Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Aloysium]

That quote is about the rationalizing that commonly occurs after errors are pointed out in religious understanding.

A religious understanding has to do with a belief in the Divine, such as a transcendent being or beings - actually God as He is understood by different names and in different ways.
I cannot fathom how an atheist, especially, can honestly even pretend to comment on the error of a religious understanding.

To know God, one has to be in a relationship with Him. What this means from a Catholic perspective is prayer, individual and as a community, partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, contemplation of the revealed word of God through the teachings of His Holy Church, and charitable acts, which are not only in accordance to His will, but express His very nature.

Are you suggesting that you understand religion sufficiently, that you can permit yourself to comment on its truth. Really!?!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is up to you to present an epistemological method, which allows one to separate the true propositions from the false ones. As I said, it does not have to be a physical one. Give us some method to evaluate.

If you are talking about God, for instance, there is no methodology of approach to God that can be confirmed without the experience of God. Since you have ruled out the possibility of God, you are not going to have the experience because you acknowledge only one methodology, the methodology of science. You are locked in a vicious circle.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A religious understanding has to do with a belief in the Divine, such as a transcendent being or beings - actually God as He is understood by different names and in different ways.
I cannot fathom how an atheist, especially, can honestly even pretend to comment on the error of a religious understanding.

Whatever religious understanding that is being given to us by believers needs to be logical, consistent, not self-contradictory, and moral. If I object to a religious teaching on one of those grounds, the explanation/rebuttal needs to be logical, consistent, not self-contradictory, and moral. Often times those explanations do not fall into those categories.

To know God, one has to be in a relationship with Him. What this means from a Catholic perspective is prayer, individual and as a community, partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, contemplation of the revealed word of God through the teachings of His Holy Church, and charitable acts, which are not only in accordance to His will, but express His very nature.

Would it be fair to say that in some ways you can point out problems with Islam despite not being a Muslim? I don’t need to be a communist to state faults I find in communism. I don’t need to believe in ESP to indicate why I don’t think there is such a thing as ESP.

To claim that only through belief in something can one discuss something is a dodge of the highest order. It’s a way to deflect criticism of what you believe without having to address the actual criticism.

Are you suggesting that you understand religion sufficiently, that you can permit yourself to comment on its truth. Really!?!

Yes, and if you believe I or any atheist states something in error about your religion then address it. Don’t think that by pointing out that a poster has the word “atheist” at the top right of his or her posts is sufficient evidence that what he or she says is incorrect.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

To know God, one has to be in a relationship with Him. What this means from a Catholic perspective is prayer, individual and as a community, partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, contemplation of the revealed word of God through the teachings of His Holy Church, and charitable acts, which are not only in accordance to His will, but express His very nature.

If you are talking about God, for instance, there is no methodology of approach to God that can be confirmed without the experience of God.

This answer goes to both of you. Uri Geller and his cohorts assert that one MUST believe in the existence of paranormal. A skeptic can never experience the paranormal. As Mike has pointed out, this is dodging the problem.

Stephen Toulmin (a contemporary philosopher) said:
The existence of God … is not something to demand evidence FOR; nor is the sentence, “God exists,” one to be believed if, and only if, the evidence for its truth is good enough. The very last question to ask about God is whether He exists. Rather, we must first accept the notion of “God”: and then we shall be in a position to point to evidences OF His existence.
A truly revealing proposition. Don’t look at all the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Accept the hypothesis first, and then try to find the evidence which supports it. One thing is certain, if a scientist would propose this as an “epistemological method”, he would be kicked out of the scientific community, immediately.

Since you have ruled out the possibility of God, you are not going to have the experience because you acknowledge only one methodology, the methodology of science. You are locked in a vicious circle.

I did NOT rule out the possibility of God. I simply say that there is no evidence of his existence. I already stated SEVERAL times, that I do not demand physical evidence, I only demand something that can separate true and false propositions, and which does not require an a-priori acceptance of what you wish to establish. None is forthcoming.

 

[tonyrey]

This answer goes to both of you. Uri Geller and his cohorts assert that one MUST believe in the existence of paranormal. A skeptic can never experience the paranormal. As Mike has pointed out, this is dodging the problem.

