Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

[Flail]

Jester proposed this on another thread and I found it to be a compelling challenge we should all take into consideration. Many in this forum profess to be skeptics, some more so than others, myself included. It has now been pointed out that skeptics are often the last to question their own position on a matter, perhaps to their detriment. It was suggested that we should all challenge our own positions on all matters and be skeptical of our particular positions and beliefs regardless of how strongly we hold them. This, to me seems not only logical, but a reasonable approach to relating to and communicating with one another on any topic no matter how divisive and emotional. Not only should skeptics check their positions, but non-skeptics should at least become skeptical of their own beliefs whenever possible IMO.

Question for debate:

Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

[TRANSPONDER]

We should reflect on what we mean by "skepticism". It means having an epistemological hurdle: not merely accepting as true, everything we're told. It means requiring good reasons to accept a proposition as true. Of course, we're fallible, and we make epistemic judgements on incomplete information - so we ought to remain open to revising our established beliefs - but that isn't "being skeptical of skepticism", it's just remaining open to reevaluating our beliefs - reapplying our epistemic process to a fuller set of data, and accepting our fallibility.

Well said. Apparently the term was a political one but nowadays is more of a logical/philosophical position.

Your post pointed to the question of epistemology or in terms of Theist apologetics "How do we know what we know?" The validity of knowledge, the methodology of validating conclusions (analysis of raw data, or 'science' as it is known) and particularly the extent to which we can rely on knowledge that keeps being revised, updated and even overturned, is a fair question to ask of the Science we materialists base our arguments on.

If we can expect that the 'facts' (the best model we have of what the reality is) we rely on can be updated, why or how can we say 'we know this or that is wrong?'

It is of course that Theist apologetics is irrational and the parameters of all their propositions is invalid as a general principle, because the arguments are all predicated on belief in God, the Bible and Christianity as a given before the argument starts.It isn't.

Even if all the science was wrong and we knew nothing, 'God' would not be the default theory, but "Don't know" would be the honest and correct knowledge position. That is why their arguments can only be understood when one knows that they Think the position is 'God, the Bible and Christianity is the theory unless you can 100% disprove it", which is wrong even without their final defence method of denying everything, said in different ways like "I don't see that" or "That makes no sense to me", for instance.

It is of course why they insist that atheism is a belief that God does not exist, which in practical terms is pretty close, but in logical terms, is not total. The possibility of a god of some kind is left open, which means the burden of proof falls on the Theists, which they don't like.

The think the burden of proof is on atheism to disprove a god, which in a way it is, as the arguments for a god should be rebutted. We do not and cannot say, "I don't care what you say, I reject all your arguments as false and you haven't proven your case". Atheists have a bad enough Rap without pulling dirty tricks like that.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #21]
Great observations. I'll respond to the "burden of proof" claims people make.

A "burden of proof" seems to be associated with our tendency to challenge others to "prove me wrong", but my failure to prove someone else's belief false does not imply that his belief is true or even that it's justified.

The proper "burden" that everyone has to hold only justified beliefs. It's conceivable that there could be justifications to believe both naturalism and theism, so I don't think there's an intrinsic default position. Each side holds to the truth of propositions that the other side holds to be false, but I don't need to prove you're wrong in order to justify my beliefs. I feel confident that I can justify my beliefs. I'm not so sure that most Christians can reasonably justify theirs.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #21]
Great observations. I'll respond to the "burden of proof" claims people make.

A "burden of proof" seems to be associated with our tendency to challenge others to "prove me wrong", but my failure to prove someone else's belief false does not imply that his belief is true or even that it's justified.

The proper "burden" that everyone has to hold only justified beliefs. It's conceivable that there could be justifications to believe both naturalism and theism, so I don't think there's an intrinsic default position. Each side holds to the truth of propositions that the other side holds to be false, but I don't need to prove you're wrong in order to justify my beliefs. I feel confident that I can justify my beliefs. I'm not so sure that most Christians can reasonably justify theirs.

I think you got that right, but I might put it another way.

