Posted by Karen on: 11.29.2006 /
Last week, Benjamin posted this response to something I said about belief in the afterlife:
(quick update added by Helen: in comment #2 Benjamin mentions that it was actually his wife Meg who posted this question, not him)
it seems to me that, to believe or not believe anything takes similar risk, leap, assumption, faith!
Thanks for bringing this up, Benjamin, it’s a great topic. I wanted to offer the viewpoint of a skeptic (me) on it, but I didn’t have a chance last week. Thanks to Helen for allowing me to get back to it.
So, do belief and nonbelief in the afterlife require similar “leaps of faith”? Very simply: No.
Let me explain. I said I’m a skeptic. What’s a skeptic?
Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. (from the Skeptics Society)
Remember “Doubting Thomas”? He was a skeptic!
What’s faith?
Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
That means the “faith-based paradigm” is the opposite of the “skeptical paradigm.” How do they apply to the topic of life after death?
It does NOT require faith to accept the position that when physical function ceases, living organisms expire. Why? The facts are well-documented through scientific evidence.
It DOES require faith to believe that life persists after physical death. Why? Because (although people have looked) there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of the human “soul” or for a realm outside of the natural universe (call it heaven, hell, limbo, whathaveyou) where souls live on after death.
Belief in the afterlife must therefore be accepted on faith.
I could go on and on about the skeptical mindset, which has served me (and probably most of you) exceedingly well. But instead of blathering on here, I’ll link to an article I posted on the DB that explains better than I could the advantages of skepticism.
Comment by: Helen
1Thanks Karen.
I’m glad you wrote this because I’ve often run into Christian apologists goading people who aren’t Christians with “It takes as much faith not to believe [something we believe] as it does to believe it! You have faith too!”
But as far as I’m concerned, not believing in life after death doesn’t take the same amount of faith as believing in it.
I’m sure Benjamin’s question was a sincere question and not asked in the same spirit with which those apologists asked.
I think maybe what Benjamin was getting at is: people who believe in life after death can’t prove they’re right. But people who don’t believe in life after death can’t prove it either, can they?
I would say no, they can’t prove it either. So if that’s what he meant, I agree with him. But I do think it takes more faith to believe in continued consciousness after death than to not believe in it.
Comment by: benjamin ady
2Karen–
thanks for your comments. They make sense. I hadn’t thought of faith in quite these terms before. I want to respond at more length, but I must away to catch my bus. There’s a really interesting discussion of “the church of reason”, that is, the university, in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” (which I think is a fascinating book) which, just by using the phrase, touches on the idea of believing in reason, logic, proof, what we experience with our senses as a form of faith.
Just to keep everything aboveboard, I should point out that the post you are responding to was actually written by Megan. We use the same computer, and sometimes I’m sort of “logged in” on CatE, (my name and stuff are already automatically in the “leave a reply” fields) and she posts and forgets to change them to herself. We decided to just let that one go, since I *could* have said it. Our bad. sorry about that. It still makes for interesting discussion!
Comment by: Helen
3Benjamin, I had the same problem with forgetting to change the name on a comment after my son posted on here! If that happens and you care, just e-mail me and I’ll fix it for you.
Comment by: Dan
4To me skepticism and faith are different approaches to knowledge which complement each other if used appropriately.
Skepticism is an appropriate approach to use in the science lab, and to some extent in daily life, but it can become unhelpful if taken too far. For example, if I was skeptical about everything my friends and relations ever said to me, just because they couldn’t always supply me with direct evidence to support their statements, that would be taking it too far!
Faith, to me, is synonymous with trust and tends to be relational in nature. To me it doesn’t mean accepting things without any evidence. I have evidence for the things I believe, some of which is objective and some of which is experiential. The object evidence can be (and often is) contested, the experiential evidence is harder to contest since it’s subjective in nature.
Faith is something that grows and develops over time, like trust does in a relationship. Sometimes the only way to really learn whether someone is trustworthy is to trust them. Faith is like that - I choose to put my faith in God, I discover that God is faithful, and my faith grows. Sometimes my faith gets knocked as well but so far I’ve always felt I’ve had enough reason to continue to trust - and in general I’ve felt that my trust has been rewarded.
I think I would see “Doubting Thomas” as an example of inappropriate skepticism - he refused to accept the testimony of all the other disciples who he knew well and should’ve been able to trust. I understand though, that a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic might interpret this as appropriate skepticism under the circumstances! Certainly, Jesus didn’t chide him for it, although he did seem to give the impression that a more trusting attitude would’ve been preferable!
Comment by: Helen
5Dan, I’m really glad you brought this up.
I just listened to part of a book which essentially said one of the best predictors of a happy marriage is the partners being able to continue to have ‘faith’ in each other being a great spouse for them. This means thinking the best and hoping the best when a spouse’s words or behavior are ambiguous or out of character.
I think the technical meaning of skeptic means ‘asks appropriate questions’, rather than ‘thinks the worst until proven otherwise’.
The reason this becomes difficult and sensitive in atheist-Christian dialog - based on my observations - is that what appears to be appropriate skepticism about God to an atheist, appears to be unwarranted mistrust of God to a Christian.
Dan are you sure you think that Doubting Thomas’ skepticism was unwarranted? If your friends came to you and claimed to have seen alive again someone whose dead body you had seen yourself, are you sure you’d be happy to trust them? If this was a friend of yours wouldn’t you want to see him for yourself before going around saying “He’s alive again!”
