claim
> > > > > in the above blog post that no one is a complete skeptic, do you think
> > > > > that anyone COULD be a complete skeptic and be able to function in the
> > > > > world?  Why should we be skeptical, or think that the skeptical
> > > > > philosophy has any merit as a general philosophy?
>
> > > > Well first I want to make it very clear that I consider myself, as
> > > > with all other humans, to be an instinctively irrational being.  I use
> > > > a skeptical outlook at a tool to help me sort between valid and
> > > > invalid claims about the world, so not by a long shot am I a “complete
> > > > skeptic” but I do strive to apply skepticism equally to all types of
> > > > claims about the world, all other things being equal.
>
> > > What are some of the things that wouldn't make things equal so that
> > > you wouldn't apply skepticism to a claim about the world, or at least
> > > not equally?
>
> > A couple of examples for you:
>
> > 1) Beliefs about the world which have never been questioned or have
> > not even occurred to you as being controversial.  An example for
> > myself might be the belief that capitalism is the only valid economic
> > system, something I implicitly believed in my youth due to lack of
> > knowledge of other systems and lack of exposure to critiques of
> > capitalism.
>
> Why don't most religious beliefs fall into that category?

They certainly will fall into this category, especially when one is
young.
Thus an individual can consider themselves a skeptic and a christian
if they have encoutered nothing to make them explicitly consider thier
beliefs.

But at some point that individual is likely to encounter critisisms of
thier beleifs and contrasting religious beliefs at which point they
should skeptically evaluate thier previously held religious beliefs.
If they claim to be a skeptic.

Skeptical podcasts should also raise questions relating to individuals
religious beliefs. Not all of them do.

> After all,
> you couldn't have been unaware of communism, even young, and yet you
> didn't consider it important enough to sway you from your skepticism,
> so why would that not be okay for religions as well?

You completely misunderstand me. Its fine for any belief to be
implicitly held, even religious ones which young people or people
living in certain societies might have no need to ever question. Only
when one becomes aware of criticisms or of contrasting views does it
become incumbent on them to sceptically enquire and even then only if
they are to label themselves a skeptic.

I am not making a special case for religion, I am stating the exact
opposite. Religions should be sceptically analysed in the same way as
all other truth claims about the world are.

>
> At any rate, why is this actually ACCEPTABLE?  Shouldn't a real
> skeptic refuse to take anything at face value?  Shouldn't they even
> examine their beliefs to see if THEY can find an objection or problem
> with it?
>

Not by my definition no. But I dont claim a skeptic should do
something physically impossible. Merely that if they are a skeptic
they should not refuse to apply thier skeptisism to an entire domain
of claims such a s political, religious or medical etc..

That is all I strive to do and why I consider myself a skeptic.

>
>
> > 2) Beliefs about yourself.  We naturally have a whole suite of
> > implicit beliefs about ourselves.  These need not be skeptically
> > examined unless perhaps they are questioned by others around you.
>
> Why not?  If you know that you can be wrong about them, why should
> they be immune from critical and skeptical examination?
>

Because you simply cant consciously be aware of and question
everything in the world. All you can do is be prepared to apply to
scepticism to all domains if and when they are brought to your
attention and if you consider them worthy of the time.

You are raising some terrible objections here; a skeptic is not a
super being with powers beyond any mere mortal. Its just a person who
applies a methodology to truth claims about the world as and when they
encounter them. And if they are intellectually honest that should
include religious claims.

>
>
> > > > If I were to take a position that I wouldn’t apply my skepticism to a
> > > > large body of claims, i.e religious or political or scientific or
> > > > medical or paranormal etc... Then I would consider that to be an
> > > > inconsistency, one which I can not think of a justification for yet it
> > > > is one which TSGTTU seems to engage in which is why I would be
> > > > interested in hearing their explanation.
>
> > > The issue here though is that they probably don't see it as them
> > > taking that position,
>
> > Yes they do, they acknowledge this is their stance.
>
> Cite?
>

They dont spell this out on thier site, I have heard brief mention on
it on thier shows and as you have seen yourself (even providing a
link) there is a debate about why shows like this dont critisise
claims of mainstream religion.