In a situation with evidence on both side, that evidence must be examined. I could say that one who explains the evidence that seems to stack up has a better case that someone with a weaker explanation, never mind those who simply wave it away as 'beliefs'. This science - denial should lose them the discussion right away, but others must decide whether to follow the evidence or Faith.

When we are doing appeals to unknowns, then theism, which has not produced a scrap of decent evidence, has no case, whereas science, having explained so much without a god being needed, has earned some clout (even theism dearly longs for scientific support and only sneers and dismisses it when it doesn't do so) and thus the undiscovered unknown explanation should be expected to be natural, not God. Appeal to unknowns fails.

They only think it works because they (wrongly) assume that 'God' (whichever one) is the default theory.

It isn't, and doesn't support Bible god anyway.

They have no case but illogical and irrational Faith.

That's the long and short of it.

This is of course observation - based abstracts. The Bible is different. That is 'evidence' which must be discussed.

That is what we do here and the regular appeals to unknowns (like origins of Life) are irrelevant and in fact Not in the favor of Theism, never mind the Bible.

[fredonly]

In a situation with evidence on both side, that evidence must be examined. I could say that one who explains the evidence that seems to stack up has a better case that someone with a weaker explanation,

We seem to have very similar views. I'd describe it this way: there is a set of objective facts and each side proposes an explanatory hypothesis to explain those facts. When I mentioned I felt confident I could justify my belief, it is based on my view that naturalism is the best explanation for all those objective facts. It depends on the fewest, and most parsimonious, assumptions.

[TRANSPONDER]

In a situation with evidence on both side, that evidence must be examined. I could say that one who explains the evidence that seems to stack up has a better case that someone with a weaker explanation,

We seem to have very similar views. I'd describe it this way: there is a set of objective facts and each side proposes an explanatory hypothesis to explain those facts. When I mentioned I felt confident I could justify my belief, it is based on my view that naturalism is the best explanation for all those objective facts. It depends on the fewest, and most parsimonious, assumptions.

Exactly. But of course the Believers will deny the evidence on your side. This matter of epistemology comes up where we are asked why we trust anything that science tells us. It is because the track record of science gives the evidence on the materialist side the weight of the more probable explanation.

I repeat (I think) that even if we could conceded that 'science' was no more credible than faithclaims, that would still not mean that 'god' (name your own anyway) has to be the answer.'We don't know' has to be the position, and agnosticism is the basis on non belief until we do know.

This is all done and dusted and the Theists side is just deing pointless denial of the evidence when it doesn't make their beliefs anything but faithclaims, anyway.

Their entire position stars and finishes with faithclaims and ends with faithbased denial that they lost the debate.

I hate to use our pal 1213 as a Good Bad example but the cetan sequence is a bit by bit debunk of the Creationist denial of speciation (Macro-evolution, as they call it). The demand to see it happening in real time is just shifting the goalposts. We see animal breeding in real time, and there was the pepper moth experiment and in fact Creationists accept evolution but only within species ("Kinds"). The cetan sequence is forensic evidence along with morphological evidence that there was speciation.

The attempt to pass off arm bones as more suitable and didn't need to have evolved was debunked by cartilage fins in the very efficient sharks and, after the attempt to play the irrelevant 'how did life start?' card, silence, maybe.

Our other pal Mae played another card just now. Ok (paraphrase) there are better naturalistic explanations but a god could be behind it". Apart from 'which go?' which is always the flaw in these ID claims, even if they work, which they don't -they only think they do because of basic false arguing - position of assuming a god (and the one they believe in is the only one on the table) as the default -theory, which it isn't; apart from that I say, it is multiplying logical entities without good reason. The analogy of Engine gnomes' is used. Even though we know how combustion engines work, we can't disprove a claim that invisible engine -gnomes are not somehow behind it. But why the heck should anyone believe that?

When it comes down to it, the only problem seems to be getting the argument out there as I can't believe the majority of reasonable people, seeing a full debate, with all cards played and atheist materialism taking all tricks, won't say "That's it. It can't be the case that Biblegod is true, even if there is a weak possibility of some Cosmic Mind". Why this isn't happening defeats me, and either it is, and will show up in the next survey, or religion simply has control of the media or people are so indoctrinated with religion as a cultural thing that it is like an addiction they can't give up or a learned instinct they can't shake.