I mean, what the other disciples said to Thomas was completely outside normal human experience. He probably didn’t think they were deliberately lying to him, but I can see how he might have thought they must have been mistaken.
Comment by: Dan
6Hi Helen,
I understand what you’re saying about Thomas and to be honest I’d say it’s a borderline case!
Difficult to imagine myself in this situation! There are 11 (or more?) of them and they’re all saying it - and in very insistent and enthusiastic terms. Add to this the fact that we’re talking about Jesus here - the guy who I’ve seen do all those miracles, including raising other people from the dead. But on the flip side, like you say, I’ve just seen him captured and executed and gone through all the trauma of that for the last couple of days so, hard to really be sure!
I’d like to think I’d have said something along the lines of, “OK, I believe you guys, but I’d still like to see for myself just to be sure!”, rather than Thomas’s refusal to believe until confronted with the evidence.
Comment by: Dan
7Yes, definitely - and vice versa - what appears to a Christian to be appropriate faith often just looks like gullibility to an atheist!
Perhaps more understanding on both sides is called for!
Comment by: Helen
8Thanks Dan: understanding on both sides sounds good to me!
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
9Karen’s perspective is well-stated and is one that many of us in the church misunderstand or miss altogether when we fall back on slogans like “It takes just as much faith to NOT believe in God…”
And Dan’s response (faith = trust, is relational in nature, is based on the trusted one’s character & history of the relationship) states my perspective better than I usually do. :)
Comment by: Nick
10I agree with most athiests on a lot of topics except mainly one, evidence for the after life. To be an athiest u must afirm that there is 0 evidence supporting the after life theory and this is where i disagree. I do agree that there isnt enough evidence to affirmly say yes there is an after life but i think there is enough to say that its a possibility. I guess that makes me agnostic and im not ashamed to say when someone asks me the grand old question is there an after life , well i dont know!! but i hope.. im a skeptic with an open mind.
Comment by: NCxian
11I’ve always taken comfort in the Doubting Thomas story. I figure God will cut me some slack for not being satisfied with believing what I am told! Which is what I think having a skeptical mindset is all about. So I guess I think Jesus appears to be okay with that.
Comment by: HereandNow
12I’m neither a Chistian nor an Atheist. Stephen, on the Off the Map Discussion refered to me as a post-modern agnostic, and I rather like that. What I find interesting about the question of an afterlife (and really most spiritual issues) is how much intuition comes in to play. I also think that many of the conclusions we attribute to a process of deductive reasoning (but conclusions of that side of the divide that we just can’t see i.e. there is or is not an afterlife) are informed by intuition. Intuition is not the same as faith, and is not to be viewed as being in opposition to reason (regardless of the frequent trend over the last several thousand years of Western philosophy to argue to the contrary). Intuition has led to substantive developments in the world of science and religion. While I’m aware that “intuition” is a term of far greater vagueness than either faith or reason, it dances with both faith and reason as a competent and admirable partner. To dilute some of the vagueness, I will say that I don’t refer to that intuition which is just a hunch, or that intuition which is often synonimous with mystic faith. Rather, I refer to the sort of intuition from which we derive true things that are not infered by empirical evidence. An example of this would be our acceptance/conviction that space and time are real and the acceptance of infinity as real. It is always possible to doubt this intuitive knowledge, but at some point it is no longer prudent to do so.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13way off the subject, but somehow this discussion causes me to think of it. In today’s University of Washington daily there’s an article about physicists John Cramer and Warren Nagourney, at the UW, who are making preparations to do an experiment in which they try to send a message (information) *back in time* (ok, only by 50 microseconds, but still). They are very skeptical about it, and say
I find this fascinating. You can read here about it, and also here.
Comment by: David H
14A skeptic may, as a matter of course, choose not to concur with something for which there is no empirical evidence. But is it skeptism to conclude that if there is no evidence for one position that the opposite position must be true?
As an example, a faithful person may believe that there is an afterlife even though they can’t prove that in a way that fits the scientific method. But is it truly skeptical for someone else to then conclude that since there is no available evidence, then there is no afterlife? Is there a way to absolutely prove either position?
On a related subject, I wonder about the assertion that skeptism (based in the scientific method) is the “opposite” of faith. It seems to me that science sometimes begins with faith. E.G.I have a theory based on intuition, a gut feeling, a sense that there is a truth that has not yet been perceived. My life’s work then becomes to prove that there is fact that validates my thought.
However, the limitation on science is human perception. We can only prove what we can perceive. We can never see what can’t be seen until we come up with a way to improve our eyes. Thus some well established scientific beliefs fall because of improvements in the human ability to see. More to the point, science has to agree that just because something is unseen and only hoped for does not, in fact, mean that it is untrue. It only means that it is unproved.
Despite ever improving sight, there may be many things that will always be unseen. Science may never see with absolute certainty to the beginning (or beyond) and, at least for the moment, can’t see to the end (and beyond). Some things can’t be known without experiencing them. And once they are experienced, it may be impossible — given current technology — to communicate what has been learned. In other words, just because the dead don’t tell us there is an afterlife doesn’t mean they aren’t experiencing one. Is it ever likely to change that discussion about the universe and even life on this planet will not begin with the statement: “I believe, based on what I know now.”?
