Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[PRmerger]

If you are comparing the alien hypothesis to the hypothesis that Nero executed Peter by making him a scapegoat for the Roman fire (not for Peter’s belief in the Resurrection), then you’ve lost me. The latter sounds much more tenable and falsifiable.

Do you understand Jesus’ parables, Ike?

I have a feeling that you’d be one of the disciples who heard him preach and said, “He lost me. He was comparing me, a live human being, with this dead, small, circular piece of metal.”

EDIT: I hope I haven’t “lost” you with comparing my analogies to Jesus’ parables.

 

[PRmerger]

That is “strange” from the mouth of someone who argued that “ALL claims must be investigated by science”.

But ALL claims must be examined by science… even if they are ridiculous “on their own merit”.

It does not happen too frequently that someone contradicts herself within a few pages. This example is “priceless”. (For everything else there is MasterCard)

“I am a man of science and I am open minded”
“But I don’t believe in the supernatural, so I always dismiss the supernatural possibility”.

#circular
#illogical
#unscientific.

Now, Catholics are not Science Alone advocates. Therefore, we are under no obligation whatosever to investigate every single option.

We start from faith and then move towards understanding.

That’s why we don’t need to investigate the absurd.

But you do.

If you’re a man of science.

Otherwise, what you are is…

a man of…

wait for it…
wait for it…





FAITH.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you are comparing the alien hypothesis to the hypothesis that Nero executed Peter by making him a scapegoat for the Roman fire (not for Peter’s belief in the Resurrection), then you’ve lost me. The latter sounds much more tenable and falsifiable.

Do you understand Jesus’ parables, Ike?

I have a feeling that you’d be one of the disciples who heard him preach and said, “He lost me. He was comparing me, a live human being, with this dead, small, circular piece of metal.”

I never deflect questions, Mike.

Are you sure about that?

I think Ike’s questions deserve a fair attempt at answers.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it is NOT. It is what YOU said. No advocate of science will endorse allocating money, time and resources for ridiculous claims or “ideas”, as you said. I explicitly asked if YOU were in favor of investigating ALL claims, and you explicitly answer a resounding “YES”. Only a few pages back…

I was speaking from your paradigm, PA.

Otherwise, if you do not investigate, you are TAKING IT ON FAITH that something cannot possibly be the answer.

I have no problem with FAITH as an answer.

And, clearly, you don’t either.

 

[tonyrey]

Technically, I wouldn’t call using the phrase “in your imagination” name-calling, or even an ad-hominem…just a bit polemical. There is a temptation to label anything that sounds mean as an ad-hominem, but that doesn’t change its formal definition.

That said, I don’t blame you for feeling offended. Polemics are, more often than not, very unnecessary.

When you have been discussing philosophy for as long as I have you don’t feel offended but amused by the fallacious arguments used by novices and their abuse intended to distract you from their inability to refute your statements. It’s always a sign of irritated impotence.

 

[tonyrey]

Okay, but how do we know that the Apostles did not make up the Resurrection out of cognitive dissonance from the idea that they expected their Messiah to rule, but ended up dying? The quotes from Jesus saying that He will die and resurrect could have been made up.

Do you really believe the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father which is the foundation of the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the product of “cognitive dissonance”?

By their fruits you shall know them… What have the atheists produced?

 

[icamhif]

Do you really believe the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father which is the foundation of the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the product of “cognitive dissonance”?

By their fruits you shall know them… What have the atheists produced?

Are you accusing me of being a closet atheist? I’m a Christian, and I believe that Jesus Christ is our God and Savior. I just have occasional doubts and honest questions.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

“I am a man of science and I am open minded”
“But I don’t believe in the supernatural, so I always dismiss the supernatural possibility”.

And this comes after the fact that I gave you at least TWO ways and means to prove that the supernatural exists. To which your answer was that you are NOT INTERESTED in convincing me. It is dangerous to argue with someone who pays attention, and remembers the previous discussions. :tsktsk:

I was speaking from your paradigm, PA.

You were??? That is a surprise. First, you have no idea what my “paradigm” would be. And second, I asked explicitly about YOUR opinion, and you explicitly gave me YOUR opinion, namely that ALL claims must be investigated by science. Then you reinforced it by asking what if Fleming would have declined to study the bacterial effects. Your attempt to put the onus on me is rejected.

So, to use the mildest possible way to express my opinion: “you are intellectually dishonest”. (The proper way to express it would be much stronger.)

Otherwise, if you do not investigate, you are TAKING IT ON FAITH that something cannot possibly be the answer.

I have no problem with FAITH as an answer.

And, clearly, you don’t either.