Still as Samwise says "There's som good in this world, and it's worth fighting for". So we just have to keep fighting the Good Fight even if things look very sticky just at the moment.

[bjs1]

No,no. I referred to doubt and skepticism within the ambit of the Faith. Or I should say doctrine. If the doubt and questioning leads one to reject the doctrine, then there are various methods of heaving the doubter out the door, and if it leads away from Godfaith, then there is some punishment coming from hide the carrot of being denied heaven to the big stick of hellthreat. Is this so or not?

If skepticism leads to rejecting doctrine, why would anyone need to heave the doubter out the door? Wouldn’t that person leave on their own, before anyone else had a chance to do anything?

I have never once seen a Christian group expel a former believer because that person questioned or even lost faith. Every instance of this I have encountered, the Christian group welcomed the skeptic/new unbeliever to continue with them on the condition that the skeptic/unbeliever be respectful of the beliefs of those around him. The most I have seen is asking the un-converted person to step down from a leadership role in the church, which seems reasonable.

Also, if a person does not believe that there is a God, in what way hell a threat or a “big stick”? Wouldn’t that be like threatening you or I with dragons? Since we don’t believe there are dragons, the threat of dragons is meaningless to us. Similarly, a person who does not believe there is a hell could not be threatened by hell.

Indeed, from what I have seen, blind faith and unquestioning obedience is what the religious love. But some questions and doubt must be addressed, and thus dealt with. But it has to go the way they want. Anything that undermines the Dogma, never mind the faith and one can expect to 'catch it hot', on earth if not in heaven.

May I suggest that you have seen what you wanted to see. Most religious groups are accepting of questions and doubt. Some declare doubt is unavoidable (see post 12).

[TRANSPONDER]

No,no. I referred to doubt and skepticism within the ambit of the Faith. Or I should say doctrine. If the doubt and questioning leads one to reject the doctrine, then there are various methods of heaving the doubter out the door, and if it leads away from Godfaith, then there is some punishment coming from hide the carrot of being denied heaven to the big stick of hellthreat. Is this so or not?

If skepticism leads to rejecting doctrine, why would anyone need to heave the doubter out the door? Wouldn’t that person leave on their own, before anyone else had a chance to do anything?

I have never once seen a Christian group expel a former believer because that person questioned or even lost faith. Every instance of this I have encountered, the Christian group welcomed the skeptic/new unbeliever to continue with them on the condition that the skeptic/unbeliever be respectful of the beliefs of those around him. The most I have seen is asking the un-converted person to step down from a leadership role in the church, which seems reasonable.

Also, if a person does not believe that there is a God, in what way hell a threat or a “big stick”? Wouldn’t that be like threatening you or I with dragons? Since we don’t believe there are dragons, the threat of dragons is meaningless to us. Similarly, a person who does not believe there is a hell could not be threatened by hell.

Indeed, from what I have seen, blind faith and unquestioning obedience is what the religious love. But some questions and doubt must be addressed, and thus dealt with. But it has to go the way they want. Anything that undermines the Dogma, never mind the faith and one can expect to 'catch it hot', on earth if not in heaven.

May I suggest that you have seen what you wanted to see. Most religious groups are accepting of questions and doubt. Some declare doubt is unavoidable (see post 12).

Oh yes, I hear of people finding another church. Also of people being pressured to conform if their beliefs don't fit with the doctrines of the church, even if you haven't seen it. But yes, more likely they leave on their own. As to the stick and carrot - yes if one stops believing in Hell, there is no big stick, and if one stops believing in heaven, there is no carrot, either. But, if they believe in either or both, there is stick and carrot, IF their skepticism leads the church member away from the doctrine.

Never mind post 12. I know doubt and question are allowed - within the doctrine. Routine answers are expected to be accepted. But if it leads one away from the doctrine, let alone away from the faith, there are (so I have heard stories of, even if you haven';) Consequences. The clergy project alone has many stories of ministers trapped in a Church they no longer believed and forced to conform, fearing for their job and community.

