Open-minded skeptic vs. A-priori skeptic

[AgnosticBoy]

On another thread, a Christian assumed that I was against Christianity being true because I was skeptical. I feel the need here to clarify my brand of skepticism vs. the common type that many Christians tend to experience.

First off, it's no secret that I'm an agnostic. But I also consider myself an open-minded skeptic because I'm open to anything being true, provided that logic and evidence is offered for it. To me, it doesn't matter if the claim goes against current scientific understanding and evidence, I am still open to it being true provided that the claim is supported with logic and evidence.

In contrast to my skepticism, you have what I call the a-priori skeptics. These skeptics tend to have a pre-conceived view of how the world works, and they will dismiss claims a-priori when it conflicts with their worldview. I believe that this is the type of skepticism that the Christians tend to deal with and have a negative impression of. Perhaps I was being lumped in with this group but hopefully this thread will clarify things.

Some might say my brand of skepticism is too open-minded, but I can also say that it does no harm in terms of ensuring validity in that I won't ever accept claims without logic and evidence. If anything, I would say that the a-priori skepticism is bad because you assume something from the start (e.g. all the world is physical, no possibility of a God, etc). Having this in mind would only lead the skeptic to look for how Christianity is false and not how or if it is true.

Debate questions:
1. What are the advantages or disadvantages of either type of skepticism?

2. Which type of skepticism is more Christian-friendly, and does being Christian-friendly take away from the ability of that skepticism to weed out falsehoods and/or find truths?

[Difflugia]

To me, it doesn't matter if the claim goes against current scientific understanding and evidence, I am still open to it being true provided that the claim is supported with logic and evidence.

I think the distinction between the two "types" of skepticism hinges on what you mean by this. What "logic and evidence" would be sufficient to convince you, but wouldn't also be enough to overturn current scientific understanding?

People don't come back from the dead and stories about Jesus are insufficient to overturn scientific thinking on that front. Assuming that you don't now think that Jesus was dead and then subsequently wasn't, what would convince you? Would it be enough to convince a biologist? Should it be?

[nobspeople]

On another thread, a Christian assumed that I was against Christianity being true because I was skeptical. I feel the need here to clarify my brand of skepticism vs. the common type that many Christians tend to experience.

First off, it's no secret that I'm an agnostic. But I also consider myself an open-minded skeptic because I'm open to anything being true, provided that logic and evidence is offered for it. To me, it doesn't matter if the claim goes against current scientific understanding and evidence, I am still open to it being true provided that the claim is supported with logic and evidence.

In contrast to my skepticism, you have what I call the a-priori skeptics. These skeptics tend to have a pre-conceived view of how the world works, and they will dismiss claims a-priori when it conflicts with their worldview. I believe that this is the type of skepticism that the Christians tend to deal with and have a negative impression of. Perhaps I was being lumped in with this group but hopefully this thread will clarify things.

Some might say my brand of skepticism is too open-minded, but I can also say that it does no harm in terms of ensuring validity in that I won't ever accept claims without logic and evidence. If anything, I would say that the a-priori skepticism is bad because you assume something from the start (e.g. all the world is physical, no possibility of a God, etc). Having this in mind would only lead the skeptic to look for how Christianity is false and not how or if it is true.

Debate questions:
1. What are the advantages or disadvantages of either type of skepticism?

2. Which type of skepticism is more Christian-friendly, and does being Christian-friendly take away from the ability of that skepticism to weed out falsehoods and/or find truths?

I don't know the answer for #1
But for #2, I don't find the need for anything to be 'Christian-friendly', no matter what it is.
If Christians don't like it (whatever it is) they can voice their opinion about it and move on.
In my opinion, we need to be true to ourselves, not an organization, no matter the organization.

[AgnosticBoy]

To me, it doesn't matter if the claim goes against current scientific understanding and evidence, I am still open to it being true provided that the claim is supported with logic and evidence.

I think the distinction between the two "types" of skepticism hinges on what you mean by this. What "logic and evidence" would be sufficient to convince you, but wouldn't also be enough to overturn current scientific understanding?

There are more distinctions than that between the two types of skeptics. To answer your specific question, I can say that it takes the best type of evidence given the situation, which includes scientific evidence, to fully convince me. So in this respect, both types of skeptics are on the same page.

I suppose the difference is made more apparent if you asked, what each type of skeptic would do with evidence that was in conflict with the current scientific understanding. The a-priori skeptic tries to explain everything in terms of their pre-established view. So they would not even be convinced of such type of evidence or inclined to finding it given their focus is on reinforcing their worldview. Even if given strong evidence against their worldview, they may just interpret it differently or explain it away using their worldview. In contrast, my skepticism is not focused on preserving or forcing the evidence into some pre-established view or narrative, but rather it is based on method or principle. If I encountered good evidence for something then I'm willing to accept it and follow it wherever it leads, even if that means going against prevailing or established view.

People don't come back from the dead and stories about Jesus are insufficient to overturn scientific thinking on that front. Assuming that you don't now think that Jesus was dead and then subsequently wasn't, what would convince you? Would it be enough to convince a biologist? Should it be?