If someone begins from the position that if it is not known now, then it can’t be true, I would argue they are neither a skeptic nor a scientist. They are simply a fool.
For me, I acknowledge as unprovable many of my beliefs about life, the universe and God. Sometimes I don’teven know why I believe what can’t be seen, but I will until it is proven false. That may make me a fool. We will see.
Comment by: Eliza
15Thanks for posting this topic, Karen! Near and dear to my heart.
David H, I’m following right on the footsteps of your post - mind if I step into my skeptic role and respond to some of your questions?
No, but that’s not what’s going on in the skeptic’s mind.
This is not what the skeptic thinks: if there’s no evidence for A, then B is true.
This is what the skeptic thinks: if there’s no evidence for A, then there’s no evidence for A.
And, in examples like the afterlife question, B is the “null” result (the result in which nothing happens - not A, not C, not D…). It’s the result which is most parsimonious in the absence of evidence for any other more complicated result. A temporary answer for the skeptic, if you will, while waiting to see if any evidence is found for A, or C, or D, or any other non-null answer. (Sorry that was so “math-y”.)
Not one that’s known to us now. If there is an afterlife, presumably each person learns about it at death, it’s just that communicating that information back to the living doesn’t happen (or, not much - maybe near death experiences???). Presumably, God (or someone who could get “through” from the afterlife) could prove it to us skeptics, though the degree and type of evidence required for complete persuasion might differ from skeptic to skeptic. Presumably, too, if there is no afterlife then there is no way to prove that(can’t prove the nonexistence of something; one could always argue that the evidence was simply insufficient to detect it…).
Some might find that inability to prove the absence of anything, including an afterlife, reassuring - it is, in fact, highly unlikely that you will ever find out it was proven false.
That’s just someone pursuing an idea he hopes will pan out. It might be pie-in-the-sky with no hope of ever panning out, or it might be a really, really brilliant idea which is correct but hard to prove. The skepticism part is examining the rationale for believing it’s true, in light of any evidence supporting or refuting that belief - not the gut sense that it might be true, even if that sets one off on a “scientific” endeavor. (Scientists are not always as skeptical as they should be; sometimes the human desire for their idea to be true, or newsworthy, takes over. That’s where peer review, and repetition and documentation and skeptical inquiry come in as correcting measures.)
(You mean beyond electron microscopes and telescopes, I take it?) True enough. We also have to make sense of what it is we’re perceiving. It is amazing what can be proposed with paper and pencil (and computer), then proven years later after advances in other fields. I’m thinking, for example, of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, that gravitation is due to curvature of space and time, supported by numerous experiments since he proposed it in 1916. This is part of Wikipedia’s section on experiments about general relativity:
Isn’t that a fabulous mix of skepticism with scientific excitement and intrigue? (Translation: “Let’s try to challenge general relativity! Maybe we’ll learn more about quantum mechanics and gravity (which is where general relativity falls down). Oh, hey, someone showed that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, just like Einstein predicted!! Oh, but it’s possible they were mistaken, we need to examine their work in detail. Oh, hey, Pioneer 10 and 11 aren’t quite where they should be - isn’t that cool, maybe there’s some new aspect to physics we haven’t uncovered yet!! Well, or maybe there’s a simple explanation. Let’s check into that.”)
Yes, but a well-established scientific belief “falls” to an upstart new scientific belief, which is usually a very exciting thing for scientists. For example, scientists might rephrase your comment to something like: “science keeps progressing because of new understandings which result from continued improvements in our ability to perceive and measure natural phenomena.” (OK, so I’m a fan of science. I guess it shows!)
True, but again I’d propose that most scientists would phrase it a bit differently. Something which is hoped for but as-yet undetected is a hypothesis, hasn’t earned the right from a scientific point of view to be called an unproven fact (an oxymoron).
Comment by: joe
16I think we’re talking about two things - partly across each other.
In one sense, a skeptic does not require faith. If someone comes up to you and starts spouting the latest conspiracy theory, it doesn’t really take faith to laugh at him. If you are kind you might try to gently point out the evidence that suggests his theory is bunk.
But atheism goes far beyond a healthy disregard for authority and unthought maxims. It says ‘I don’t believe the evidence for x, therefore it does not exist ‘. So in that sense, it is very definitely a belief system.
Sometimes it does take faith not to believe in something. I’d definitely put atheism within that category.
Comment by: Eliza
17joe wrote:
Atheism means “without belief in gods”. Not believing God exists is not necessarily the same as believing God does not exist; it just means the person is in the neutral position, without evidence that would persuade him or her of the validity of such a belief. As I said above, nonexistence of a thing cannot be proven, so it’s not that atheists think God has been disproven - that’s impossible. And lack of evidence for position “A” means lack of evidence for position “A” - it doesn’t prove that “A” doesn’t exist, nor does it prove anything else.
Technically, this kind of atheism is called “weak atheism”, and your definition above is what is called “strong atheism” - the denial of existence of god(s). Some atheists - a small proportion, I think - are strong atheists, but I don’t think any of us here are. Actually, weak atheism overlaps significantly with agnosticism, but most of the atheists here don’t call themselves agnostics, as that term implies a fair amount of uncertainty with the evidence that is available.
I have noticed that some Christians seem to assume that atheists are denying the existence of God, even when we say we are not. I guess it’s pretty hard to fathom if you haven’t been there (and that can go both ways, of course). But I’d hope that what each person says about his or her position, his or her own beliefs, can be taken at face value.