I know, you will swear that it's all sweetness and kindliness from where you are. But those who have drifted away tell a very different story. Which you may not have seen.

[Purple Knight]

It has now been pointed out that skeptics are often the last to question their own position on a matter, perhaps to their detriment. It was suggested that we should all challenge our own positions on all matters and be skeptical of our particular positions and beliefs regardless of how strongly we hold them.

I well know that if anything I think is so even might not be the case, I have the intellectual obligation to explore that not-case fully.

For example, it might be the case that God exists and he has moral authority, vested solely in him, which he uses to write the rules which we all must obey, or be acting immorally.

Now, this doesn't mean I ought to give him faith. He's under no obligation to inform me of what he wrote as The Rules, capitals T and R, and he might easily lie. If he writes the rules he could just write an exception for himself, so that he may lie and I may not. Now you may think he hasn't or wouldn't do such a thing, that he's of good character, but he has absolutely no reason to be truthful, unless he simply wants to. So if this entity which has moral authority can do anything it wishes to me and have that be moral, I argue that I shouldn't trust it. It's a coin flip - at best - whether it's telling the truth. And if I can't do better than a coin flip, I should just do what I think is best, because that is - at worst - a coin flip.

Given that this thing can, unilaterally, determine morality, it's also a bad idea for me to listen to it, simply because what it's doing with its grand pronunciations doesn't have anything to do with me, down here, and my life. It can declare it moral for me to hurt people. It can send me to Hell if I don't. I still don't want to.

I want the best, most practical world for everyone. I don't want people to suffer if they don't have to. In other words, a morality that equals a pronouncement from someone, okay, they can have that power, but it has nothing to do with how I want to live my life.

[TRANSPONDER]

I enjoyed that.

Of course, I have to find my theist hat again, and what we get is to set aside a 'f.s.o.a position. That it works better without God, religion or Bible being true and is thus the go -to option (humanism) even if it was true...sorta... means the debate is already pointless. But if we have it, then we get the claim that somehow God is behind it, if not intervening with answered prayer or the occasional intervention and always with the moral code behind it.

But as you say, that could all be a lie. Indeed, it would make more sense if it was. God looks less like a perfect and just ruler than an absolute thug who tells his propaganda machine to tell everyone they are good and perfect (You will never know how much I longed for a subliminal cut of Xi just there) which is where the Theist hat goes on and the Apologists double down with the faithclaims.'Good and Just is the nature of God'.

Who says so?

Well...the Bible does.

Who wrote that, then?

[Purple Knight]

I enjoyed that.

Of course, I have to find my theist hat again, and what we get is to set aside a 'f.s.o.a position. That it works better without God, religion or Bible being true and is thus the go -to option (humanism) even if it was true...sorta... means the debate is already pointless. But if we have it, then we get the claim that somehow God is behind it, if not intervening with answered prayer or the occasional intervention and always with the moral code behind it.

But as you say, that could all be a lie. Indeed, it would make more sense if it was. God looks less like a perfect and just ruler than an absolute thug who tells his propaganda machine to tell everyone they are good and perfect (You will never know how much I longed for a subliminal cut of Xi just there) which is where the Theist hat goes on and the Apologists double down with the faithclaims.'Good and Just is the nature of God'.

Who says so?

Well...the Bible does.

Who wrote that, then?

I mean, the only thing that breaks this, is if God isn't actually on top. He's trying to help, but for certain reasons he can't.

If that's so, he'll help in ways that are useful to good people. He won't try to bully people into doing the right thing by making it seem like it's not the right thing, but saying he knows best and he'll be mad otherwise so you'd better do it.

I like treating everything as true. I'm a nerd and I enjoy my "if"s. The story of Job taught me a lot about God and the Devil, and who's who. One, willing to do any harm, to the one least deserving of it, to win an argument and prove a point. The other might just be sitting there, willing to participate in that, precisely because it really is a breadcrumb, which is all he can give, but it ends up in the right mouths.