• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Art of Positive Skepticism

So everybody seems to agree that skepticism is in fact a really good thing to have.

So why is it that when it comes to religion, all that goes out the damned window???

Why is it NOT a good thing to be skeptical about god, the devil, heaven, angels, hell, and so forth?

Because there's no evidence, and skeptics tend to want to see evidence of some sort. "beyond a reasonable doubt".

faith (fāth)►
n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

When someone with faith in something tries to convince a skeptic that what they have faith in is a concrete reality, much dancing tends to ensue.
 
Because there's no evidence, and skeptics tend to want to see evidence of some sort. "beyond a reasonable doubt".



When someone with faith in something tries to convince a skeptic that what they have faith in is a concrete reality, much dancing tends to ensue.

I agree and I disagree...there is evidence for the believer, there's just not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt for the skeptic...there's a difference between the 2...but your 2nd statement is a good reason the 2 should not argue about, ever...every person has to discover...or not...that evidence for themselves...no one else can do it for them...the earnest desire to know has to be there 1st and foremost...for most skeptics, I don't think it's there...they're out to prove there is no God, do or die...
 
A lot of things seem to make people feel entitled to be a jackass to those who don't share their view of things. I don't think skepticism is any more responsible for jackasses than any other views. I would put cynics way out in front in jackass entitlement.

Fair statement...and I find myself needing to back my statement up a bit, as it didn't properly communicate my thoughts.

Skepticism on it's own does not default to jackass behavior. There are plenty of skeptics out there who are happy to be privately skeptical, and keep their opinions to themselves, unless in a debate setting, like this, or over a beer with friends, where there is an understanding that everyone involved is happy to engage in the debate. However there are others, usually jackasses to begin with, who feel like the opinion their skepticism has helped them arrive at should be rammed down everyone's throat, whether they are interested in said opinion or not.

There...I think I said that a little better... :)
 
I agree and I disagree...there is evidence for the believer, there's just not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt for the skeptic...there's a difference between the 2...but your 2nd statement is a good reason the 2 should not argue about, ever...every person has to discover...or not...that evidence for themselves...no one else can do it for them...the earnest desire to know has to be there 1st and foremost...for most skeptics, I don't think it's there...they're out to prove there is no God, do or die...

That's pretty much it, though I think you are lumping all skeptics in the same box. I think skepticism exists in people along a continuum. The skeptics you are referring to are probably avowed atheists. There are cases of atheists and skeptics becoming religious, as well as cases of religious people rejecting religion. As to the idea that 'those who don't seek will never find', that's probably mostly true. One famous exception is CS Lewis, but I'm sure there are more. Same for believers who wind up rejecting the ideas of theistic religion.

The "evidence" you refer to is (I'm just talking about the supernatural claims here) really a matter of subjective experience on the part of the believer. If that experience is strong enough, it becomes "properly basic" for the believer, in other words, a reality for him/her. I don't deny that people have those experiences and believe them to be as solid as a rock.

I continue to have both wonder and doubt, and I pretty much always remember having that.
 
I agree that it is generally good.


I can't speak for others, but speaking solely for myself, I've personally experienced God in my life, and I've experienced his goodness. I find my belief in God to be rational in the same way that I find my belief in the four things that I listed to devildavid as being rational. In short, I don't need to be skeptical of something that I have experienced for myself.

And this goes back to what we were just talking about, I can swear up and down that I have experienced God in my life, as I have just done, but that does nothing to "prove it" to you, since I am the only person who can see my own personal experiences. You can claim that my experiences had nothing to do with God and have naturalistic explanations and likewise, but you can't imagine exactly what I experienced. That's the tricky thing with personal experiences... they're personal (purely testimonial) and can only be accepted by someone else through means of belief (not by evidence).

How do you know with complete certainty that what you experienced is factually a supernatural entity that you call god?

Why aren't all claims of god/supernatural experience exactly the same?
 
How do you know with complete certainty that what you experienced is factually a supernatural entity that you call god?
How do you know with complete certainty that what you experience in "day to day life" is reality, and not existence as a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, or existence as a body lying in the Matrix induced to live in a virtual reality?

In the same way that you "know" you are experiencing "reality", I "know" that I am experiencing "God". Why should one experience be trusted with little to no skepticism but the other experience be doubted with extreme skepticism?

Why aren't all claims of god/supernatural experience exactly the same?
What do you mean?
 
How do you know with complete certainty that what you experience in "day to day life" is reality, and not existence as a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, or existence as a body lying in the Matrix induced to live in a virtual reality?

In the same way that you "know" you are experiencing "reality", I "know" that I am experiencing "God". Why should one experience be trusted with little to no skepticism but the other experience be doubted with extreme skepticism?


What do you mean?

If I'm a brain in a vat or in the matrix then god has even less meaning. It becomes an illusion within an illusion. That isn't skepticism, it's defeatism. And if you test it to the limits, you end up dead. Not much point in using skeptical though to conclude any such made up nonsense.

Why do the claims vary so widely? Not all religions believe in the same type of god or the same religious concepts. If there is one truth and one god you'd think they would all agree.
 
I agree and I disagree...there is evidence for the believer, there's just not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt for the skeptic...there's a difference between the 2...but your 2nd statement is a good reason the 2 should not argue about, ever...every person has to discover...or not...that evidence for themselves...no one else can do it for them...the earnest desire to know has to be there 1st and foremost...for most skeptics, I don't think it's there...they're out to prove there is no God, do or die...

If god is real human desire should have zero impact in the ability to detect god. We don't get burned by fire only if we have a desire to believe in it.
 
I agree that it is generally good.