Stephen Toulmin (a contemporary philosopher) said: The existence of God … is not something to demand evidence FOR; nor is the sentence, “God exists,” one to be believed if, and only if, the evidence for its truth is good enough. The very last question to ask about God is whether He exists. Rather, we must first accept the notion of “God”: and then we shall be in a position to point to evidences OF His existence.A truly revealing proposition. Don’t look at all the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Accept the hypothesis first, and then try to find the evidence which supports it. One thing is certain, if a scientist would propose this as an “epistemological method”, he would be kicked out of the scientific community, immediately.

It is infantile to believe science is the only source of knowledge. It doesnt recognise the existence of goodness, freedom, justice, beauty , love or even persons. If you tried to live scientifically you would finish up in a lunatic asylum.

I did NOT rule out the possibility of God. I simply say that there is no evidence of his existence. I already stated SEVERAL times, that I do not demand physical evidence, I only demand something that can separate true and false propositions, and which does not require an a-priori acceptance of what you wish to establish. None is forthcoming.

How about the criterion of good or evil? Is it good to be reasonable?

 

[Aloysium]

Whatever religious understanding that is being given to us by believers needs to be logical, . . . Yes, and if you believe I or any atheist states something in error about your religion then address it. Don’t think that by pointing out that a poster has the word “atheist” at the top right of his or her posts is sufficient evidence that what he or she says is incorrect.

What the Catechism reveals is logical, consistent, not self-contradictory, and moral.
If you object to a religious teaching on one of those grounds, the issue is with your understanding.

Sad to say, I don’t know much about Islam other than the superficial pap we are fed by the media.
However, I do know some very devout Muslims. From these relationships I understand there is something to it.
The holiest person whom I met and recognized as such was an old wizened Hindu. I don’t get around much any more.
How would I know where Islam fails?

One has to be able to read and understand human nature to know that Communism could not but fail.
Having gone to school, watched the History Channel, and knowing a few former communists, one of whom flew Soviet MIGs in the mid-80’s have all contributed to my understanding of
Communism as an atheistic failed attempt to create an ideal benevolent society bereft of God.

I don’t believe or not believe in ESP. The concept is too weird and vague. I can’t imagine what an appropriate operational definition might be.
If it means perceiving that which is beyond the senses, I would say that it is in closeness and love that one truly sees the other.
It isn’t all sensual and the experience is the opposite of strange.

You can criticize what you do not know to your hearts content.
I know science because I have spent very many years learning and doing it.
Similarly, I know what it means to be Catholic.

The funhouse mirror feedback from atheists, who would do much better simply voicing their own views, is addressed on these forums over and over and over and over and over again.
You didn’t even get the simple statement I was making - You cannot know God without developing a relationship with Him.
Every religion, every human effort to grow in understanding of the Transcendent has its particular vehicle to reach that end.

When a poster has the word “atheist” at the top right of his or her posts,
since there is a God,
that is sufficient evidence that what he or she says is incorrect when they talk about God.

 

[tonyrey]

don’t doubt that, Mike. The only thing I’m curious about is how you explain the origin of truth, justice, human rights, liberty, equality, fraternity and love. Do they apply to persons on other planets?

The topic is scepticism with regard to the supernatural which implies that everything has in principle a natural explanation. There is no need to go into details because my question is about how intangibles like truth, justice and freedom originated? Are they simply human ideas or do they refer to aspects of reality?

You do bring up an interesting question as to whether aliens would have a morality system like those of humans. The best answer I can shrug is “probably?” There’s a lot of speculation involved. I know that our morality doesn’t match those of non-sentient beings here. Would it make a difference if aliens followed r-selection instead of K-selection? All I could say is that if we could meet up with an alien species that we should err on the side of more as opposed to less rights for them.

That raises the further question of whether rights are also simply human ideas or do they refer to aspects of reality?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To claim that only through belief in something can one discuss something is a dodge of the highest order. It’s a way to deflect criticism of what you believe without having to address the actual criticism.

Since God is viewed by Catholics not as a thing to be demonstrated, but as a Person to be known, your requirement of a logical method defies reason. If you deny God exists as a person, you cannot possibly begin to know God. If you denied your next door neighbor exists, you would not likely ever get to know him. He might do everything he needs to do to make his presence known to you, but if you are fixated on believing that he does not exist, none of his efforts will have any effect on your life.

