Topic: theism and skepticism compatible?

[Ajzzz]

There are testable claims made about Jesus since he was incarnate. Dawkins is a smart person how could he not understand this fact and the division between the two?

But the point of non-overlapping magisteria was that religions don't make these sort of claims. Dawkins is aware that religious people make testable and non-testable claims, you are aware, I am aware, Stephen Jay Gould on the other hand seemed to have great difficulty with this.

Skepticism goes beyond science. Skepticism isn't the art of disbelief it is the art of critical thinking skills. You can disbelieve in everything and not be a good skeptic

You're right, disbelieving for the wrong reasons isn't better than believing for the wrong reasons.

[Johnny Slick]

If you have reason to compartmentalize your conspiracy theory, for example if you're a member of a large conspiracy theory group which might kick you out and ostracize you from a large number of your friends and family if you ever accepted that the conspiracy they believe in doesn't exist, I'd imagine you could still do pretty well as a skeptic so long as the object of your conspiracy didn't come up, or even if you left the room (literally or figuratively) every time that it did. I'd still expect there to be a backlash but I'd expect it to be from the conspiracy-theory friends and family upon learning that you joined a skeptics' group, not the other way around.

[JD Holwick]

Skepticism goes beyond science. Skepticism isn't the art of disbelief it is the art of critical thinking skills. You can disbelieve in everything and not be a good skeptic

this is a cogent insight.  disbelief across the board would not be skeptical, you are definitely correct.  ---  jdh

[Shibboleth]

But the point of non-overlapping magisteria was that religions don't make these sort of claims. Dawkins is aware that religious people make testable and non-testable claims, you are aware, I am aware, Stephen Jay Gould on the other hand seemed to have great difficulty with this.

Gould was a very competant philosopher. He didn't make obvious mistakes on most of his work. He realized that there were claims that could be tested and those were in the realm of science. It falls into the structure of what Catholics and others refer to as, "All truth is God's truth." That is to say that if science turns up something to be true then it is true and that the Pope only speaks ex cathedra on subjects of faith and morals.

The one thing that NOMA rejects is the idea of strict empiricism in that only things that can be percieved exist. NOMA is tollerant of the idea that there may be things outside of the realms of science and we should not directly dismiss those things.

[jomike]

Gould was a very competant philosopher. He didn't make obvious mistakes on most of his work. He realized that there were claims that could be tested and those were in the realm of science.

Gould wasn't a philosopher, he was a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist.  He didn't offer NOMA as a comprehensive philosophical system (although many people have certainly taken it that way).  He merely ventured it as a hypothetical, a means of reconciling science with revealed religion.  NOMA has since received rough treatment by philosophers for the general reason that, in real life, there is no clear distinction between the claims of religion and those of science; the supposedly-separate magisteria in fact overlap all over the place.

[Shibboleth]

Hume was a philosopher, economist, essayist, mathematician.... etc.

Gould wrote much on philosophical subjects. People argue from all standpoints. Some philosophers will argue that there is no clear distinction between what is observable and what is not observable. There are others that will claim that what we observe is never even close to true reality. Both of which are arguments used by philosophy to show that empiricism is flawed. You can present arguments from all sides. The fact that an argument exists isn't proof of denunciation.

Gould never claimed that religious claims were not testable. He stated that when religion concentrated on faith, morals, and the "why". It functioned within its own realm. When it came to matters of the observable and testable that is the realm of science.

There is a ven diagram situation where religions make claims about observable phenomina. Those rest in the hands of science even though they are spoken to by religion. This is where the catholics say, "All truth is God's truth". Whatever truth science turns up in that regard is the truth. Science can answer how a rock got here, religion sets about to answer why a rock got here...

[IrishJazz]

This is a subject that will never die on these boards.  I think it is possible to be a skeptic and a theist, but not a skeptic and, say, a Southern Baptist.  Is it possible to be a skeptic and a string theorist?  I would have to go with that as well, even though the ever-diminishing landscape of supersymmetry  is making it more and more a Theory of the Gaps. 

There was a great episode of Nova about Feynman where he said that he was invited to join a group of the smartest students in his high school, only to find out that all they did was discuss who else was worthy to join their elite band.  There is an element of that in the atheist pride here.  As if being right about a bunch of obvious absurdities made us superior to all those poor monkeys who hadn't quite reached that point.

Being a skeptic requires embracing the reality that we are no doubt wrong about many things.  That does make the things we think we are right about a bit more valuable, but it should also instill a bit of humility into tolerating the mistakes of others.  Let them be skeptics, invite them in the door.  Feel free to challenge them up when they are inside.

(The original version said "beat them up when they are inside."  I softened it, but left "up" in.   Corrected."

[JuniorSpaceman]

There was a great episode of Nova about Feynman where he said that he was invited to join a group of the smartest students in his high school, only to find out that all they did was discuss who else was worthy to join their elite band.  There is an element of that in the atheist pride here.  As if being right about a bunch of obvious absurdities made us superior to all those poor monkeys who hadn't quite reached that point.

This is somewhat my opinion too. Although I consider religion one of the worst influences on the modern world, we have to look at the goals of skepticism. If it's to have our own 'No Homers Club', that's fine, just something I don't really have any interest in. If we're trying to spread critical thinking, then maybe we have to ask ourself some questions like:

* Is a religious person who knows about critical thinking and skepticism more useful to society than a religious person without that knowledge?
* If a religious person at some point in the future decides not to be religious any more, would we prefer they replaced their faith with skepticism, or some other thing that comes along?
* Assuming that most politicians seem to need to profess faith, would we prefer them to be critical thinkers on the issues that they are voting on, and would we prefer that even their religious constituents saw the logic to them acting in a scientifically justified way?
* What is the actual harm to society (as opposed to 'the Movement') in religious people calling themselves skeptics, as long as they actually are skeptical about issues a, b and c, if not issues x, y and z?

[seaotter]

This

[Johnny Slick]

There was a great episode of Nova about Feynman where he said that he was invited to join a group of the smartest students in his high school, only to find out that all they did was discuss who else was worthy to join their elite band.  There is an element of that in the atheist pride here.  As if being right about a bunch of obvious absurdities made us superior to all those poor monkeys who hadn't quite reached that point.

This is somewhat my opinion too. Although I consider religion one of the worst influences on the modern world, we have to look at the goals of skepticism. If it's to have our own 'No Homers Club', that's fine, just something I don't really have any interest in. If we're trying to spread critical thinking, then maybe we have to ask ourself some questions like:

* Is a religious person who knows about critical thinking and skepticism more useful to society than a religious person without that knowledge?
* If a religious person at some point in the future decides not to be religious any more, would we prefer they replaced their faith with skepticism, or some other thing that comes along?
* Assuming that most politicians seem to need to profess faith, would we prefer them to be critical thinkers on the issues that they are voting on, and would we prefer that even their religious constituents saw the logic to them acting in a scientifically justified way?
* What is the actual harm to society (as opposed to 'the Movement') in religious people calling themselves skeptics, as long as they actually are skeptical about issues a, b and c, if not issues x, y and z?

Damn you for explaining in one post what I couldn't in 10! DAMN YOU SIR