Faith can be defined as “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” I can see how it might seem like it takes chutzpah or insouciance to be an atheist (woo hoo, new vocabulary words tonight!!), especially since you commented that “atheism goes far beyond a healthy disregard for authority.” But unless you have a different definition of faith, I don’t see how it can take “faith” not to believe.
Comment by: joe
18Well, we must be using different definitions.
I would describe atheism as a belief that there is no God/gods. I would describe your ‘weak atheism’ as agnosticism.
I suspect we’re using different frames of reference, which isn’t helping.
Comment by: JG
19I’ve been away so need to catch up on the messages over the past few days. This is just a quick thought.
As already stated, there is a difference between a firm belief there is no God (which is a belief) and not believing he does exist as described by Eliza (described as a non belief or lack of belief).
So the question on this thread as I understand it is, does it require faith NOT to believe.
The answer appears to be no, on my quick reading of the comments.
But is it possible to cast “non belief” in wholly negative terms ie merely the absence of belief rather than as a positive belief? Let me explain.
NB I am NOT using this as an analogy of faith. Say you were on a long boat trip and the issue arose - is this boat going to sink?
There would be those who said no, it is definitely not going to sink. And those who said, it definitely will sink - so we had better get in the lifeboats. Both groups clearly believe something - a positive belief.
What about those who say they see no evidence to persuade them the boat will sink? Do they have a positive belief or merely the absence of belief? I would argue that if they choose not to get in the lifeboat then they do have a positive belief - and their life depends on them having made the right decision.
Separate to the question of whether or not there is a God, is the question of, if there is a God, does it matter whether or not we believe in him, relate to him, act on what he has told us through eg the Bible, the Koran, his prophets or whatever or whoever else may or may not be the channel through who God seeks to communicate with us.
It may be possible to simply not believe there is a God but is there not a belief at work in relation to the second question regardless of what answer we give or fail to give to that question?
Comment by: Helen
20joe, what Eliza wrote is a commonly made distinction among atheists.
I think it’s best if Christians listen when atheists define themselves and atheists listen when Christians define themselves.
It makes more sense to me that someone who lacks a belief in God/gods is called an atheist rather than an agnostic and this is why. An atheist who lacks a belief in God does not think “Since I don’t know for sure whether there is a God/gods I’ll pray just in case”. No, atheists who lack a belief in God live their lives entirely without any personal reference to God. I don’t think it makes sense to call people like that agnostics simply because they don’t quite go as far as asserting that no God/gods exist, in recognition of this being something no-one can actually prove.
Comment by: Helen
21JG I see what you’re saying - in an ultimate sense, yes, everything is a belief.
For me the point is, some beliefs involve much more of a leap of faith than others. It seems unfair and wrong to me when Christians say “it takes as much faith to not believe as to believe” - that is simply not true, imo.
I don’t think you said that but some Christians do say it to atheists (or to other Christians, probably, more often) and I find that very annoying.
Comment by: JG
22Helen,
Thanks for your comments.
I think these are two separate issues. 1) Extent of the “leap” of faith required and 2)Extent of faith required NOT to believe.
I was approaching this from a belief viewpoint rather than faith as such.
Who do I believe will win the Bulgarian football league? I don’t know and, with all due respect to Bulgaria, I do not care. I don’t know any of the teams and it matters not one jot to me who wins. It may be 60% certain that the leading team will win, it may require a great leap of faith to believe the team currently at the bottom of the league will win. But I am neutral, have no view and do not mind who wins. It is irrelevant to me. That is based on a belief that it has no impact on me. That belief may be wrong. It may be that a relative of mine has placed a large bet on the outcome and will make a fortune if a certain team wins. This relative may have left all their estate to me in their will. But I don’t think so and I don’t intend living my life out in the “hope” that I might receive such a fortune in the next few years.
In that example, I agree it takes more faith to believe I might receive such a fortune than to believe that I won’t. It doesn’t take much faith not to believe that I will receive such a fortune.
How much faith does it take NOT to believe in God or NOT to believe it matters whether or not he exists or whether or not we relate to him?
Comment by: Helen
23JG wrote:
That’s a pretty good analogy of how some people feel about God.
What annoys them is when all the TV channels are covering the Bulgarian football games, or when other people keep asking them whether they support the Bulgarian team and if not, why not? (As it were.)
That’s the only reason they care - because other people caring interferes with their lives.
Or so it seems to me ;-)
Comment by: JG
24Whereas on the Titanic, enjoyment of the journey and the facilities available on the boat was spoiled by claims that the boat was going to sink. It will have been considerably less comfortable in a lifeboat compared with being on the ship - so long as the ship stays afloat.
Very irritating if you abandon the ship and are left in a lifeboat while everyone else continues to enjoy the cruise - and it doesn’t sink.
But lifesaving if in fact the boat does go down.
NB I don’t think in terms of faith as “being saved”
Comment by: Helen
25Yes but JG, no-one had to accept on faith that the Titanic was sinking. They could see it with their own eyes.
No-one can see life after death.
Comment by: JG
26Not at first - I understand there was complete disbelief that the Titanic could sink.
But yes, if you were enjoying a luxury cruise round the world, there would be nothing worse than someone telling you all the time the boat was going to sink! You would end up wanting to throttle that person! But if by some chance the boat did sink and you were drowning, you would say to yourself, if only I had listened to him!
