Is skepticism the rational default position?

[Haven]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

[Goat]

I have not yet seen the evidence in favor of naturalism. Please show how naturalistic propositions are demonstrable.

Our physical universe, which is the only realm we can examine and therefore the only realm was can quantify, is made up of extremely small energetic quantum bits which we refer to collectively as radiation, and are an intrinsic part of what we call energy. Some of these energetic bits, up and down quarks, have positive(+)charges (up quarks) and some have negative(-)charges (down quarks). Up quarks and down quarks are powerfully attracted to each other and clump together to form protons (+-+), with a net positive charge, or neutrons (-+-), with a net neutral charge. These two particles, along with the negatively charged electron form atoms, the basis of matter. Oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other, while particles with like charges are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the little engine that drives the universe and is responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS, and it occurs naturally. All a part of this natural system which is energy at work reshaping and realizing every aspect of it's almost limitless potential. Since energy can neither be created or destroyed it is the fundamental cause of naturalism which cannot be further reduced in cause. Or so we observe

I would like to see a picture of an up quark. When I did a search on Google images, all I got was sketches, looked like they were done by third graders. Or a video of one quark with a positive charge and one with negative, filmed in a way that I can tell the difference. I don't want just some preacher with a masters degree telling me that's what it is, I want to see it with my own eyes.

This is a straw man.

Subatomic particles are to small to be seen or photographed - thus we must use other methods of interacting with them. Do you have a problem with this?

Yes, I have a problem with that. People are saying they don't believe in religion because they have no proof, but they will faithfully accept science with no proof, just theories they think sound logical.

You are using the wrong verb. Not proof, but EVIDENCE. When ti comes to religion, there is zero empirical evidence. When it comes to science, well, we do have empirical evidence, and we have practical applications. If you don't think so, well, it is through the practical application of QM that allows the CPU of the computer you are on to be designed and manufactured. Just because someone does not have the knowledge to know what the evidence is doesn't mean the evidence does not exist. The models, the theories, the raw data and the techniques for replication of the experiments is out there. .. and anybody who wants to can replicate the results. The acceptance of those models didn't come through 'OH yes, that sounds like a fun idea', but rather the current models that are accepted became accepted through a peer reviewed process.


Peer review is not just publishing an article in a journal. It also includes the adversarial position of other people examining the results, and attempting to rip it to shreds. It is well acknowledged that 'the map is not the territory', and those models are just the ones that give accurate results, and give the most accurate predictions.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I have not yet seen the evidence in favor of naturalism. Please show how naturalistic propositions are demonstrable.

Our physical universe, which is the only realm we can examine and therefore the only realm was can quantify, is made up of extremely small energetic quantum bits which we refer to collectively as radiation, and are an intrinsic part of what we call energy. Some of these energetic bits, up and down quarks, have positive(+)charges (up quarks) and some have negative(-)charges (down quarks). Up quarks and down quarks are powerfully attracted to each other and clump together to form protons (+-+), with a net positive charge, or neutrons (-+-), with a net neutral charge. These two particles, along with the negatively charged electron form atoms, the basis of matter. Oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other, while particles with like charges are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the little engine that drives the universe and is responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS, and it occurs naturally. All a part of this natural system which is energy at work reshaping and realizing every aspect of it's almost limitless potential. Since energy can neither be created or destroyed it is the fundamental cause of naturalism which cannot be further reduced in cause. Or so we observe

I would like to see a picture of an up quark. When I did a search on Google images, all I got was sketches, looked like they were done by third graders. Or a video of one quark with a positive charge and one with negative, filmed in a way that I can tell the difference. I don't want just some preacher with a masters degree telling me that's what it is, I want to see it with my own eyes.

This is a straw man.

Subatomic particles are to small to be seen or photographed - thus we must use other methods of interacting with them. Do you have a problem with this?

Yes, I have a problem with that. People are saying they don't believe in religion because they have no proof, but they will faithfully accept science with no proof, just theories they think sound logical.

