Topic: theism and skepticism compatible?

[JD Holwick]

this one has baffled me for a while and i would be curious if someone could persuade me otherwise: how is it possible to be truly skeptical and still believe in a god (or, frankly, to even entertain the silly idea)?  here is how i see it, coming from the thought bubble of an imaginary skeptical theist: "i try not to accept anything without adequate evidence. i do not believe there is adequate evidence for magnetic healing, acupuncture, or atlantis, for example, BUT i do believe there is a magical being who is all powerful and all knowing and he created this magnificent universe."  while i know people are naturally skillful with cognitive dissonance, my question, to reiterate, is this: doesn't it seem that to be truly skeptical, one's only option is to dispense with any notion of god???

[Johnny Slick]

I tend to think that eventually a non-impassioned use of skepticism will lead one down that road but I also think that it is completely normal for humans to compartmentalize their reasoning and not apply the same kind of rigor to some issues as to others. Asking for too much consistency in that regard threatens to make skepticism a hobgoblin of little minds, if you know what I mean.

[JD Holwick]

...too much consistency in that regard threatens to make skepticism a hobgoblin of little minds...

i wonder though if statements like these can be a bit of a problem.  it seems to me that this comment you made suggests that too much reasoning closes one's mind.  correct me if i'm wrong about that.  i believe there is no such thing as too much reason.  if any amount of reasoning can actually close a person's mind i would think that this person must exist in some parallel universe.  thanks for the thoughts of course. --- jd

[Johnny Slick]

Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that treating any one belief, particularly one as wrapped up in society as religion, as a litmus test for entry into the skeptics' club is not only detrimental in the way that it discourages those not quite willing to embrace the methodology completely (yet), I think it also encourages membership by people who aren't necessarily thinking skeptically but who happen to agree with everything skepticism currently stands for. As the movement gets larger and more, um, movementy, we can expect that second issue to get more and more important.

[Eternally Learning]

Having a skeptical mindset does not make one instantly right about everything, and religious beliefs tend to be ingrained in our heads in ways that are not readily remembered.  It takes some prompting to even realize that some prior method of reasoning is flawed (I know it did for me) and sometimes, unless our beliefs are challenged we will not question something so core.  That being said, questioning religious beliefs is fast becoming much more common in the world, and if you identify as a member of the larger skeptical community then it's almost certain to have come up at some point.  The only thing that makes sense to me, is that there are a lot of emotions involved with religious beliefs that make it hard to objectively deconstruct them and look past them.  Not just fear of hell and such either; I'm talking about things like associating God with getting you out of bad times and such.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents.

[Desert Fox]

Skeptics with a K had an interesting discussion of Francis Collins

[jomike]

Skeptics with a K had an interesting discussion of Francis Collins

I've never understand how first-rate scientists such as Collins and Freeman Dyson and John Polkinghorne manage to square the circle, but they apparently do, moment to moment, day in, day out.

20 Christian Academics Speaking About God

F. Scott Fitzgerald said that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

[JD Holwick]

this video is a wonderful collage of the mental maneuvering that theists do on a regular basis in order to justify their own beliefs to themselves.  thanks for posting this.  i had never seen it before and it was enlightening as to the trouble they probably recognize within themselves when justifying their beliefs.  ---  jd

[AWATS]

I've seen many people capable of compartmentalizing their belief in a god. I haven't bothered to ask them how but I suspect the answer will be philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

[JD Holwick]

so, do you think the consensus among most skeptics would be that a belief in (a) god while at the same time calling one's self a skeptic puts a person into the class of an oxymoron?  this is really is how it seems to me, but i am very curious how other skeptics feel about this.  ---  jd

[Plastique]

so, do you think the consensus among most skeptics would be that a belief in (a) god while at the same time calling one's self a skeptic puts a person into the class of an oxymoron?  this is really is how it seems to me, but i am very curious how other skeptics feel about this.  ---  jd

Pretty much. I'm always so disappointed when I learn someone's religious. I can't help but lose a certain amount of respect.

However, I wouldn't like to say it's impossible to be adequately skeptical about most things and religious at the same time. It sure makes me uneasy, though.

[mjtolsma]

The question is about theism and skepticism, NOT about religion and skepticism: an important difference.

An example, regarding the origin of the universe. Perhaps you accept the evidence of inflation-theory, and stipulate that prior to t(universe)=0,000000000000000000000000000000000001 there is god who created it. A true skeptic accepts the possibility that also the prior periode will be explained (imagine Sir Penrose's theory proves true!). If that happens, then you have to accept that the god which you thought at t=0 doesn't exist. If you then find another place for god to exist, then you make the same argument intelligent designers make when a new fossil is found and explains a "hole" in evolution. And I don't think you can do that as a skeptic.

edit: changed "true skeptic" in the last sentence in "skeptic".

[seaotter]

I think the big problems that we don't really control the things we believe. You can be rational about the almighty but at the end of the day say there must be a god. And well, we don't understand the universe, it doesn't make sense. Plenty of gap to shove gods that make us feel better.

There are plenty of skeptics that believe, the true skeptic recognizes they don't have evidence.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

While I think the skeptical answer to the question "Is there a god?" is "No" with various qualifiers depending on the exact nature of the god in question, that doesn't mean someone can't be a theist and sign up the skeptical viewpoint of thinking critically and demanding evidence. It just means that they disagree with me about the correct way to apply skeptical methodology to the question. I see the process of skepticism as refining my expectations and beliefs about the world so I obviously accept that some of my current beliefs are probably the "wrong/unskeptical" ones but I wouldn't expect someone to declare me persona non grata because of them, and I will likewise refrain from doing that to others simply because they have an odd belief. Anyone who has a general commitment to the skeptical method should be allowed to call themselves a skeptic.

[Plastique]

The question is about theism and skepticism, NOT about religion and skepticism: an important difference.

How can one be a theist and not religious?