Topic: Are you a theist?

[James]

Therefore i think you can be a true sceptic and still be theist.

Well thats just impossible.  By definition, you cannot be a "true sceptic" and be selective about what issues you apply critical thinking, i.e. are skeptical about.

One would think people on a skeptical forum would understand this.

[Shibboleth]

I am not sure if anyone can apply skeptical thinking all the time. I mean how many people lock their doors all the time because they think if they do not they will get robbed. I would say that not only are locks probably ineffective in most robberies the chances of someone having their house robbed is incredibly low in most locations. I suppose you could make the arguement that better safe than sorry but I doubt most people have installed 5-point harnesses in their car to better be safe than sorry in a car accident.

Is that the same as believing in God? No. But that begs the question of, "Where do you draw the line?" At what point does art become pornography. Certainly there is art and pornography but where do you draw that line. You can say, "Anything that has nudity is pornography or anyone that doesn't believe in anything that hasn't been proven is not a skeptic" but in doing so you really limit the label.

Like all labels they have their flaws. At what point does something stop being a chair. Does it need to have a back? Does it have to have 4 legs?

[ting-bu-dong]

I am not sure if anyone can apply skeptical thinking all the time.

You can try. It's not like you need to get everything right over night.

I mean how many people lock their doors all the time because they think if they do not they will get robbed. I would say that not only are locks probably ineffective in most robberies the chances of someone having their house robbed is incredibly low in most locations. I suppose you could make the arguement that better safe than sorry but I doubt most people have installed 5-point harnesses in their car to better be safe than sorry in a car accident.

It is entirely rational to say 'if I keep my door locked, I am less likely to be robbed.' It won't prevent all or most robberies, but it reduces the likelihood of being robbed. Every measure that reduces the likelihood of being robbed is progress and subject to cost/benefit considerations. What's not rational is to say 'It doesn't prevent 100% of robberies, therefore it is useless against being robbed'.

Is that the same as believing in God? No. But that begs the question of, "Where do you draw the line?" At what point does art become pornography. Certainly there is art and pornography but where do you draw that line. You can say, "Anything that has nudity is pornography or anyone that doesn't believe in anything that hasn't been proven is not a skeptic" but in doing so you really limit the label.

I draw the line at factual claims. Any truth claim about the world needs to pass this basic hurdle. It is one thing to have the occasional claim fall through the cracks, it is another thing entirely to make an effort to make some claims exempt from this test. Do you make that argument about any other claims? Can you be a skeptic and believe in alien life? Homeopathy? Psychics? Of course you can, it just depends on your reasons for doing so.

Like all labels they have their flaws. At what point does something stop being a chair. Does it need to have a back? Does it have to have 4 legs?

It's a chair if it's furniture whose primary purpose is to be sat on (and yes I know this definition is a bit simplistic).

[Johnny Slick]

Therefore i think you can be a true sceptic and still be theist.

Well thats just impossible.  By definition, you cannot be a "true sceptic" and be selective about what issues you apply critical thinking, i.e. are skeptical about.

One would think people on a skeptical forum would understand this.

The issue here is not that these people ought to be shunned or cast out or something but that we are all humans and have our own foibles. Each and every person on this board, at some time or another, does not look at some issue 100% skeptically. Expecting better behavior out of others than you expect out of yourself is the height of assholery.

[ting-bu-dong]

Therefore i think you can be a true sceptic and still be theist.

Well thats just impossible.  By definition, you cannot be a "true sceptic" and be selective about what issues you apply critical thinking, i.e. are skeptical about.

One would think people on a skeptical forum would understand this.

The issue here is not that these people ought to be shunned or cast out or something but that we are all humans and have our own foibles. Each and every person on this board, at some time or another, does not look at some issue 100% skeptically. Expecting better behavior out of others than you expect out of yourself is the height of assholery.

I for one want to be called on it when I compartmentalise my critical thinking on any particular issue. If the term 'skeptic' has any definition, this should be it.

Again, there is a huge difference between imperfect application of a principle and willful inconsistency in the application of that principle. Not making that distinction runs the risk of comitting a tu coque.

[James]

Therefore i think you can be a true sceptic and still be theist.

Well thats just impossible.  By definition, you cannot be a "true sceptic" and be selective about what issues you apply critical thinking, i.e. are skeptical about.

One would think people on a skeptical forum would understand this.

The issue here is not that these people ought to be shunned or cast out or something but that we are all humans and have our own foibles. Each and every person on this board, at some time or another, does not look at some issue 100% skeptically. Expecting better behavior out of others than you expect out of yourself is the height of assholery.

Who's "shunning or casting out" anyone  Calling people who are not applying skeptical thinking to all areas, 'non-skeptics' is hardly shunning- its just the cold hard facts.

I agree, probably every person on this board, at some time or another, does not look at some issue 100% skeptically(?guess its possible to look at issues 50%, or 25%, i dunno) the difference being when shown the error of their ways, a skeptic changes their mind and goes with the evidence.