I think for me, this is not the key issue. Rather the questions for me are:
1) Is there a God? Was the world created with purpose or did we come out purely by chance?
2) If there is a God does it matter? Does it affect me?
3) If there is a God, do I want to know him? Do I like him? Or have I grievances against him eg why so much suffering in the world?
Dealing just with the first question, I think there are considerable difficulties in believing in God. But I also think there are considerable difficulties in believing life came out purely by chance.
So I see it as a choice between two difficult options both of which are hard to believe rather than merely whether we believe in something that sounds far fetched.
With both options, some find it easier to believe than others.
Comment by: Eliza
27Nice discussion, JG and Helen. And pithy!
This question, stripped down to utilitarian outcomes in the hereafter, is the basis for Pascal’s wager. Pascal wrote:
The link above also goes through several arguments against Pascal’s wager, including that it sets up a dichotomy that may be false (either [1] “God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in Christian theology, or [2] God does not exist”), and it assumes that belief chosen from utilitarian considerations is acceptable to a God who expects true faith.
Using the Titanic analogy, it’s like I know for sure the Titanic is going to sink, but I’ve looked in the lifeboats and I saw a big hole in the bottom of each one. I don’t see any reason to believe that getting into one of those lifeboats is going to change what happens to anyone on this big ol’ sinking boat, myself included.
Comment by: Karen
28Joe:
This gets into the big problem with the word “atheist” and the popular understanding that it means someone who asserts that god definitely doesn’t exist. Eliza already explained it very well (thanks, E!) but I know the confusion persists and actually is perpetuated all the time by Christians and non-Christians alike.
(As an aside, this is one of the main reasons the word “Bright” was coined, but I think that word unfortunately came with problems of its own. Whew!)
I still choose to use the “atheist” label because, as Helen pointed out, it better describes my position than the word “agnostic.” I hope by more people using it, and getting chances to explain it like we’re doing here, maybe slowly the proper understanding will seep through. Perhaps calling myself a “weak atheist” or an “agnostic atheist” from the outset would be a better tactic, but I suspect that’s even MORE confusing.
Comment by: JG
29I like your Titanic analogy and it raises a good point. I have kept my arguments here purely faith v non faith rather than advocating any particular faith.
As you say, even if we do decide there is a God, how do we decide which version of God to accept - when there are so many competing claims. And when, as you say, there appears to be a big hole in each of the “lifeboats on offer”!
As said above, I’m not keen on the Titanic analogy generally as it implies it is all about “saving life” or “life after death” whereas I see it quite differently.
Comment by: Helen
30Karen I agree - I would think ‘weak atheist’ is quite confusing to those who haven’t heard that terminology before.
Comment by: JG
31One problem for me with Pascal’s wager is that it implies it is all to do with having a set or the right “set” of beliefs.
This issue is tackled in James 2:19 which says:
“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
Comment by: Karen
32Helen:
Agreed. This gets into something I was originally going to address up front. (I decided against it just due to time constraints.)
And that is: Skeptics may not need “faith,” but they do have to (consciously or unconsciously) adopt the skeptical position in the first place. I wouldn’t call that decision a “leap of faith,” but it’s definitely a calculated choice (and one that could be wrong, ultimately) to trust science and empirical evidence over other “ways of knowing” (which gets back to the link I provided up top).
Skeptics decide to base their entire worldview (even the “spiritual” arena) on logic and reason, rather than things like tradition, authoritative proclamations, personal experiences or emotion. And we could be wrong, no doubt. It could be that tradition and emotion and experience are good ways to make judgments about supernatural claims. But I think there is pretty good evidence that those are not the best methods. In fact, I think it’s clear that those methods are flawed and there are good arguments for not using them (again, see article above).
So, I don’t think it’s a “leap of faith” to be a skeptic. Evidence shows us that the skeptical mindset works. Just about every advantage we have in today’s world can be traced back to the application of the scientific method (technology, transportation, sanitation, etc.).
Even most religious people use the skeptical mindset when they do things like follow sound medical advice (instead of quack cures) and make important financial decisions (”prove to me that this is a good investment!”).
I’m a natural-born skeptic, like my dad. But as a Christian, I had compartmentalized “spiritual things” and put them off limits from skeptical analysis. This became harder and harder to do as I got older, however. And at some point during my deconversion journey, I read this: “Why wouldn’t we use reason and logic, which serve us so well in daily life to evaluate all extraordinary, supernatural claims - including religion?”
That really struck home with me, and helped me make the conscious decision to adopt skepticism throughout my world view.
Comment by: NCxian
33This is mostly what I was going to respond to the original post–I just haven’t gotten around to it.
And if we assume that skeptics use only direct scientific means for evaluating truth, then by definition the “supernatural” would be outside of the reach of those means. So I guess I would say that tradition and emotion and personal experience are superior ways to ascertain supernatural truths. They aren’t susceptible to scientific investigation.
As sort of an aside, I would say the when we talk about “scientific” means, (as in the skeptics’ society definition) we seem to be generally talking about physical science. What about the social sciences? Psychology, sociology, economics? Don’t they rely on “scientific means” related to human behavior and attitudes? And what about other fields, like philosophy? Isn’t that more akin to what we use to determine religious truths than, say, quantum physics?
