General Discussions > Religion / Philosophy Talk

theism and skepticism compatible?

(1/17) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: Johnny Slick on Apr 20, 2012, 04:36:17 PM ---...too much consistency in that regard threatens to make skepticism a hobgoblin of little minds...

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page