You are using the wrong verb. Not proof, but EVIDENCE. When ti comes to religion, there is zero empirical evidence. When it comes to science, well, we do have empirical evidence, and we have practical applications. If you don't think so, well, it is through the practical application of QM that allows the CPU of the computer you are on to be designed and manufactured. Just because someone does not have the knowledge to know what the evidence is doesn't mean the evidence does not exist. The models, the theories, the raw data and the techniques for replication of the experiments is out there. .. and anybody who wants to can replicate the results. The acceptance of those models didn't come through 'OH yes, that sounds like a fun idea', but rather the current models that are accepted became accepted through a peer reviewed process.


Peer review is not just publishing an article in a journal. It also includes the adversarial position of other people examining the results, and attempting to rip it to shreds. It is well acknowledged that 'the map is not the territory', and those models are just the ones that give accurate results, and give the most accurate predictions.

It is worth mentioning that Quantum Mechanics was basically forced on an initially unbelieving classical scientific community (including Einstein) by the sheer weight of evidence. QM was invented to explain otherwise unexplainable results. There is still no universal agreement on what it means. But it works incredibly well nonetheless.

http://mthurston.hubpages.com/hub/Quant ... troduction

[Clownboat]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

Make that claim to your 4 year old child and then see what happens.

Indoctrination is required to believe claims like this. Not always of course, but if you were to wait until a person was say 20 to introduce them to a religion, the conversion rate I believe would be drastically reduced.

Either way, people fear what they don't understand. Why we are here and what happens to us when we die is for many people the most feared unknowns.

I believe religion should held to the same standards as your alien scenario, however many will not require justification for accepting a belief that answers their most feared questions. For some, faith is enough in order to have these questions answered.

[pax]

Matthew, Paul, Peter (who dictated Mark), John,

Those are the traditional authors of the four gospels, however, today's scholarly consensus is that the authors of the four gospels were unknown individuals. Therefore, one can't argue that the gospels contain eyewitness information.

500 of the first Christians,

Pure hearsay.

You are welcome to your modern(ist) scholarly consensus. I will stick with the 2000 year unbroken tradition of the Church.

On what basis do you base your charge of hearsay? These were men and women to whom the risen Christ did in fact appear.

And that, my friend, should be enough to overcome any healthy skepticism (which does not include obstinacy).

[Janx]

Matthew, Paul, Peter (who dictated Mark), John,

Those are the traditional authors of the four gospels, however, today's scholarly consensus is that the authors of the four gospels were unknown individuals. Therefore, one can't argue that the gospels contain eyewitness information.

500 of the first Christians,

Pure hearsay.

You are welcome to your modern(ist) scholarly consensus. I will stick with the 2000 year unbroken tradition of the Church.

On what basis do you base your charge of hearsay? These were men and women to whom the risen Christ did in fact appear.

And that, my friend, should be enough to overcome any healthy skepticism (which does not include obstinacy).

I'll save Goat the trouble here:

Do you know the definition of Hearsay is? That is when someone says someone else says blah blah blah. That's hearsay.

Paul says there are 500 witnesses. We do not hear any testimony from any of those 500 witnesses, nor do we have any direct knowledge of what they thought they saw or anything like that. We just hear the claim by Paul there were 500 witnesses. That is the very definition of what hearsay is.

Now, if you can provide a list of those names from a primary source, or even better yet, find a letter or a document describing that event that was from one of those people directly.. that would be something.

[Haven]

You are welcome to your modern(ist) scholarly consensus. I will stick with the 2000 year unbroken tradition of the Church.

The Church had/has a vested interest in lying to protect its power; scholars have more advanced research methods and no reason to lie. That is why I believe Biblical scholars (many of whom are Catholic, by the way) over "church fathers" who lived thousands of years ago.

On what basis do you base your charge of hearsay?

I base the "charge" on the fact that Paul said he knew some people who knew some people who saw Jesus risen from the dead. Paul didn't see Jesus himself (except in a vision on the road to Damascus), he simply reported that over 500 people saw Jesus. That is the very definition of hearsay.

These were men and women to whom the risen Christ did in fact appear.