> Anyway, I was referring more to the people who ARE religious.  I
> highly doubt that TSGTTU members refuse to be skeptical about
> religion, and all you have provided so far is a claim that they don't
> talk about it on their podcast, which doesn't support the contention
> you are assigning to them here.

> #

So you think I am making this up?
This is where you confuse me after initially acknowledging there is a
genuine debate on this very issue and providing a link to one example.

> As for people who are religious and who are still religious, again, I
> doubt they see it the way you do.
>

I am sure they dont. If they did they wouldnt be religious.

>
>
> > > and they could very well say that some of the
> > > things that you are not skeptical about are the same sort of things.
>
> > What kind of things are you suggesting I am not skeptical about?
>
> I don't know, but even you admit that you are not skeptical about
> everything, so ...
>

Again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of my point which is not
that every individual claim about the world has to undergo the exact
same amount of skeptical scrutiny. Its about whole domains such as
religion being excluded. I assume you undertand this point by now.

>
>
> > > So, it would be a case of a person living in a glass house throwing
> > > stones.
>
> > Perhaps if you could demonstrate that I am not applying my skeptisism
> > to areas in which I should I would accept this critisism but I am
> > unaware that I engage in such cherry picking.  Perhaps you can
> > enlighten me?
>
> If you're going to hold skepticism as ANY kind of a philosophy, it has
> to apply to every proposition.  If it doesn't -- and you admit that it
> doesn't for you -- then there's no reason to accept that you're doing
> it in an acceptable manner and they aren't just because you don't like
> what they aren't skpetical about.
>

<infinite patience invoked>

1) It is ok to hold implicit or default assumtions or beliefs about
the world. Its more than ok its necessary to function.

2) If those beliefs are important and if they are questioned then it
is incumbant upon the skeptic to analyse them in a critical manner and
follow the evidence where it leads.

>
>
> > > However, this doesn't answer the question, which was: do you think
> > > that you could, in fact, be skeptical about absolutely everything?
>
> > No.
>
> > As already explained there are implicit default beliefs about
> > ourselves and the world which we must hold and it is impossible to
> > skeptically examine or even know what all of these are.
>
> So, on what grounds do you determine which of these you must hold and
> so you don't have to skeptically examine them?

See points 1) and 2) above.

>  It's not a good
> argument to say "I don't know about these beliefs" because all that
> means is "I don't know that I believe that", and so the immediate
> reply is "But if you knew that you believed that, wouldn't you agree

> that you-


You have lost me with this closing paragraph, I have read it a couple
of times and I dont know what you mean.

[Kippers]

On 21 July, 16:45, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<snip nit picking accusations>

> > Yes you did, which I find strange given your request for citations
> > below.
>
> Um, wait.  I asked you for citations that it was a PR EXERCISE, and
> that they STATED that.  I gave you two other explanations for why it
> might legitimately not be a PR exercise.  How does that lead to any
> strangeness?

Ok if you were asking for a citation that their motivation was for PR
purposes I don’t know that is the case, I was merely speculating about
that. What is the case is they don’t address claims of mainstream
religions which is what I thought you were asking for a citation for.

I misunderstood what you were asking for which is why I got annoyed,
so sorry for cutting my response short on that basis.

I have now responded to the rest of your post.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > It is not my position that the two are equally likely. It is a
>> > synthetic position that I arrived at
>>
>> I invite you to consider the limitations of such a synthesis and the
>> inadequate possessiveness of so many of your accusations.  I respond
>> that I defend my positions, not yours. :)
>
> ... but you don't defend your logic.