This is the ultimate dilemma of atheism, that it is negative without any proof for its negativity. It is a belief system full of dilemmas, because without God there is no ultimate meaning in life, no absolute basis for morals, no assurance of ultimate joy, and in the end no reason not to commit suicide. These dilemmas have been faced by some atheists and dismissed by those who cannot deal with them. The latter demand demonstrable proof but have set up absolute barriers against any possibility of getting to know God.

As I have said before, if the proof even began to be experienced, if they even began to suspect there might be a God, they would regard themselves as being deceived, or deluded, and that all would be well again when they have come to their senses. Ah yes, materialism cannot be transcended by delusional appeals to the Spirit, the atheist believes. But he cannot get over the gnawing feeling that there should be something behind the universe more ultimate than death.

Or why would he be a regular visitor at Catholic Answers?

 

[PRmerger]

Since God is viewed by Catholics not as a thing to be demonstrated, but as a Person to be known, your requirement of a logical method defies reason.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Since God is viewed by Catholics not as a thing to be demonstrated, but as a Person to be known, your requirement of a logical method defies reason. If you deny God exists as a person, you cannot possibly begin to know God. If you denied your next door neighbor exists, you would not likely ever get to know him.

I cannot deny the existence of my neighbor, since I can see him, talk to him, touch him… Before one can start to know someone, one must be aware of the other party’s existence.

If you say that atheists cannot “know” God, you are right in a sense. We only know what the believers SAY and assert ABOUT God. And that mixture of different kinds of information is not convincing. Too many contradictions, undefined attributes.

This is the ultimate dilemma of atheism, that it is negative without any proof for its negativity.

You cannot PROVE a universal negative. If you would ever learn this, then our existence on the board would not be totally useless. “Absence of proof is not a proof of absence”; on the other hand, “absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”.

But he cannot get over the gnawing feeling that there should be something behind the universe more ultimate than death.

It would be so wonderful if you did not project your ignorant opinions onto others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It would be so wonderful if you did not project your ignorant opinions onto others.

More ad hominems? :tsktsk:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Absence of proof is not a proof of absence”; on the other hand, “absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence”.

The evidence is not absent. You just refuse to encounter it by opening your heart to Jesus.
You demand to see the evidence, but you really don’t want to see it and you are contemptuous of others who do…

The proof of God is in the encounter with Jesus. You can dismiss that as evidence. If you think God is going to appear to you as your next door neighbor appears to you, you have a strange notion of God. But all the time neighbors never get to know each other because they don’t welcome them into their homes or into their hearts.

As a materialist you will never see God so long as you don’t acknowledge the existence of metaphysical beings.

“Blessed rather are those who have not seen and believe.”

 

[GodMadeMe]

Since God is viewed by Catholics not as a thing to be demonstrated, but as a Person to be known, your requirement of a logical method defies reason. If you deny God exists as a person, you cannot possibly begin to know God. If you denied your next door neighbor exists, you would not likely ever get to know him. He might do everything he needs to do to make his presence known to you, but if you are fixated on believing that he does not exist, none of his efforts will have any effect on your life.

This is the ultimate dilemma of atheism, that it is negative without any proof for its negativity. It is a belief system full of dilemmas, because without God there is no ultimate meaning in life, no absolute basis for morals, no assurance of ultimate joy, and in the end no reason not to commit suicide. These dilemmas have been faced by some atheists and dismissed by those who cannot deal with them. The latter demand demonstrable proof but have set up absolute barriers against any possibility of getting to know God.

As I have said before, if the proof even began to be experienced, if they even began to suspect there might be a God, they would regard themselves as being deceived, or deluded, and that all would be well again when they have come to their senses. Ah yes, materialism cannot be transcended by delusional appeals to the Spirit, the atheist believes. But he cannot get over the gnawing feeling that there should be something behind the universe more ultimate than death.

Or why would he be a regular visitor at Catholic Answers?