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
34This is all very interesting… To go back to what I said about faith=trust & being a relational concept… I believe in God & resurrection (life after death) in large part because I trust those who have told me about God. That was my parents, initially, but ultimately goes back to the testimony of the disciples who wrote the New Testament. I find their account to be trustworthy, and based on their testimony, I believe Jesus was and is the savior of the world and that those who trust & follow him will have life forever.
Is this relying on “tradition, authoritative proclamations, personal experiences, or emotion”? Maybe tradition, but only because I find that this particular tradition is trustworthy and makes sense of the world in which we live. So, in my mind, this fits with a skeptical/scientific view of the world.
Why believe in life after death? Well, for one thing, Jesus has come back from the dead! He’s told us not to be afraid, that there will be a resurrection, and that we’ll be included if we trust & follow him. At one point in time, the resurrection of Jesus was a verifiable fact, confirmed by the sight and touch of the disciples. That his tomb was empty was never disputed.
That’s my perspective. :)
Comment by: David H
35I agree wholeheartedly with this mindset. I have become quite skeptical about many modern religious proclomations and also much of the old stuff, having read about the foundations of much Christian tradition.
However, the problem with rigid skepticism, as defined above, is when it comes to spirituality that realm (if it exists) is largely outside what can be confirmed by scientific method. So at some point, I must decide whether there is something there worth exploring even if it can’t ever be proven. Skepticism, one might argue, becomes even more important if I decide to explore. But it likely, in some instances, will require different tools than can be provided by the scientific method.
Comment by: joe
36I’ve been thinking a bit about this term ’skeptic’. I take on board the point of others that Christians have no right to tell others what their labels should be.
However - I think there is a continuum of skepticism. I’m university trained as a scientist, so I’d like to think that I generally approach problems with some level of scientific process and logic. I guess others could disagree.. Anyway, I would describe this as ‘healthy’ skepticism, for want of a better term. I don’t tend to take people’s word for things, I tend to check facts and so on.
Now, I would consider myself to be somewhere in the middle of the continuum. To one side I would see the ‘unhealthy’ skeptics. Those - including some christians as well as others - who will not take anyone’s word for anything, will not give the benefit of doubt, will not look for the good in anyone’s motives, always only sees bad stuff.
On the other, the ‘unhealthy unskeptics’ - including some atheists (weak or strong, even), for example those who profess there is no god yet put a lot of faith in blind chance or fate - who will lock onto any old crap, who will believe the most unbelievable nonsense, who have an overblown understanding of their own importance.
Now, of course this analogue completely breaks down in various ways - particularly as all of us can be put into all of these groups at various times in our lives.
But mainly I want to suggest that using skepticism as a measure between the deists and the non-deists is not particularly useful.
Comment by: Karen
37NC:
Great questions, NC. I bet Eliza, being a working scientist, might have an answer for them. My experience is that social science research tends to be accepted by skeptics a little more provisionally than physical science research. It’s not that it’s discounted, but that it’s understood the results are not quite as airtight, since they’re heavily influenced by things like sample size, the ways questions are asked, human reactions. Of course social scientists try to use methods that account for those things in their research.
Here’s something that might shed some light (from Wikipedia’s entry on “social sciences”):
Comment by: Karen
38Rich wrote:
Thanks for your perspective, Rich.
What you’re describing is called an “appeal from authority”:
You can read more about the appeal to authority argument here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The problem skeptics have with the appeal to authority is that it’s impossible to know which authority to trust. Particularly when it comes to religion, there are myriad sources and text that claim authority, and they often contradict each other!
For instance, Muslim parents tell their children that the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Their holy book, the Koran, and their holy clerics teach this as absolutely true. Mormon parents and scriptures and clerics teach that Joseph Smith got a set of heavenly instructions from the angel Moroni.
We could go on and on with various claims from authority figures about what god wants and various supernatural events that occurred. If we rely on authoritative figures or statements, how can we discern which one is true?
Comment by: Karen
39David H:
Thanks for this insight, David H. I think you’re right.
This is why, as I mentioned, many religious believers are skeptics in other parts of their lives (how they spend money, how they make decisions about their health, etc) but don’t extend that skepticism into matters of religion.
I did the same thing for many years. I’m still working out why that was, but I think it’s because I was taught to suspend disbelief about supernatural claims from my earliest years. Thus, I compartmentalized that knowledge as being “special” in the sense that it was immune from skeptical inquiry, although I did have lots of doubts over the years. (I dismissed them as attacks of Satan.)
Also, there were some psychological and emotional issues for me surrounding being a Christian. It’s interesting, for instance, that I only shed my religious belief after my mother died. She was a powerful force in my life and introduced me to Christianity against my father’s wishes. I think choosing Christianity as a child was a way for me to “side” with my mom in our dysfunctional family dynamic.
Of course, I wasn’t aware of any of that at the time. These are all insights I’ve had just in the past year or so.
Comment by: Karen
40Joe wrote:
I think what you’re describing is more “cynic” than “skeptic.”
Here’s what the Skeptics Society says:
I think that is something skeptics have to guard against, particularly if they’re prone to cynicism. I’m a cock-eyed optimist myself, and more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt than I probably should be! ;-)
Yes, I’ve seen this also. There are plenty of atheists who aren’t skeptics! They may not believe in god but they buy into every conspiracy theory, New Age claim, alternative medical treatment, etc. It’s a weird dichotomy.