I don't confuse your synthesis with my positions. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Deidzoeb]

On Jul 20, 8:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then you're ready to buy that oceanfront bungalow in Mongolia from me
at the low introductory price of $100 US? Or are you only "skeptical"
about things you disbelieve and unwilling to apply skepticism towards
things you do believe (you want to believe)?

I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
plausible or not. Most skeptics don't have access to objective truths
gifted to us by God's Holy Spirit. That darn total depravity keeps
getting in our way.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 12:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > It is not my position that the two are equally likely. It is a
> >> > synthetic position that I arrived at

> >> I invite you to consider the limitations of such a synthesis and the
> >> inadequate possessiveness of so many of your accusations.  I respond
> >> that I defend my positions, not yours. :)

> > ... but you don't defend your logic.

> I don't confuse your synthesis with my positions. :)

Well, you haven't stated what your standard is; you have only stated
what it is not. In the following exchange, you claimed that someone
else's standard is an untenable, subjective and inadequate standard.

>> proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
>> available.
> An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> epistemologically.

So, I applied an opposite standard* - a standard that belief must not
depend on the amount of evidence available. This would seem to be a
tenable, objective and adequate standard according to you. If this is
not correct, what standard would be tenable, objective and adequate
according to you?
* The application of this opposite standard was what I illustrated as
a result of applying your standard.

If I apply Kipper's standard, the conclusion would be that the
assertion "Alexander went to India" is more likely to be true than the
assertion "Vespasian healed the blind with his spit". Do you agree
with this conclusion rather than the conclusion I arrived at by
applying what I thought was your standard? Beware that if you agree
with this conclusion, then you might be admitting that Kipper's
standard is tenable or that you were bullshitting when you called his
standard untenable.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Deidzoeb <deid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > No skeptic I.
>>
>> >> If a skeptical person is called a "skeptic", perhaps we should use the
>> >> word "gullib" to descibe a person such as yourself who is completely
>> >> lacking in skepticism.
>>
>> Completely lacking in skepticism?  What a nice thing to say. *sigh* :)
>
> Then you're ready to buy that oceanfront bungalow in Mongolia from me
> at the low introductory price of $100 US?

I'd like to, but I just bought the Brooklyn Bridge last week. :)

> Or are you only "skeptical"
> about things you disbelieve and unwilling to apply skepticism towards
> things you do believe (you want to believe)?

I am not a skeptic in the particular sense illustrated here:

"In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of
several propositions. These include propositions about:

* (a) an inquiry,
* (b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and
continual testing,
* (c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
* (d) the limitations of knowledge,
* (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic#Definition

I hope its clear that I don't articulate this philosophic view
(particularly consider points b), c) and e) ) , and that I offer
arguments against its objective tenability.

> I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
> their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
> plausible or not.

What I hope would be clear is that such a skeptic position cannot
offer an objective basis to reject ANY competing beliefs! What a
terrible epistemology!

> Most skeptics don't have access to objective truths
> gifted to us by God's Holy Spirit. That darn total depravity keeps
> getting in our way.

The law of God is wonderful for pointing out the objective inadequacy
of sinful humankind. As the Confession points out:

"Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works,
to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them,
as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of
the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk
accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature,
hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come
to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin;
together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the
perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate,
to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the
threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and
what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed
from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in
like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what
blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not
as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing
good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the
one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under
the law, and not under grace."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap19

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > It is not my position that the two are equally likely. It is a
>> >> > synthetic position that I arrived at
>
>> >> I invite you to consider the limitations of such a synthesis and the
>> >> inadequate possessiveness of so many of your accusations.  I respond
>> >> that I defend my positions, not yours. :)
>
>> > ... but you don't defend your logic.
>
>> I don't confuse your synthesis with my positions. :)
>
> Well, you haven't stated what your standard is

Or rather, I've noted some inadaquate characterizations. For example,
I don't agree with the posessiveness you presumed by "your standard".