[Halleyscomet/Wakefield]

I tried being agnostic, but I just couldn't believe in it.

[bwbass79]

I don't know where everything came from, but I don't believe it was started by some mystical and powerful creator. I don't think any of the world's religions have anything close to the truth about life. I really believe that God and religion is completely man made, which is why they are so flawed.

I've been on a real Hitchens/Dawkins kick lately. And the more I read, the more I'm certain that I don't believe in any religion or feel there's any justification for a God. But at the same time, I become more and more uncertain about how things really got started. For all we know, the Big Bang theory may be the modern day equivalent of the Earth-is-Flat beliefs.

I do find it hard to relate with a skeptical person that is also a theist. It just doesn't make sense to me. But I don't think that a person who is a "true/real" skeptic is always 100% correct about everything either. So I don't think it's completely fair to strip someone's view as being a skeptic away from them just because they aren't skeptical about everything. I think most of us skeptics and atheists are pretty smug about ourselves and the way we interact with others. I think we can become just as pompous and hard-headed as the religious people we are arguing against. I know I get that way. And it feels OK to be that way because I'm right and they are wrong. But I don't think it really does me any good to be that way.

[Jack R.]

I got into a discussion with a christian fundamentalist on another forum a little while back.  He kept referring to me as an atheist, and I gently corrected him - telling him that I am in no way an atheist, and that he was actually far more of an atheist than I am.  After all, I consider all deities to be equally likely and equally unproven, where he actively disbelieves in entire pantheons of gods.  He really didn't have an answer...

[Jay_One]

I got into a discussion with a christian fundamentalist on another forum a little while back.  He kept referring to me as an atheist, and I gently corrected him - telling him that I am in no way an atheist, and that he was actually far more of an atheist than I am.  After all, I consider all deities to be equally likely and equally unproven, where he actively disbelieves in entire pantheons of gods.  He really didn't have an answer...

When somebody asks why you're an atheist, you could always ask them to explain why they don't believe in all of the other gods, and apply their logic. Christians are still atheists, atheists just disregard one more god than Christians.

[Cowtown Cody]

I grew up in a devoutly Catholic family that basically defected from the church as the result of an early round of the sexual abuse scandals.  Even then though, I hadn't really affirmed any belief in God since I was in elementary school.  Church was just something we did up until that point, and when we stopped, I was pretty happy about it, and I've never been back.

I know that I can in no way provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of any God of any kind.  I don't ever attempt to.  It's not that I don't apply skepticism to the question of God.  I do, and I arrive at the conclusion that there's literally no evidence of any kind for the existence of any God.  When I see things I don't understand, I don't pin them on God.  I just accept that I don't understand them, and somebody who studies the subject almost certainly does understand it far better than I do.  I don't trust God to handle things, I don't have "faith" in his laws or existence.  I don't expect that we will ever find God through sufficient evidence or scientific discovery, as if he's waiting at the top of a pyramid of increasingly complicated knowledge.

And yet, despite all this, I know for a fact that, when I have dealt with situations that bore on my well-being yet were very uncertain and I had no control over, imagining that there was a benevolent God made me feel much better about things, and helped me handle them myself capably and with more confidence.  It made me happier.

That's a long way from an affirmation of belief.  I am a huge psychology buff, and I'm very much aware of the fact that imagining such a thing does not make it true, and is simply playing on a cognitive bias of the human brain that has been the target of extensive empirical research.  Yet it still makes me feel better, and that helps me do better.  It's not a thought I have often.

I don't look to this notion of a benevolent God to solve problems that I can solve myself, I don't "offer things up" or put faith in God or expect him to take the wheel or any of that, and I don't expect him to intercede in human events ever.  It's not overtly christian, and I don't look to religious texts for moral authority or guidance or evidence.  I just think, "God wants me to do well", and as nonsensical as I know that to be, it helps me do real, concrete things that work, and it positively affects my attitude.

Does this make me a bad skeptic?

[Jay_One]

I've been racking my brains for a name, but the only one that springs to mind is Richard Wiseman. I'm almost positive it is him who I was thinking of, but I thought he wrote a single book about the reason we have irrational thoughts, and the only one I can think of that fits is Paranormality.

I don't think taking comfort in a non-existing entity makes you a bad skeptic, because as detailed by Wiseman it is an error in the human brain. Such as feeling inherent sentimental value in an object that you rationally know is no different from an identical clone.

[Shibboleth]

Labels are just that labels. They are meant to convey to an audience what something is... A Christian going around saying they are an atheist would confuse the target audience. Avoiding labels doesn't make one's position better or worse. It is as stupid as Non-denominational.

[Vincegamer]

Labels are just that labels. They are meant to convey to an audience what something is... A Christian going around saying they are an atheist would confuse the target audience. Avoiding labels doesn't make one's position better or worse. It is as stupid as Non-denominational.

I agree with this. Who was it on this list who insisted he was a Christian Atheist?  It just confused everyone.