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
41It’s a historical problem, isn’t it? At least in the case of texts that make historical claims, like the New Testament does. How do we know if any historical assertion is true or false? We investigate.
This is why I said, “…but only because I find that this particular tradition is trustworthy and makes sense of the world in which we live.” I’m happy to put the New Testament up against the religious literature of any other group whose texts make historical claims. It shines by comparison.
Maybe that still counts as “arugment from authority.” I don’t know. Either way, I definitely disagree that it is “impossible to know which authority to trust,” because the claims of those authorities can be tested, corroborated, etc.
If someone today were to die publicly on a Friday and then be found alive again the next Sunday morning, would it make a difference? Would I have to rely on “argument from authority” (of the eyewitnesses) if I didn’t see it myself or couldn’t recreate it experimentally?
As I read over this post, it sounds antagonistic. I don’t mean for it to. :)
Comment by: Karen
42You don’t sound antagonistic at all, Rich. No problem. :-)
You wrote:
I’ve not seen a positive evaluation of the claims of the NT as extremely historically accurate, or more historically accurate than the sacred texts of other religions. In fact, some recent critiques of the NT have recently come out (Bart Ehrman is one author) that call its accuracy into question.
David S. posted this essay on the DB today. It talks about what kind of evidence a skeptic would accept as good proof of a miracle.
Comment by: David H
43Richard Packham said:
So whether the Bible is considered documentary evidence or hearsay (copied over and over down through centuries) it cannot be considered as evidence of anything. That seems to pretty much conclude the discussion of proof regarding anything miraculous in the Bible (as well as a few non-miraculous things, after all I don’t think there is any proof-positive from archeology that there was a David or Solomon).
I’m not a big one for the Bible providing proof of anything. I think Christians who point to “proofs” in the Bible are making a huge mistake. But this seems a too-neat preclusion of any discussion of anything out of the ordinary in the Bible. I’m not trying to talk anyone out of this position. It is probably perfectly valid. But it does feel a bit like being told: If you can’t absolutely prove what you are about to say, just shut up.
I’m thinking that might put an end to quite a bit of conversation.
Comment by: Eliza
44Rich Schmidt said:
David H quoted from the essay Karen linked above:
Seems to me that Rich is talking about what he accepts as reliable evidence, whereas Richard Packham is writing about what courts accept as evidence - and as a skeptic he (R.P.) is assuming that everyone should use the legalistic standards, in order to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But here, it’s clear that the modern legalistic standard isn’t the appropriate one for everyone - we’re not judges in a court on this matter, and it isn’t like the “claim” will be dropped if the court decides the evidence doesn’t meet its standards.
We’re people who have to each make our own decisions based on preponderance of evidence (not, for everyone, “beyond a reasonable doubt”).
We don’t usually depend on arguments from others to make this decision, though we may hear arguments from others that attempt to sway us or to paint our position as illogical.
The evidence that we each consider includes data that would not be allowed in a court of law, like personal and spiritual experiences, and what our parents taught us was true, etc.
I’m going to guess that for many people, atheists included, not making a decision about whether or not to believe in God is unacceptable, since it leaves something potentially very important up in the air.
Terms like “argument from authority” come in when one “side” is analyzing the logical approach used. But, again, that only seems relevant when one side is trying to convince the other side, not (necessarily) when each of us make our own decisions about belief.
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
45I’m starting to wish I hadn’t mentioned my parents at all. :) But honestly, that’s where each of us begins to have our perspective and worldview shaped. Hopefully, that’s not the end of the process for any of us. I know it hasn’t been for me, though I have come to conclusions (so far, at 31 years old) on these sorts of issues that are very near to those of my parents.
I mentioned my parents to say that for me they were the last in a long chain of testimony about Jesus and his resurrection. While testimony may not hold much water for a skeptic, it’s the primary way that Christian faith gets transferred from one person to another. Jesus said to his followers, “You will be my witnesses…” Their testimony about him and his resurrection has been passed down through the ages.
Fortunately, their testimony was also written down quite early, closer to the actual events described than any other ancient historical document that I am aware of, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events. In one of his letters, Paul says, essentially, “Look, most of the folks who saw Jesus alive again after his death are still around. You could ask them yourself!” (1 Corinthians 15) Documentary evidence seems to support the idea that much of the New Testament was written by or during the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.
Packham’s article is interesting & helpful. Thanks for linking to it. I can understand why a person wouldn’t readily accept the assertions of the Bible as fact. But the claims it makes are important enough that they deserve investigation, and (in my experience) investigation supports those claims.
I haven’t gotten around to reading Ehrman’s books. I need to. Thanks for the reminder.
Comment by: Kathleen
46One of my favorite (if simplistic) quotes says “Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.” (I don’t know the spirit in which it was intended, but I have no qualms about using it to refer to my faith.) If faith (in this case, theism) is believing against common sense, then skepticism would be following common sense - and it doesn’t take much faith to do that. I suppose you must “have faith” that you’re not damning yourself to eternal hellfire by not believing, but since there’s not much in the day-to-day experiences of the common sensical world to indicate that you are, it doesn’t seem that it would take much faith to “believe” (maybe “accept” would be a better word?) the contrary.
Comment by: Karen
47Kathleen, that’s from Mark Twain:
Twain had load of things to say about religion
Comment by: Kathleen
48Actually, I googled it, and apparently it’s from “Miracle on 34th Street.” I think Twain’s quote says something completely different and much more negative. “Believing what you know ain’t so” sounds a lot like believing/living a lie, while “believing what common sense tells you not to” is believing that something IS “so” even if it shouldn’t be, at least according to the laws of nature (hence the supernatural).