> So, I applied an opposite standard*

So you admit that you are not representing my positions so much as
your own characterization, and then asking me to address your
characterization. Someone's got boundary issues. :)

> - a standard that belief must not
> depend on the amount of evidence available. This would seem to be a
> tenable, objective and adequate standard according to you.

Citation?

> If I apply Kipper's standard, the conclusion would be that the
> assertion "Alexander went to India" is more likely to be true than the
> assertion "Vespasian healed the blind with his spit". Do you agree
> with this conclusion rather than the conclusion I arrived at by
> applying what I thought was your standard? Beware that if you agree
> with this conclusion, then you might be admitting that Kipper's
> standard is tenable or that you were bullshitting when you called his
> standard untenable.

Well, Kippers said:

> I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous

> dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> available.

And I responded by noting:

"An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
epistemologically."

and then later Deidzoeb said:

> I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
> their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
> plausible or not.

and I responded by noting:

"What I hope would be clear is that such a skeptic position cannot
offer an objective basis to reject ANY competing beliefs! What a
terrible epistemology! "

Just imagine the conversations that could occur if you didn't put
words into OP's mouths and assert it as their positions! :)

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 2:42 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, Kippers said:
>
> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> > available.
>
> And I responded by noting:
>
> "An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> epistemologically."
>
> and then later Deidzoeb said:
>
> > I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
> > their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
> > plausible or not.
>
> and I responded by noting:
>
> "What I hope would be clear is that such a skeptic position cannot
> offer an objective basis to reject ANY competing beliefs!  What a
> terrible epistemology! "

Consider the claim that General Vespasian used his spit to heal a man
of blindness. Is your problem with Kipper's method of skeptical
inquiry that it cannot offer an objective basis for rejecting the
claim that Vespasian healed a blind man with his spit? What is wrong
with a subjective basis for classifying this claim as unlikely? Do you
accept the claim that Vespasian healed a blind man with his spit? If
not, do you have a method of inquiry that offers you an objective
basis for rejecting this claim? Why do you feel a need for the basis
for evaluating the claim to be an objective basis rather than a
subjective basis?

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2:42 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, Kippers said:
>>
>> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
>> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
>> > available.
>>
>> And I responded by noting:
>>
>> "An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
>> epistemologically."
>>
>> and then later Deidzoeb said:
>>
>> > I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
>> > their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
>> > plausible or not.
>>
>> and I responded by noting:
>>
>> "What I hope would be clear is that such a skeptic position cannot
>> offer an objective basis to reject ANY competing beliefs!  What a
>> terrible epistemology! "
>
> Consider the claim that General Vespasian used his spit to heal a man
> of blindness.

Why?

> Why do you feel a need for the basis
> for evaluating the claim to be an objective basis rather than a
> subjective basis?

I don't consider human "feel a need" to be adequate, in particular, I
note the contrasting position:

The objective nature of reality is independent of my beliefs.

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 5:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com

>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2:42 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, Kippers said:
>
> >> > I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> >> > dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence
> >> > available.
>
> >> And I responded by noting:
>
> >> "An untenable subjective standard, to be sure, and inadequate
> >> epistemologically."
>
> >> and then later Deidzoeb said:
>
> >> > I shouldn't bother arguing the point with you. Skeptics are stuck with
> >> > their subjective standards of trying to judge whether claims are
> >> > plausible or not.
>
> >> and I responded by noting:
>
> >> "What I hope would be clear is that such a skeptic position cannot
> >> offer an objective basis to reject ANY competing beliefs!  What a
> >> terrible epistemology! "
>
> > Consider the claim that General Vespasian used his spit to heal a man
> > of blindness.
>
> Why?

To see what your objective basis is for either accepting or rejecting
the belief that Vespasian performed miracles.

>
> > Why do you feel a need for the basis
> > for evaluating the claim to be an objective basis rather than a
> > subjective basis?
>
> I don't consider human "feel a need" to be adequate,  in particular, I
> note the contrasting position:
>
> The objective nature of reality is independent of my beliefs.