When you say that "people don't come back from the dead", that plays no role in my assessment of a claim. I simply seek out evidence for and against (and not just against like some skeptics do) as if that fact didn't exist. The process of seeking out logic and evidence matters more to me than trying to reinforce a narrative. That enables me to explore the supernatural route, which is something that an a-priori skeptic would never do.

The evidence that would convince me of a modern-day resurrection would be scientific evidence. But again, I question if an a-priori skeptic would even consider that there could be evidence of a supernatural if it goes against their pre-existing views.

[Tcg]

But again, I question if an a-priori skeptic would even consider that there could be evidence of a supernatural if it goes against their pre-existing views.

No need to question. There's a real easy way to find out. Present evidence of the supernatural and see what happens.

What have you that qualifies?


Tcg

[Difflugia]

When you say that "people don't come back from the dead", that plays no role in my assessment of a claim. I simply seek out evidence for and against (and not just against like some skeptics do) as if that fact didn't exist. The process of seeking out logic and evidence matters more to me than trying to reinforce a narrative. That enables me to explore the supernatural route, which is something that an a-priori skeptic would never do.

I've no idea what you mean. It sounds to me like you think that there's some body of evidence that lies outside of and isn't affected by the rest of our evidence.

The story of Jesus didn't happen as presented in the Gospels because virgin births, the dead returning to life, water into wine, multiplication of loaves and fishes, and walking on water don't happen. Anyone squinting hard enough at the Bible's supernatural stories that they no longer see the wider context of natural reality is no longer acting as a scientist. Skeptics don't discount the supernatural because the thought of it is uncomfortable, but because the only evidence we have is from pictures that are blurry enough to hide the zipper in the bigfoot suit or wires holding up the UFO.

Christians tacitly acknowledge this when they complain that the historical evidence for supernatural religion is held to a standard that's too high. On the one hand, apologists claim that the evidence for the resurrection is anywhere from merely convincing to "overwhelming" or even "irrefutable," but on the other, argue that the supernatural claims of the Bible shouldn't be held to a higher standard of evidence than the mundane claims of other historical sources. There's either enough evidence or there isn't. In the same way that the Odyssey isn't reliable evidence for giant cyclopses, so too, the Bible and other historical documents aren't reliable evidence for the supernatural claims that Christians make.

The evidence that would convince me of a modern-day resurrection would be scientific evidence. But again, I question if an a-priori skeptic would even consider that there could be evidence of a supernatural if it goes against their pre-existing views.

It's possible that such a skeptic exists, but we have no way of knowing at the moment because there isn't enough evidence of the supernatural in the first place. To be sure, there are skeptics that, for example, fail to consider scientific evidence for things like evolution, the safety and efficacy of vaccination, or anthropogenic climate change. These folks, though, also tend to also have positive beliefs about things for which scientific evidence is wanting, or even downright contradicted like homeopathy, astrology, dowsing, or magic (especially if they spell it "majicke"). So if you want a sort of shibboleth to determine whether a particular skeptic disbelieves in a resurrected Jesus because of a proper consideration for the lack of evidence or if they wouldn't believe even if there were evidence, maybe ask them how they feel about something like ghosts, Atlantis, or ear candles.

[unknown soldier]

Debate questions:
1. What are the advantages or disadvantages of either type of skepticism?

2. Which type of skepticism is more Christian-friendly, and does being Christian-friendly take away from the ability of that skepticism to weed out falsehoods and/or find truths?

"Open-minded" skepticism is I suppose the only way to engage Christians in an effort to get them to come to their senses. Normally, no sensible person will spend a lot of time trying to convince people that they cannot walk on water without sinking or that dead people cannot rise from their graves and sail off into the sky. We all know empirically that such things do not and cannot happen. However, billions of Christians have faith that at least in the context of the Bible such absurdities become realities. In those cases in which these outlandish claims are made, the only way to combat such nonsense is to consider the possibility they are true and argue against them.

"A-priori" skepticism, on the other hand, gives the skeptic the advantage of not wasting time. Some skeptics have more important things to do than to waste effort on people who simply won't be reasoned with.

Of course open-minded skepticism might be said to be friendlier to Christians. Most Christians realize that potential converts need to be very open-minded to accept the outlandish claims made by Christian prophets and leaders.

[AgnosticBoy]

But again, I question if an a-priori skeptic would even consider that there could be evidence of a supernatural if it goes against their pre-existing views.

No need to question. There's a real easy way to find out. Present evidence of the supernatural and see what happens.

What have you that qualifies?

I don't have evidence of what I'd consider supernatural but I do have evidence against materialism. I won't present that evidence here because I already know how skeptics would respond to it. My descriptions of skeptics in post #1 comes from my years of experience of tangling with them. It's also based on the input of others, mostly Christians, and seeing what they dislike about the skeptics.

I agree with the Christians when it comes to some of the bad aspects they see in many skeptics. Too many skeptics are dismissive and bent on supporting their pre-existing ideology.