Without evidence, I'm skeptical of this claim.

And that, my friend, should be enough to overcome any healthy skepticism (which does not include obstinacy).

I'm not trying to be obstinate, I'm just saying the resurrection is a hard claim to believe. I just got off the phone with a (Christian) friend, and he was presenting evidence for the resurrection. While I do feel it is possible for one to advance a reasonable case for the resurrection, the fact that it is a supernatural event -- and therefore an extraordinary claim -- means that it requires a higher standard of evidence. Hearsay from Paul and the church fathers doesn't meet that higher standard of evidence.

[Haven]

Make that claim to your 4 year old child and then see what happens.

Indoctrination is required to believe claims like this. Not always of course, but if you were to wait until a person was say 20 to introduce them to a religion, the conversion rate I believe would be drastically reduced.

Good points. Even the most reasonable, rational Christians I know were raised in evangelical fundamentalist environments. I still think upbringing -- indoctrination -- is the largest factor in religious belief. Even if one can find some evidence to back up their beliefs, I still suspect that upbringing plays a larger role than one is willing to admit.

If society waited until individuals reached the age of 20 to introduce religious ideas, I suspect very, very few people would be religious.

[Mithrae]

Make that claim to your 4 year old child and then see what happens.

Indoctrination is required to believe claims like this. Not always of course, but if you were to wait until a person was say 20 to introduce them to a religion, the conversion rate I believe would be drastically reduced.

Good points. Even the most reasonable, rational Christians I know were raised in evangelical fundamentalist environments. I still think upbringing -- indoctrination -- is the largest factor in religious belief. Even if one can find some evidence to back up their beliefs, I still suspect that upbringing plays a larger role than one is willing to admit.

If society waited until individuals reached the age of 20 to introduce religious ideas, I suspect very, very few people would be religious.

What would these individuals believe about the nature of the world until then, I wonder?

[Haven]

What would these individuals believe about the nature of the world until then, I wonder?

They would probably lack belief in gods.

[Mithrae]

What would these individuals believe about the nature of the world until then, I wonder?

They would probably lack belief in gods.

Possibly, although that raises the question of how belief in gods originally began, if there was no-one to teach it. We might validly suppose that attempts to explain things like the cycles of night/day/seasons, birth, death and other natural phenomena were a starting point for belief in spirits and gods, which science has now largely explained in terms of other phenomena not perceived on a day-to-day basis and thus, like spirits and gods, not such a mystery for average Joe. But on the other hand, I'm sure we're all familiar with children's tendency of asking their endless series of "why?" questions, which no doubt often ends in an exasperated "it just does" or simply "I don't know." We couldn't exactly hope to hide all information about earlier human conceptions of the world from growing minds, so whether from the ancient Greeks or Egyptians or even the pantheons of your average fantasy world, they're bound to come across the idea of explaining the unknown in terms of the untestable - and as Clownboat said, most people want answers.

But more broadly it seems to me that a person can either suppose that common experience - of solids, liquids, gases and energy interacting essentially in consistent ways within time and space - does serve as a functional understanding of our world, or that it does not. Or, of course, some folk of a more philosophical frame of mind might suggest that there is no valid understanding of the world and try to function from that perspective. But I imagine that (even with the proviso that science doesn't yet have all the answers) most people are inclined to have a worldview which considers common experience as either a sufficient or insufficient means to uncover and evaluate any important aspects of reality.

Most religions of course - particularly what I understand of Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism - involve aspects of personal experience and development/transformation. It's traditionally part of the very core of these worldviews that in general people's views and priorities do not correspond to the ultimate nature or purpose of reality, truths which can be fully learned and appreciated only by stepping outside the herd mentality and seeking personal enlightenment. (In fairness, I'm not sure I've yet come across any single traditional Hindu perspective - I know even less about the scope and depth of Indian philosophy than Greek.) But I wonder whether our hypothetical children raised in a wholly non-religious environment would instead be inclined through habit and teaching to look only at wider human experience as a valid source of 'objective' truths? And indeed, to consider only the testable aspects of wider human experience?