Comment by: JG
49Eliza made some very interesting observations in the Justice and Rights thread:
It is this that interests me from a philosophical point of view. I think most people do recognise that we do have a sense of morality and the question is, is this something that is simply due to evolution along with life itself or is it linked to some sort of God or creator?
As I thought about this thread about skepticism, I thought of planets etc that we can’t see or observe directly but we know they are there because we can observe their effect on planets that we can see. My knowledge is weak in this area - perhaps some else can clarify or provide a link that gives an example of this.
I observe that throughout history, people have believed in and sought to relate to “God” or to “Gods” and have had a corporate sense of morality.
We can’t observe God directly but we can observe the way people appear to have an in built sense of God. If we believe there is no God and instead believe that life came about by chance then we have to account for this sense of God and for our sense of morality in some other way linked to evolution.
If we did start from next to nothing and evolved, we then need to understand what there was before that. If it all started with a big bang, what existed before the big bang?
There are difficult questions, things which are hard to get our minds round and this is the case whether or not we have religious faith.
I am sure it was very hard for me to accept the world was round not flat as this idea offended against what ordinary people observed. Skeptics at that time would have said, of course the world is flat -and would have riduculed those saying it was round.
Words can be misleading. I see two different types of skepticism. On the one hand the type that discounts anything that doesn’t make sense or which sounds far fetched. On the other hand, there is the the type that doesn’t accept the confines of conventional wisdom and is prepared to think “outside the box” - apologies, I hate that phrase but can’t think of a better one. Many of our great discoveries have been made by people who have not limited themselves to conventional wisdom. Who have dared to ask “what if …?”
For me, church is betraying itself when it seeks to close down discussion and questioning instead of welcoming and encouraging it.
Sadly too often the church HAS betrayed itself.
Comment by: JG
50Don’t know why this says “me” - should read “hard for people to accept…”
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
51Agreed. We encourage questioning at ours.
Comment by: Eliza
52JG, I’d refer you to Karen’s original post starting this thread, and her comment in #40 on the difference between a cynic and a skeptic. And, scientists tend to be skeptics, but also love discovery. Skeptics can definitely think outside the box - they’d just want to figure out how to determine whether or not their weird idea has any merit in fact.
Presented with a claim that the earth is any particular shape, a skeptic would say, “What evidence do you have for that claim?” Eratosthenes noticed that the sun was directly overhead on the summer solstice in his hometown, but was ~7 degrees lower in the sky on the solstice further north, in Alexandria. (Shadows were longer in Alexandria than on the same day of the year further south, on the Tropic of Cancer.) From this, he calculated the circumference of the earth’s sphere in 240 BC. While his approach might not be obvious to people, a simple demonstration with a ball and a light source could probably make the point that a spherical earth explains this observation. Whereas the evidence for “flat earth” is, “well it looks flat, doesn’t it?” (The curvature of the earth’s shadow on the moon has also been mentioned as a reason to think the earth is round - it’s not clear to me, though, how this couldn’t be explained by the earth being a disc.)
I certainly would have a hard time belonging to an organization that didn’t allow questioning. (Within reasonable limits, perhaps, and maybe defining “reasonable limits” is where the problem lies?)
Comment by: JG
53Eliza,
Many thanks for your comments. I always prefer to look behind words and seek to get to the real meaning. I’m less interested in the definition of skepticism and more interested in the different approaches people use. Karen said:
This appears to me to imply that we do not need compelling evidence NOT to believe.
Will my train be on time tomorrow? I could say, I won’t believe it will be on time unless and until I see it appear on the platform on time. In reality I am saying I believe it will be late.
When making discoveries, I believe people have not said “I won’t believe until I have compelling evidence. Rather they have said, I wonder whether this might be true and they have then tested the idea. Often it is immediately proved false but if not they pursue it.
I accept they may not be satisfied until they have found compelling evidence to prove not just to themselves but also to others that the idea is true.
I think you are saying the same thing when you say:
I think I have said before, I like the verse in Acts 17:11 which says the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” I appreciate this does not suggest skepticism about scripture but does indicate to me they were thinking for themselves rather than just accepting what they were told. So if I was a member of Mars Hill, I wouldn’t just accept whatever Mark Driscoll taught but I would look up the passages and verses he quotes and see how what he says compares with my reading of them, in context and I would also see how his comments fit in with other passages in the Bible.
People tend to say you can get the Bible to say whatever you want it to say. I see it the other way round. If anyone wants to claim the Bible says something, they need (if challenged)to be able to show how what they are claiming is consistent not just with the verse or passage being quoted but with the Bible as a whole. This approach makes it very hard for anyone to be too definite in making claims about what the Bible means!
I’m interested in your refence to Eratosthenes in 240BC. I knew some people had established the world was round quite some time before it became generally accepted but had not realised the time delay had been as long as that!
I agree with you about reasonable limits. I would see this more in terms of time than substance. People should be free to come out with whatever questions they may have and to challenge things which don’t appear to make sense.
But a church is a group of people who have come together with a common purpose. If, after a period of discussion, someone feels they do not share that same common purpose then probably it is better for them to find somewhere else where they feel more at home.