I just love it when believers play fast and loose with the word “faith”. The word has a wide range of meanings: from “I believe that my car will start in the morning, due to my prior experience” all the way “I believe anything and everything whatever the church declared to be true”. Both are expressions of “faith”, and yet they have nothing in common. (Linguistic ambiguities of the English language.) There is a difference between “reasonable expectations” and “blind , unquestioning faith”. (And if you try a retort that Catholics are expected to question certain things, please answer me: “are you allowed to question the dogmas”? The answer is “no”! Even if you have doubts, you MUST accept them.)

My “faith” of dismissing claims of the paranormal and the supernatural is solidly founded on the many experiments which attempted to prove the existence of these phenomena, but failed miserably. The proponents of the “supernatural” always have a ready-made answer: “Your humble request was denied by God, because it would have interfered with God’s greater plan”. (How would they know what God’s “greater plan” might be is never explained.)

Now, to be precise about my “paradigm”: I have no problem with resorting to authorities. The trick is that the authority must establish his “bona fides”, before he can he accepted as an authority. No one will be accepted as an authority on his own “say so”. This would be called self-authentication.

Also, for the sake of clarity: “not every claim needs to be subjected to the so-called scientific method (of observation, hypothesis forming, experiments performed and hypothesis supported of contradicted)”. There are many questions which do not fall under this “paradigm”.

Only the ones which deal with the external, objective reality are subject to the scientific method. And that includes the claims of the paranormal or the supernatural. The proponents of these parts of the external, objective reality are under the obligation to perform the necessary tests to substantiate their claims. When they do, THEN science can take over and investigate the claims and the circumstances of the experiments. (Naturally, the apologists have another ready-made answer here, too. It is: “you are not allowed to put God to the test”. The reason is simple: “because God fails the test every time”. )

 

[Randy_Carson]

(Naturally, the apologists have another ready-made answer here, too. It is: “you are not allowed to put God to the test”. The reason is simple: “because God fails the test every time”. )

Pallas-

I know I am walking in at least an hour or so into the movie, but may I ask what you mean when you say that “God fails the test every time”?

Specifically, to what test are you referring?

Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you really believe the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father which is the foundation of the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the product of “cognitive dissonance”?

I’m sorry you think I’m accusing you of being an atheist. I am simply pointing out why I believe Jesus is not a myth. The best test of any belief is whether it corresponds to the way we live. My post is a response to the question “How do we know that the Apostles did not make up the Resurrection?” No more no less!

 

[icamhif]

I’m sorry you think I’m accusing you of being an atheist. I am simply pointing out why I believe Jesus is not a myth. The best test of any belief is whether it corresponds to the way we live. My post is a response to the question “How do we know that the Apostles did not make up the Resurrection?” No more no less!

Thanks for the clarification
I’m sorry for misunderstanding you.

God bless,

Ike

 

[Bradski]

The best test of any belief is whether it corresponds to the way we live.

Many Hindus would agree with you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Pallas-

I know I am walking in at least an hour or so into the movie, but may I ask what you mean when you say that “God fails the test every time”?

Specifically, to what test are you referring?

Thanks.

Every time there is a properly conducted double-blind test about the efficacy of supplicatory prayers. There is no statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group. The same kind of test that is used to establish the efficacy of a new drug against some specific health problems.

Some people say that this kind of testing is inapplicable when God is being “tested”, because the new drug has no idea that it is being tested, so the results will reflect the efficacy of the drug. However, God is aware of being tested, so he will “skew” the result, and make a false negative outcome. I am always amused to see this defense. The apologists accuse God of being a scoundrel or a cheat, who uses his powers to avoid detection. In my eyes such a defense is much worse than the original “accusation” - namely that God simply does not exist or does not care.

 

[PRmerger]

Every time there is a properly conducted double-blind test about the efficacy of supplicatory prayers. There is no statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group.

Not true.

From the New York Times article: Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results.

 

[icamhif]

It was only a different phrase for “it is your opinion only”.

One must be careful in phrasing opposition, it can be misconstrued as “uncharitable”. That is why I try to use simple and neutral phrases like “this is irrational”, or “this is incorrect”, or “it is only your view” - instead of “you are a drooling idiot”, which I would love to say sometimes. Anyhow, thank you for pointing it out - not that I expect it to have any effect on certain posters. (Is this also an ad hominem? I wonder.)

I commend you for your civility

 

[PRmerger]

And this comes after the fact that I gave you at least TWO ways and means to prove that the supernatural exists.

And I responded that Fatima seemed to have met your criterion.

QED.

You were??? That is a surprise. First, you have no idea what my “paradigm” would be.

I have all of your posts, and your posts as the banned member Hee_Zen, to inform me…so I have a very educated opinion of what your paradigm is.

And second, I asked explicitly about YOUR opinion, and you explicitly gave me YOUR opinion, namely that ALL claims must be investigated by science.

If one is a Science Alone advocate.

Then you reinforced it by asking what if Fleming would have declined to study the bacterial effects.