[AgnosticBoy]

When you say that "people don't come back from the dead", that plays no role in my assessment of a claim. I simply seek out evidence for and against (and not just against like some skeptics do) as if that fact didn't exist. The process of seeking out logic and evidence matters more to me than trying to reinforce a narrative. That enables me to explore the supernatural route, which is something that an a-priori skeptic would never do.

I've no idea what you mean. It sounds to me like you think that there's some body of evidence that lies outside of and isn't affected by the rest of our evidence.

What I was explaining is that science is a process and not a worldview. With that said, a skeptic should be open to exploring any hypothesis, and not just ones that agree with their pre-existing worldview. The a-priori skeptic tends to engage in the latter when it comes to Jesus's resurrection story. To them, the explanation has to be naturalistic (i.e. it was hallucinations, someone stole the body, it's all fiction), none of which can be properly assessed given that the event occurred a long time ago.

As for your point about a scientific body of evidence, I only agree with you to a degree. At times, new evidence does go with pre-existing scientific knowledge or evidence, but at other times it does not. It's possible for there to be conflicting evidence or even rival scientific theories.

The story of Jesus didn't happen as presented in the Gospels because virgin births, the dead returning to life, water into wine, multiplication of loaves and fishes, and walking on water don't happen. Anyone squinting hard enough at the Bible's supernatural stories that they no longer see the wider context of natural reality is no longer acting as a scientist.

The facts that you bring up are science-based, but the way you dismissed anything happening contrary to those facts (e.g. the dead returning, walking on water, etc.) is NOT scientific. A real scientists or even an open-minded skeptic should not claim something to be false or dismiss it as such until they look at any evidence for and against, test it, etc. Science is a process and not a worldview.

Now I'm not saying that not knowing if something is false means that you consider it a fact or use it as part of a theory, but at the least you should be agnostic on it or be open to listening to any evidence until that evidence is proven true or false.

Skeptics don't discount the supernatural because the thought of it is uncomfortable, but because the only evidence we have is from pictures that are blurry enough to hide the zipper in the bigfoot suit or wires holding up the UFO.

Bad or low quality evidence does not mean that something is false. I know it can sometimes lead someone to think that it's false when the evidence doesn't meet their expectations.

Christians tacitly acknowledge this when they complain that the historical evidence for supernatural religion is held to a standard that's too high. On the one hand, apologists claim that the evidence for the resurrection is anywhere from merely convincing to "overwhelming" or even "irrefutable," but on the other, argue that the supernatural claims of the Bible shouldn't be held to a higher standard of evidence than the mundane claims of other historical sources. There's either enough evidence or there isn't. In the same way that the Odyssey isn't reliable evidence for giant cyclopses, so too, the Bible and other historical documents aren't reliable evidence for the supernatural claims that Christians make.

Well I agree with the Christians as far as being consistent in applying historical standards. If the story meets all or most of the usual standards for being deemed historical, but the only thing keeping it back is an anti-supernatural ideology, then that is unfair. But even if the story is deemed historical, my only caution would be in considering how we should look at a historically valid account. We certainly shouldn't accept a historical account on the same scale as we would a scientifically validated account, and that applies to accounts that don't involve a supernatural. All that the resurrection account means (or any history for that matter) is that based on the best records we have, some supernatural events were occurring. That's all history means to me.

The evidence that would convince me of a modern-day resurrection would be scientific evidence. But again, I question if an a-priori skeptic would even consider that there could be evidence of a supernatural if it goes against their pre-existing views.

It's possible that such a skeptic exists, but we have no way of knowing at the moment because there isn't enough evidence of the supernatural in the first place. To be sure, there are skeptics that, for example, fail to consider scientific evidence for things like evolution, the safety and efficacy of vaccination, or anthropogenic climate change. These folks, though, also tend to also have positive beliefs about things for which scientific evidence is wanting, or even downright contradicted like homeopathy, astrology, dowsing, or magic (especially if they spell it "majicke"). So if you want a sort of shibboleth to determine whether a particular skeptic disbelieves in a resurrected Jesus because of a proper consideration for the lack of evidence or if they wouldn't believe even if there were evidence, maybe ask them how they feel about something like ghosts, Atlantis, or ear candles.

I don't believe we need actual evidence of a supernatural to see if or how badly some skeptics would deal with it. Just going by their ideology that only current scientific fact, or something consistent with it, can only occur is a problem. I've tangled with these types of skeptics when I was a Christian, and I've done so as an agnostic, and I can tell you it is bad skepticism. It probably drives some people away from atheism since a lot of these types of skeptics are atheists.

Again, the open-minded skeptic is open to any claim being true. These types of skeptics are not bent on disproving or dismissing, but rather they are open to evidence for and against.

[Overcomer]

Agnosticboy wrote:

Which type of skepticism is more Christian-friendly, and does being Christian-friendly take away from the ability of that skepticism to weed out falsehoods and/or find truths?

Why would being Christian-friendly take away from someone's ability as a skeptic to weed out falsehoods or find truths? Would being atheist-friendly or New Age-friendly or humanist-friendly or Hindu-friendly take away from someone's ability to discover the truth?

And what are you implying about Christians? That we are NOT interested in the truth? That we don't take the time to weed out falsehoods? That our faith is blind and not evidence-based?