What was the objective nature of Vespasian? Was he human? Divine? Both
human and divine?

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 20, 8:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you believe in Vespasian's miracles? If not, then it isn't the
correct thing to say.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

I consider the question academic.  If you have an objection to my position, I look forward to defending it.

Regards,

Brock

On Jul 21, 2010 6:35 PM, "ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Jul 21, 5:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com

>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2:42 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>...

To see what your objective basis is for either accepting or rejecting
the belief that Vespasian performed miracles.

>
> > Why do you feel a need for the basis

> > for evaluating the claim to be an objective basis rat...

What was the objective nature of Vespasian? Was he human? Divine? Both
human and divine?

> Regards,
>
> Brock

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christian...

[Kippers]

On 13 July, 12:24, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I use the term skeptic to describe someone who –to use Hume’s famous
> dictum- proportions their belief in relation to the evidence

> available.  Skeptisism is a methodology rather than a set of beliefs
> so therefore it is possible for a skeptic to believe homeopathy is
> effective beyond the placebo effect, that Elvis still walks the earth
> and that Jesus was the creator of the universe who sent himself down
> to earth to be sacrificed to atone for mankind’s sins.
>
> However; to hold beliefs such as these whilst being a skeptic one must
> be severely lacking in evidence relating to these propositions.
>
> The more thoughtful Christians will claim there is evidence for some
> form of divine entity engaging in the argument from design and the
> ontological arguments whilst expressing their reasoned disbelief that
> something could come from nothing and that everything is just the
> consequence of random events.
>
> These seem dubious arguments to many but in the eyes of some lend
> support to a deistic god of some sort.  However to be a Christian you
> must then make a leap of faith from these arguments to then believe
> the central tenet of Christianity; that Jesus was god and that he came
> to earth to be tortured to death to atone for our sins.
>
> There is no verifiable evidence for this position, it is a matter of
> faith and not one I would be critical of someone for holding.  I would
> merely note that to do so means that one must suspend their skeptisim
> in order to reach such a conclusion.
>
> Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims about
> the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
> animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of veil
> is not realty an animal welfare proponent.
>
> It seems quite clear that the reasons major religions (certainly not
> the fringe ones such as scientology) are largely ignored by the
> sceptical movement is a tactical play to avoid alienating the majority
> of the world’s population.
>
> Perhaps this is a tactic which will bear fruit but it is also
> disingenuous to refuse to apply skepisism to dubious unsupported
> claims about the world just because they are so popular.  In my
> opinion the very fact that they are so popular is what makes them
> potentially the most dangerous forms of belief and therefore should be
> addressed by the skeptical community in the same manner as all other
> claims.

Great cartoon on PZ’s site which highlights the point of my OP.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_special_case_rule.php


It likens the “yea I am a skeptic but I believe in God”
To
“Yea I am a vegan but I eat bacon”

Which is exactly the point I made in the OP when I said:

“Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims about
the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of veil
is not realty an animal welfare proponent.“

Just sayin.

[Kippers]

On 26 July, 15:50, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Great cartoon on PZ’s site which highlights the point of my OP.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_special_case_rule.php
>
> It likens the “yea I am a skeptic but I believe in God”
> To
> “Yea I am a vegan but I eat bacon”
>
> Which is exactly the point I made in the OP when I said:
>
> “Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims about
> the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
> animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of veil
> is not realty an animal welfare proponent.“
>

Sorry, if I was going to quote myself I should have at least have
corrected my spelling mistake:

“Someone who does not apply their skeptisism to all truth claims

about
the world is not really a skeptic just as someone who suspends their
animal welfare beliefs every time they sit down to eat a plate of
veil

is not *really an animal welfare proponent.“

[Kippers]

On 21 July, 16:34, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > I agree with PZ, no one can apply skeptisism equally to every
> > individual claim they hear, nor should they do so.
>
> > I dont think anyone thinks this and I am not sure why you are bringing
> > it up?
>
> I'm bringing it up because if you want to defend the skeptical
> worldview against challengers, you're going to have to be able to show
> either that it can be applied generally or that it has a good and
> reasonable set of methods for determining when you don't have to be
> skeptical.
>
> At any rate, I don't know if you read this the first time you were at
> my blog, but I REJECT skepticism -- at least as something that we
> should universally hold -- and here is the basic reasoning why, and
> definitions of skeptical and non-skeptical:
>
> http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/an-answer-to-larry-moran/
>

I dont have time to read that right now.