The Atheists denial of God may seem reasonable at first glance, even rationally responsible, but in the end the rational consequences of disbelief leads to nihilism even if the atheist doesn’t agree with nihilism. In the end only the idea of God makes any sense of our experience and dignity as persons, in fact it makes no rational sense that we have any experience or understanding of personal dignity if God does not exist.

Atheists contradict their disbelief on a daily basis with their actions without knowing it because they take their personal experiences for granted or as a “just-so-story”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The evidence is not absent. You just refuse to encounter it by opening your heart to Jesus.

I am willing to open my MIND… not my “heart”; because my heart is busy pumping blood. And if I would open my “heart”, I would bleed to death.

You demand to see the evidence, but you really don’t want to see it and you are contemptuous of others who do…

Again you make unfounded assumptions about what I want or don’t want to see. You are not in the position to make these “assumptions”. And it is not “an hominem” when I emphasize that you are NOT QUALIFIED to speak about my internal “wants” and “not wants”…

The proof of God is in the encounter with Jesus. You can dismiss that as evidence.

I dismiss it just like I dismiss any legends.

If you think God is going to appear to you as your next door neighbor appears to you, you have a strange notion of God.

Strange? Call it logical, with a huge absence of “blind faith”. I am open to God, but it has to happen on MY terms, not on YOUR terms.

As a materialist you will never see God so long as you don’t acknowledge the existence of metaphysical beings.

What the heck are “metaphysical” beings?? Imaginary beings?

“Blessed rather are those who have not seen and believe.”

In my neck of the woods it runs: “Gullible are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”.

 

[PRmerger]

In my neck of the woods it runs: “Gullible are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”.

And yet here you are professing belief in the mind, yet you’ve never, not even once, seen a mind, nor been able to demonstrate its existence with empirical data.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And yet here you are professing belief in the mind, yet you’ve never, not even once, seen a mind, nor been able to demonstrate its existence with empirical data.

I sincerely hope that you do not take the word “see” in a literal fashion. I have never “seen” a “wind” literally, nor have I seen “magnetism” literally. The meaning is that we can experience the phenomenon either directly with our five senses, or indirectly via the extension of our senses. The existence of God cannot be ascertained either by our senses, or by the extensions of them. That is why I ask God to manifest himself to us in a manner which we cannot “misunderstand”. Why is this such a “horrible problem”?

If someone asserts that he can manipulate physical objects with the power of his mind, I would demand to exhibit his power in a controlled experiment, where the designers of the experiment are trained in deception (professional stage magicians) to exclude the possibility of “cheating”. Strangely enough there was no, not one demonstration of paranormal powers where the test was designed to exclude “cheating”.

 

[PRmerger]

I sincerely hope that you do not take the word “see” in a literal fashion. I have never “seen” a “wind” literally, nor have I seen “magnetism” literally. The meaning is that we can experience the phenomenon either directly with our five senses, or indirectly via the extension of our senses. The existence of God cannot be ascertained either by our senses, or by the extensions of them. That is why I ask God to manifest himself to us in a manner which we cannot “misunderstand”. Why is this such a “horrible problem”?

And God has done just that.

You simply refuse to see it.

For some peculiar reason you have a very low threshold for accepting some things you cannot see, yet a very, very (in fact, illogically) high threshold for accepting evidence for God.

One has to wonder why that is…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And God has done just that.

When and where? God has not manifested his existence to me in a fashion which I am ABLE to perceive as such. If God is so smart, he would know exactly what kind of evidence I am ABLE to perceive as such.

For some peculiar reason you have a very low threshold for accepting some things you cannot see, yet a very, very (in fact, illogically) high threshold for accepting evidence for God.

You are mistaken. I have exactly the same kind of threshold for ANY kind of claim. Is it supported by evidence? I emphatically DISAGREE with the concept of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. All the claims require the same kind of evidence (not proof).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In my neck of the woods it runs: “Gullible are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”.

Not so sure now that you want respect in this forum, but if you are going to make it a habit to mock the words of Jesus in a Catholic forum, you are likely to lose a lot of respect.

 

[PRmerger]

Not so sure now that you want respect in this forum, but if you are going to make it a habit to mock the words of Jesus in a Catholic forum, you are likely to lose a lot of respect.

Indeed. PA has been banned before, and one would think that, as he was so eager to return, he would have learned from his mistakes.