Indeed. If he did not pursue an idea which he rejected, we would not have penicillin.

Or, as you correctly (based on faith) asserted: someone else would have figured it out.

But only if she said, “I will consider all possibilities. And not reject the ones that I have a preconceived bias against.”

So, to use the mildest possible way to express my opinion: “you are intellectually dishonest”. (The proper way to express it would be much stronger.)

Careful, PA.

Let’s say you come to a forum and are an adamant English Only advocate.

I speak 2 languages. I am a firm believer in English AND Spanish as national languages.

You, peculiarly, crow, “Hah! I found a picture of you wearing a t-shirt that had Spanish on it! How hypocritical of you!”

Ummmm…so??? I speak your language here so you can understand.

But you forgot the very basic premise: I am NOT A ENGLISH ONLY advocate.

I just love it when believers play fast and loose with the word “faith”. The word has a wide range of meanings: from “I believe that my car will start in the morning, due to my prior experience” all the way “I believe anything and everything whatever the church declared to be true”. Both are expressions of “faith”, and yet they have nothing in common. (Linguistic ambiguities of the English language.)

Yes. You are very Catholic when you say this. In fact, you are echoing the great Pope JP2, in his magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio.

And did you know that there are many words in the English language which have “a wide range of meanings”?

For example, love.

“You love turnips” and “I love that you have echoed a Catholic theologian” and “My husband loves me so much!” are all expressions of “love” and yet they have nothing in common.

 

[PRmerger]

(And if you try a retort that Catholics are expected to question certain things, please answer me: “are you allowed to question the dogmas”?

Absolutely.

That is exactly why (and how) Catholic Answers exists.

If Catholics couldn’t question…then there wouldn’t be Catholic Answers.

The answer is “no”!

LURKERS: Please know that Pallas Athene is speaking out of great, great misinformation and you need to know that the above response is absolutely, categorically, without a doubt…WRONG.

Theology departments exist for this very reason: to answer questions posed about God’s revelation.

Coincidentally (or not ) from an article I happened to have just read this morning:

A culture of “faith seeking understanding” is not a culture that holds that there is a Catholic or Christian science or that faith alone offers a sufficient answer to all questions. The very point of theology is to engage the truths of faith in a “dialogue with reason”—that is, with all the other disciplines that arise from the questioning human spirit and our observation of the world. Theology affirms the truths of other disciplines even as it integrates them into a discourse that transcends their methodologies. This discourse generates a kind of thick intellectual culture, in which faith generates new questions about what we learn through scientific research rather than replacing or preempting such research.
blogs.nd.edu/oblation/2015/02/16/why-study-god-the-role-of-theology-at-a-catholic-university/

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And I responded that Fatima seemed to have met your criterion.

No, you responded that it is not your obligation to present an unquestionable “miracle”.

so I have a very educated opinion of what your paradigm is.

There was no need for your “very educated” guess. I explicitly stated that I do NOT subscribe to the idea that science must answer all the questions.

If one is a Science Alone advocate.

Your continued attempt to deny your previous propositions does not fool anyone. An intellectually honest person would have said: “Oops, I was hasty when I demanded that ALL claims must be investigated by science”… and you would have gained respect, not lost it. The more you try to wiggle out, the more people will see your intellectual dishonesty.

Yes. You are very Catholic when you say this. In fact, you are echoing the great Pope JP2, in his magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio.

So why did you try to equate “reasonable expectations” with “blind faith”? It is such an overused and lame trick: “why do you have problem with my procedure to depend on my faith, you employ faith all the time”. As if the two uses of “faith” were somehow compatible.

That is exactly why (and how) Catholic Answers exists.

Playing word games again. Of course you are allowed to present questions about the dogmas. But you are NOT allowed to question the veracity of the dogmas. Even if you have doubts about them you are required to accept them - unquestioningly. Are you allowed to “question or doubt” the divinity of Jesus? Questioning (doubting or denying) the basic tenets of your religion will “earn” you a nice label, like “heretic”, “apostate”, “CINO (catholic in name only)” or “Cafeteria Catholic”… and many ultra-orthodox or super-scrupulous people will demand that you leave the church.

 

[PRmerger]

There was no need for your “very educated” guess. I explicitly stated that I do NOT subscribe to the idea that science must answer all the questions.

Then you cannot be an advocate of Science. Well, not a Science Alone advocate at any rate.

What you are is a Faith And Science person.

Are you ok with professing this?

 

[PRmerger]

Playing word games again. Of course you are allowed to present questions about the dogmas. But you are NOT allowed to question the veracity of the dogmas. Even if you have doubts about them you are required to accept them - unquestioningly

Again, LURKERS: please be aware that the above is as wrong as if he had said, “The Catholic Church teaches that the world is flat!”

You can dismiss the latter as similarly as you dismiss the former.