I can't speak for others, but speaking solely for myself, I've personally experienced God in my life, and I've experienced his goodness. I find my belief in God to be rational in the same way that I find my belief in the four things that I listed to devildavid as being rational. In short, I don't need to be skeptical of something that I have experienced for myself.

And this goes back to what we were just talking about, I can swear up and down that I have experienced God in my life, as I have just done, but that does nothing to "prove it" to you, since I am the only person who can see my own personal experiences. You can claim that my experiences had nothing to do with God and have naturalistic explanations and likewise, but you can't imagine exactly what I experienced. That's the tricky thing with personal experiences... they're personal (purely testimonial) and can only be accepted by someone else through means of belief (not by evidence).

Maybe your skepticism should be focused around why your god doesn't "speak" to more people directly? Why did he pick you?
Why hasn't he picked a few billion more folks?

Why doesn't he/she actually speak out to everyone all at the same time?

Also I wonder, if a dude from India said that he had a personal experience with Vishnu, would you be skeptical?
 
If I'm a brain in a vat or in the matrix then god has even less meaning.
Maybe, maybe not... but that's not the point... The point is: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that?

It becomes an illusion within an illusion.
Yeah, a "reality" within another "reality"...

That isn't skepticism, it's defeatism. And if you test it to the limits, you end up dead. Not much point in using skeptical though to conclude any such made up nonsense.
It's not defeatism. I'm not understanding what point you're making after that, and I'm not sure how you conclude that it is "made up nonsense"... That goes back to my question above: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that? It's a perfectly legitimate question that gets to the core of your belief system...

Why do the claims vary so widely? Not all religions believe in the same type of god or the same religious concepts. If there is one truth and one god you'd think they would all agree.
People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...
 
Maybe, maybe not... but that's not the point... The point is: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that?


Yeah, a "reality" within another "reality"...


It's not defeatism. I'm not understanding what point you're making after that, and I'm not sure how you conclude that it is "made up nonsense"... That goes back to my question above: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that? It's a perfectly legitimate question that gets to the core of your belief system...


People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...

So it is possible your experience of god is a mistake.

Chiggers are not analogous to gods.
 
People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...

How do you know people have free will?? How do you know that you don't have the illusion of free will? Can you show that to be true using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature?
 
These are not beliefs.

Huh? Yes they are. They are propositional attitudes. Holding a proposition to be true = holding a belief. Belief is not a dirty word.
 
How do you know people have free will?? How do you know that you don't have the illusion of free will? Can you show that to be true using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature?
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).

But to expand upon that, free will isn't choosing A over not-A... but rather free will is making a choice without being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. I can lift up my arm at any time and nothing else is causing me to do so. It's seemingly purely my choice and my choice alone...

Free will is evidenced through personal experience (the choices we make, and being held accountable for those choices), so free will is justified to believe in unless there's a defeater for believing in it.
 
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).

But to expand upon that, free will isn't choosing A over not-A... but rather free will is making a choice without being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. I can lift up my arm at any time and nothing else is causing me to do so. It's seemingly purely my choice and my choice alone...

Free will is evidenced through personal experience (the choices we make, and being held accountable for those choices), so free will is justified to believe in unless there's a defeater for believing in it.

In other words, you can't show a damn thing, but you might as well assume it's true anyway.

My personal opinion is that the concept is of free will, or lack of free will is null and void, since you can't prove or disprove it one way or another, and the claim for free will is used to attempt to resolve contradictions that it really doesen't.
 
In other words, you can't show a damn thing, but you might as well assume it's true anyway.

My personal opinion is that the concept is of free will, or lack of free will is null and void, since you can't prove or disprove it one way or another, and the claim for free will is used to attempt to resolve contradictions that it really doesen't.
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??

Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...

So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...

Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...
 
So everybody seems to agree that skepticism is in fact a really good thing to have.

So why is it that when it comes to religion, all that goes out the damned window???

Why is it NOT a good thing to be skeptical about god, the devil, heaven, angels, hell, and so forth?
It's called special pleading.
 
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??

Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...

So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...

Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...

No that isn't what I said. I said the concept is null and void because it can not be either proven or disproven.
 
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??

Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...

So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...

Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...

No that isn't what I said. I said the concept is null and void because it can not be either proven or disproven.

Alrighty... In that case, then the things I listed to you should be "null and void" in concept, according to you, because they also can't be either proven or disproven...

But you not only accept their concepts, you accept them as justifiably objectively true... Why is that?
 
Alrighty... In that case, then the things I listed to you should be "null and void" in concept, according to you, because they also can't be either proven or disproven...

But you not only accept their concepts, you accept them as justifiably objectively true... Why is that?

The thing is... when it comes to many of the other things that can not be prove or disprove, that are a matter of opinion, many of them have an application to how people live. THe concept of free will does not. It is used as an excuse for 'why things are bad'.. sometimes it is just as justification for 'why I am better than you' in the case of hte opposite . (Some of the Calvinist concepts for example). As such, the concept is more detrimental than not., in addition to not having any practical use.
 
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??

Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...

So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...

Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...

Yes, that is correct. You can't simply use words (arguments) to conjure something into reality. Why do you think it should be so easy?
 
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).

But to expand upon that, free will isn't choosing A over not-A... but rather free will is making a choice without being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. I can lift up my arm at any time and nothing else is causing me to do so. It's seemingly purely my choice and my choice alone...

Free will is evidenced through personal experience (the choices we make, and being held accountable for those choices), so free will is justified to believe in unless there's a defeater for believing in it.

Free will is not a necessary condition of meaningfulness. Having human emotions is the only necessary condition.
 
Back
Top Bottom