>
>
> > > So, are you skeptical about every single proposition you hold?
>
> > No.  As well as being impossible its also a terrible idea.  We need to
> > use heuristics to cut corners due to our limited brains.  A trusted
> > source making an unsurprising claim recieves less skeptisim from
> > myself than a non-trusted source making a spectacular claim.
>
> The problem I can see, though, is that you're going to use those same
> heuristics to decide what's a trusted source and what isn't, and get
> into a GIGO situation; your skepticism will be applied to what you
> don't belief and suspended for that which you do or want to believe,

But, as is your usual tactic; you seem to be trying to paint
skeptisism to be an impossible position to take (which it is if
practiced to complete perfection without any bias at all) and then
dismiss it on that basis.

That is frankly absurd. We are flawed humans trying to understand the
world and a skeptical outlook can be useful and if you practice it you
should not cordon off a whole potential domain of knowledge and say “I
refuse to apply my skeptisim there” while still claiming you are a
skeptic.

To do so is either intellectually dishonest or perhaps there is a
valid reason for doing so in certain areas of inquiry. But if there is
one I cant think of it and I am confident that religion is not one of
them.

> just like what you accuse religious people of doing.

I am not accusing religious people of any such thing, I thought that
was clear. My accusations are towards

1)Skeptical institutions which critique claims about the world such as
UFO’s, Ghosts, alternative medicine etc.. but wont critique equally
dubious claims made by the words major religions.

2)People who claim to be BOTH sceptics and Christians or Muslims or
any other faith based religion.

>
> So, let's test your skepticism: imagine that someone that you know to
> rarely, if ever, lie and who is not prone to exaggerations or any sort
> of perceptual errors tells you that they had a clear experience that
> indicates a ghost as the most reasonable explanation.  Do you accept
> it, or are you skeptical of that claim?

I refuse to apply my Skeptisism to claims made by people I know.


Now are you starting to understand? It is the pick and choose approach
to skeptsism I display in the above scentence that I object to. That
is not the same as holding myself or anyone else up as an example of
the perfect skeptic.

Even if I found your above question difficult to answer it would not
change this fundemental objection which you are failing to grasp.

Now to answer the question; I actually work with someone who has made
this very claim and who fits the description you gave. I think he has
misinterpreted what he saw or thought he saw as eyewitness testimony
is not very reliable and it trumped by many objective tests made to
prove the existence of ghosts.

>
>
>
> > I dont know why you keep asking this though as my point is about
> > applying skeptisim to all domains which make claims about the world
> > not that every individual claim must undergo an equal amount of
> > skeptical scrutiny.
>
> If you apply skepticism to a domain, you apply it to the propositions
> and claims in that domain, no?  It's ridiculous to suggest that you
> could do otherwise; applying skepticism to a domain JUST IS applying

> it to the propositions in that domain.-

That’s right captain obvious; but to insinuate that skeptisism is
untenable because it is not physically possible or even logically
advisable to apply skeptisism equally to every single belief or
assumption about the world is just silly.

No one is capable of such a feat but we are all capable of being
prepared to skeptically examine domains of knowledge about the world
if they are important or relevant to our lives and if questions about
them are brought to our attention. Religion fits the bill perfectly
and I see no excuse for a skeptic to refuse to apply their skeptisim
to religious claims.

The closest you have come to putting forward a reason for this is the
division of labour argument which clearly doesn’t stand up to scrutiny
as explained in a previous post.