Topic: theism and skepticism compatible?

[Shibboleth]

You can be skeptical about some things and not skeptical about others. Just because I walk sometimes doesn't mean that I am not running when I am running. All people are skeptical at times and all people are less than skeptical at times.

[Johnny Slick]

It's typical that a walkist like you would say something like that.

[Plastique]

and all people are less than skeptical at times.

Especially when they're emphatically claiming there's a god.

[Shibboleth]

Sure.

[seaotter]

in some of these responses i see a recurring pattern: the natural workings of the universe become god's hands.  doesn't the "god concept" become superfluous at this point?  ---  jdh

Of course.

[JD Holwick]

and i understand someone can be skeptical and nonskeptical all mixed into one conflicting package but i don't think i personally would feel true to myself if i was this way.  of course no one is a perfect skeptic, but i really find it hard to classify any theist as a skeptic.  it's too oxymoronic in my opinion.  ---  jdh

[Shibboleth]

and i understand someone can be skeptical and nonskeptical all mixed into one conflicting package but i don't think i personally would feel true to myself if i was this way.  of course no one is a perfect skeptic, but i really find it hard to classify any theist as a skeptic.  it's too oxymoronic in my opinion.  ---  jdh

What does "true to yourself" mean?

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

and i understand someone can be skeptical and nonskeptical all mixed into one conflicting package but i don't think i personally would feel true to myself if i was this way.  of course no one is a perfect skeptic, but i really find it hard to classify any theist as a skeptic.  it's too oxymoronic in my opinion.  ---  jdh

I just find it kind of offensive to tell someone "you're a theist? Well you're not a real skeptic then".

[JD Holwick]

I just find it kind of offensive to tell someone "you're a theist? Well you're not a real skeptic then".

can you elaborate why you find it offensive?  is it because you are a theist?  ---  jdh

[JD Holwick]

What does "true to yourself" mean?

i believe people know when they are not being skeptical about any particular topic, especially the big ones such as the existence of a magical god.  being true to one's self should include not tricking himself into believing he is skeptical about his choices in belief, while still believing in a god.  ---  jdh

[Shibboleth]

How can someone without free will trick themselves?

[nsfwjonathan]

I beginning to feel that this is becoming nothing more than the oft-repeated debate.  The plain fact is that we do have theists that are active skeptics.  Very good ones, at that (Pamela Gay comes to mind).  Most of them keep their theistic beliefs in their personal realm (where any religious belief belongs, IMO) and don't let them overlap into things that are more objective.

Perhaps I'm not as skeptical of skeptical theists because I have observed them in nature and many of them are better skeptics than us - they spread the word of science and skepticism while we're sitting debating what it means to be a skeptic and who we should accept into our club.

I used the example of the Islamic scholars that worked to find out how nature worked to which was a vague reply about Christians doing the same thing with the implication that they fucked up.  So what?  I didn't say all religion values science and discovery, or even most - I simply pointed out that there are deeply religious folks that feel it is their responsibility to discover every thing they can objectively about the natural world.  Those people exist, and their personal beliefs don't inform their observations - instead observation informs personal belief - EVEN IF their conclusion that the gorgeous clockwork of nature is evidence for a god of any sort is stretching the conclusion to far by scientific standards...  And folks like Gay don't inject that stretch into their scientific work, instead they hold on to it as something personal (which is where it should stay)>

[seaotter]

I just find it kind of offensive to tell someone "you're a theist? Well you're not a real skeptic then".

can you elaborate why you find it offensive?  is it because you are a theist?  ---  jdh

Its rude. When would you ever say that to someone?

[seaotter]

My point was that the Christians who studied science opened the door to christianities destruction.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

I'm too lazy to type this out again.

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.

It's supercilious and rude to gainsay someone when they claim to be a skeptic, and therefore rarely called for. It's offensive because I wouldn't want someone to do it to me, and I bet you wouldn't like it if I did it to you.