I've recently taken out a subscription to "Skeptical Enquirer" and in the last issue there were a number of articles paying tribute to Martin Gardner (some of you might be aware that he died earlier this year). Anyway, I was surprised to learn that Gardner, despite being a major "pioneer" of the skeptical movement, was also a theist. Apparently he was critical of organized religion, but believed in God because it "made him feel better".
Now, clearly it IS possible to be religious and also a skeptic, but it seems to me to that you can't have your cake and eat it; surely the two positions are incompatible?
Just wondering what the views are of members.
I don't really see a problem. Skepticism is about analysing the evidence and coming to a rational conclusion. In the area of theism there is no evidence, one can certainly take a probabilitsic view and side with atheism, but equally one can rationally decide that since there is no evidence you choose to take the less probable position and hope that as the evidence accumulates it will ultimately support your tentative position.
There would be a much greater problem with any of the standard religions there, there is much better grounds for rejecting the proposed deity and the associated supposed moral code.
IMO there are no true skepticsTM, just people who apply skepticism to various aspects of their lives and the world around them. If having applied skepticism to a particular issue you find that the evidence does not lead to the result you wanted we are all quite capable of ignoring it in favour of what makes us feel better.
skb
Yes.Originally Posted by skbuncks
[Other than me, obviously...]
We can only be more or less skeptical, apply skepticism in different situations, etc.
Skepticism is, erm, a broad church.
There's at least one "skeptic" who has turned up at London meetings, etc, who is an active Christian.
I've met many on the side of woo who were skeptical about at least 90% of woo subjects. A homeopath who didn't believe in ghosts, aliens, chiropractic, etc, but homeopathy really worked for her. A woman we met while doing a Kilroy show who is a hard-line debunker of woo except that she also does dowsing.
There was also a skeptic who used to turn up at early pub meetings who would also try to out-skeptic everyone else and wouldn't accept anything without "evidence". So when Jon Ronson did a talk about Icke and the Bilderberg Group our Superskeptic refused to believe that the Bilderberg group actually exist. His denial of all positive evidence could just as well be applied to any other group that someone hasn't personally attended: "Girl Guides? Prove they exist! I've never seen them meeting. TV programmes can be faked. You say your sister says she went isn't proof." It is just as silly to take skepticism to that extreme of refusing to accept anything on the balance of probability.
Personally I don't see how someone can be a "proper" skeptic and also believe in something for which there is no evidence. However not only do these people claim to exist where issues such as religion are concerned, but when you get into issues like politics or climate change, you'll see the skeptic community split into factions and disagree about the obvious skeptical approach.
Where was I? On balance I'll vote "no", a person can't be both a member of an organised religion and a skeptic. But it is clearly not a simple yes/no question. And I think I've contradicted myself.
Degrees of skepticism?
As skepticism is a process, I suppose it could be that one applies the process and comes to a conclusion that is not what most skeptics would expect particularly with complex issues. I would like to hear a religious skeptic justify his position.
ETA would a religious skeptic have faith?
Thanks for the feedback guys.
I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Croydon Bob. Apparently Gardner was a fideist, a view which says that religious faith is separate from reason and cannot be reconciled with it. This strikes me as so absurd I don't even know where to start, but there's an interesting article on Gardner here which makes the main point, with which I agree:
Of course, none of this detracts from Gardner's considerable contributions to the skeptical movement, but I still find it rather odd.Faith is an open door to fantasies limited only by an individual's desires. A leap of faith need not lead to a just God and immortality; it could just as well lead to a Satanist madman who eats children. It won't do to simply assert that only your own fine urges qualify as worthy of leading to a leap of faith; any other urges are forbidden. It certainly won't do to claim that your urges are universal and indicative of a God who put them there, while other urges and desires are perversions. The fideist assumption is arbitrary and, while admittedly irrational, nonetheless absurd and repulsive on its face. Why? Because anyone who values reason must find such a position self-defeating. There can be no reasons that support the rationality of irrationality.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I posted a response yesterday but was told it would have to be checked by a moderator? is this a normal thing for new members?
News to me. Perhaps some links included - think they are generally unleashed after 15 posts.
Ah yes, that would be it then, I did include a link in my post.
I'm inclined to agree with Croydon Bob in that it still seems contradictory to be a religious skeptic. Gardner apparently tried to justify his position on the grounds that he was a "fideist" - "Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths" (from wikipedia). This seems quite absurd and dangerous; if faith is independent of reason, who can say that a particular action driven by faith (such as flying a plane into a building), is right or wrong?
From an article at "The Skeptic's Dictionary" on Gardner's theism (google "The new atheism and Martin Gardner") -
Granted, Gardner's personal belief in God and an afterlife was harmless, and it doesn't detract from his contributions to the skeptical movement, but I do find it quite odd, nevertheless.Faith is an open door to fantasies limited only by an individual's desires. A leap of faith need not lead to a just God and immortality; it could just as well lead to a Satanist madman who eats children. It won't do to simply assert that only your own fine urges qualify as worthy of leading to a leap of faith; any other urges are forbidden. It certainly won't do to claim that your urges are universal and indicative of a God who put them there, while other urges and desires are perversions. The fideist assumption is arbitrary and, while admittedly irrational, nonetheless absurd and repulsive on its face. Why? Because anyone who values reason must find such a position self-defeating. There can be no reasons that support the rationality of irrationality.
I'd say depends what your belief is. If it's a vague belief in some metaphysical 'power' beyond our current understanding, fine. Swallowing a Religion as presented by priest or old book, nope!
IMHO.
From Wiki
"The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith.[5] Plantinga's definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much "reason" per se — it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational — but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence."
I can't see the issue here. Rejecting evidentialism as defined above is absolutely pivotal to hypothesis development, without which we could never gather the evidence required for hypothesis driven research.
So it follows that all leading scientist must have 'faith' in their ideas or concepts. Fideists just take the idea one step further, they assert that there are areas where reason cannot ever provide an answer. Now as skeptics we can disagree with this conclusion, however, there is nothing to stop a fideist using both faith and reason in some aspects of their life and faith alone in other aspects.
Having thought about it a bit more, religion depends upon 'faith' - a blind belief without foundation in evidence. This is not skepticism as I know it . So no.
Yes, but.....
If one chooses a purely evidentialist position, then this is an arch conservativist approach. There is no forward movement, one cannot take real risks, there are not real entrepeneurs, one is powerless to act where there is balanced possible outcomes etc.
Real life requires action without evidence all the time. Sure, where evidence is available it makes sense to maximise ones use of this. Equally where there is no evidence, one can only make progress by making ones best guess, and seeking the evidence to support the chosen course of action as one goes along a course chosen without evidential backing.
So I cannot see that a purist approach is sensible.
Religion to me is different, here claims are made for which there is no testable hypothesis - that is a pure act of faith, with no possibility of assessing the validity of ones chosen course of action. But to claim that just because one chooses that approach in one aspect of life debars you from being skeptical in all other aspects seems wrong.
I think believing things which are not supported by evidence is fine (where evidence is non existent, contradictory or it's a matter of taste), as long as you are willing to consider evidence and logical arguments against and modify views accordingly. Believing blindly in spite of evidence, inability to consider contradictions and making illogical leaps in order to sustain a desired belief is not. It seems to me Religion encourages and needs the later approach to thrive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks