Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

I am not interested in “respect”, I am only interested in truth and reality. What you assert to be the “words of Jesus”, I consider the words of fallible humans, who assert that they speak for God. I don’t think that God speaks through YOUR mouth, but I am willing to “eat crow” when God will affirm that you speak for HIM. But until God affirms that he speaks through your mouth, I will stay skeptical of your claims… sorry.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

I have seen quite a few people trying to defend the indefensible on CAF. The Catechism says that the Bible is true in one of four forms, and it also says that God (the Christian version) is completely good. Those two bits alone are contradictory. My understanding is true.

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?

Reading. You have access to practically the sum total of all of man’s knowledge at your fingertips. All it takes is the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity to get a basic understanding of the beliefs of 1.6 billion people.

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.

Communism failed not because of a lack of God but for multiple reasons. Fascism failed and that had plenty of God. The Papal States failed, and that was Catholic as Catholic can be. But you see my point, one does not have to part of a particular group to point out its flaws.

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.

Again this is a matter of intellectual curiosity. Just because you’ve never been interested in knowing if ESP is real doesn’t nullify my point that one doesn’t have to believe in something to say that it’s not true. Is there some supernatural thing out there that you don’t believe in? If so, do you believe you have the right to say that it is not true?

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.

Sikhs know what it’s like to be Sikhs. Hindus know what it’s like to be Hindus. Presbyterians know what it’s like to be Presbyterians. None of them can be used to demonstrate truth nor prevents a non-member from discussing problems within said groups.

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.

The number of times a matter is discussed doesn’t mean that it’s not worth discussing. It also doesn’t mean that Catholics have addressed the questions raised well. Catholics, like all people, aren’t immune to burying their heads in the sand.

Just to give you example, a few months back I was in a conversation with someone here about certain actions of the Church. This person asked for evidence of these actions and I gave example after example after example. Yet no matter what it was claimed to be insufficient.

I was in another conversation here a few years back where I noted that the Bible labels a person as “righteous” despite doing something that is basically unthinkable. I got more than a few responses suggesting that “righteous” doesn’t always mean righteous. It’s that kind of logic-free response that makes my CAF signature be what it is.

You didn’t even get the simple statement I was making - You cannot know God without developing a relationship with Him.

No, I got the statement. It’s just that the statement fails miserably.

Every religion, every human effort to grow in understanding of the Transcendent has its particular vehicle to reach that end.

Are you stating that each such particular vehicle is true? If so, why ignore the fact that many religions are in serious conflict as to what is true. If not, how can a person from a neutral position say that your particular Catholic vehicle is true?

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.

It’s far easier to dismiss someone based on their position than provide evidence.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?

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

Well we know that human morality doesn’t necessarily match up with morality of other species, so it’s possible that the rights of an alien species may not match up either. Although an alien species would be sentient, and it’s conceivable that because of this they may be more in tune with us as to individual rights versus group rights.

As far as where they come from, well I’ve already brought up cooperative evolution. The human species survived due to working in conjunction with each other, almost like pack animals. Those traits that help the community are passed on while those that harm the community tend to be weeded out. As an intelligent species we also have interests beyond that of survival. We have an emotional range, and that combined with those traits I mentioned just above, we possess both empathy and sympathy. Love, justice, and freedom are traits that have developed genetically and sociologically over time.

If you’re asking if we were deigned such concepts from a higher power, whether it be the gods of Olympus each with their own focus, or a god living in a mountain afraid that a man climbing it will see his anything other than his “back parts”, then no that’s not the origin of those concepts.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

I think PA explained it quite well. Even if we can’t know a person then we can at least judge what others say of that person. He mentioned undefined attributes, and I think Charlemagne gives a perfect example of that. He describes God as a person (or, actually a “Person”). If you ever visit strangenotions.com, quite a few of the article writers there note that it’s incorrect to view God as a person. Believers struggle in many ways as to what God is or isn’t.

I’m also going to take the idea of what is said about God a step further. Not only are things said about him contradictory, but at times God is described as being immoral even though those in favor of his existence are more than willing to handwave such objections.

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,

This is what I was talking about before. One can be moral without a god and can find meaning without a god. The fact that Christians can’t fathom such reasoning doesn’t make it true. On top of that, as I noted before, if a god or church calls for an immoral act, a non-believer is more likely to act in a moral manor.

no assurance of ultimate joy,

This one is always interesting me. Just because a proposed attribute of something is good or even great doesn’t make it true. Why not be a Unitarian since that guarantees salvation? Because you don’t think it’s accurate. While the promises of eternal peace sounds wonderful atheists don’t accept it because the evidence is lacking.

and in the end no reason not to commit suicide.

Despite your unwarranted incredulity there are plenty of non-believers who have meaning in their lives. There are also believers who have committed suicide, because suicide is more in line with mental illness than belief systems.

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.

More accurately, believers state such untrue things about atheists to try and assure themselves that people who believe than them simply must be unreasonable.

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.

Again, the believer will outright tell untruths about non-believers having these nagging doubts to assure themselves. I find more than a few Christians are not only willing but eager to break the commandment about bearing false witness against a neighbor in order to propagate the faith.

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

In post 507, I noted how just because one talks about something doesn’t mean that he or she believe it’s true. In the video I linked to in that post it talks about how if fans of the cartoon Voltron were trying to push laws to give their beliefs power or privilege, if those believers got political sway where it affected you, if they made it so only Voltron believers could be elected to assure their demands were met, to force their beliefs in every school and state building, then Catholics would be speaking out against Voltron believers despite not being such believers. One can speak against something without secretly believing it’s true.

The second reason I am here is because I want to increase my knowledge. Aloysium has said he is not interested in beliefs other than his own, but that’s not me.

Third, as an atheist I am constantly being told that I no moral grounding (Don’t you hate people who libel and slander that way?). I want to show that not only am I moral but that religious faith doesn’t make you any more moral (and at times can hinder one’s morality).

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Despite your unwarranted incredulity there are plenty of non-believers who have meaning in their lives. . . The second reason I am here is because I want to increase my knowledge. Aloysium has said he is not interested in beliefs other than his own, but that’s not me. Third, as an atheist I am constantly being told that I no moral grounding (Don’t you hate people who libel and slander that way?). I want to show that not only am I moral but that religious faith doesn’t make you any more moral (and at times can hinder one’s morality).

Well now!

My initially reaction was that I was dealing with a troll. But, I remind myself not to attribute malevolence where other explanations can apply.

Where did you get the impression that I was disinterested in religions other than my own? I don’t take it as slander because you don’t know me.

Having been a sort of Zen Buddhist, if any label applied, for over four decades starting in my teens, your comment would be laughable to my friends. In my collection of Holy Books, there is a well-worn copy of the Upanishads, it’s spine broken, dog-eared, with pages out of order from over-use. It is probably in the worst shape of those religious and philosophical books that are almost equal in number to those having to do with my chief areas of formal study in the sciences. I have lots of books, but among them is not the Quran. Having visiting mosques, I have not participated in their prayers. It is sad to say that I have not a fully developed appreciation of Islam from purely an intellectual level. I don’t need it in my life at this point because the church offers everything I need to pursue my relationship with God. This includes responding to you, something that did not matter when religion was merely a personal effort to attain the heights of existence.

Since you are here to grow in knowledge, I will tell you that there are commonalities in what I have come to understand as God’s relationship to each and every one of us. Prayer and meditation, individually and as a participant in one’s community are as essential are as the contemplation of sacred texts and the doing of charitable works. If you take everything that is out there, the fact is that the Catholic Church is the most rigorous in its developing its understanding of the Divine. That we can partake of the body and blood of our Saviour, additionally provides the grace through which we can most assuredly grow in Christ, who is humanity’s Way to God.

Your responses convey a sense that your interest may be in knowledge about beliefs rather than piercing the veil to discover what constitutes the very real, very knowable Foundations of existence. When you say you have a moral ground and that your life has meaning, you are affirming their reality. I take it that the meaning of your life does not boil down to exploiting the other for your personal gain, as the highest good. I assume you believe in the dignity of human life and altruism. I say the Basis of these is Love, which is a transcendent eternal Act, which is God. This may make no sense to you now, but it’s meaning will become clearer as you explore within yourself what constitutes the good and what is it that gives life true meaning and fulfillment.

I will pray that you grow in goodness and truth.

 

[wanstronian]

More ad hominems? :tsktsk:

I do wish that people on this forum would learn what an ad hominem is, and when it is and isn’t a legitimate response.

An ad hominem is a response to an argument that attacks the person rather than the argument. This is not always invalid.

For example, in your recent exchange with Pallas Athene, Charlemagne, you said:

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

To which PA replied:

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

This was a perfectly valid response to your invalid statement, which was mere speculation and reflects your own lack of insight into the subject at hand, rather than any great revelation. It wasn’t fallacious so even though you could argue it’s an ad hominem, it’s still a valid observation. PA didn’t attack your character, merely pointed out that your comment demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.

A properly fallacious ad hominem would be if PA had, for example, said something like, “I’m not surprised you think that, you bible-belters are all the same.” You may or may not live in the bible belt, but even if you do, where you live is not relevant to the comment you were making.

So please, try and learn the difference. If you say something ignorant like pretending to know what another person (let alone a whole demographic) is thinking, then calling you out for your ignorance should be expected, and your response should be to think more carefully next time. Crying “foul” simply covers up that you can’t defend your comment.

 

[clem456]

I do wish that people on this forum would learn what an ad hominem is, and when it is and isn’t a legitimate response.

An ad hominem is a response to an argument that attacks the person rather than the argument. This is not always invalid.

For example, in your recent exchange with Pallas Athene, Charlemagne, you said:

To which PA replied:

This was a perfectly valid response to your invalid statement, which was mere speculation and reflects your own lack of insight into the subject at hand, rather than any great revelation. It wasn’t fallacious so even though you could argue it’s an ad hominem, it’s still a valid observation. PA didn’t attack your character, merely pointed out that your comment demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.

A properly fallacious ad hominem would be if PA had, for example, said something like, “I’m not surprised you think that, you bible-belters are all the same.” You may or may not live in the bible belt, but even if you do, where you live is not relevant to the comment you were making.

So please, try and learn the difference. If you say something ignorant like pretending to know what another person (let alone a whole demographic) is thinking, then calling you out for your ignorance should be expected, and your response should be to think more carefully next time. Crying “foul” simply covers up that you can’t defend your comment.

Learn the difference indeed!
The exchange is a perfect example of an ad-hominem.
The poster does not address the issue, but attacks the poster personally, calling his opinion ignorant. The fact that you agree the poster is ignorant has not much to do with whether or not there is an ad-hominem. This happens frequently when posters have not thought through an argument very well and have exhausted relevant discussion.

You are merely bending definitions of words to suit your personal preferences.

 

[wanstronian]

Learn the difference indeed!
The exchange is a perfect example of an ad-hominem.
The poster does not address the issue, but attacks the poster personally, calling his opinion ignorant. The fact that you agree the poster is ignorant has not much to do with whether or not there is an ad-hominem. This happens frequently when posters have not thought through an argument very well and have exhausted relevant discussion.

You are merely bending definitions of words to suit your personal preferences.

Okay. If you would rather assert than learn, then have it your way.

 

[clem456]

Okay. If you would rather assert than learn, then have it your way.

Simply observing the conversation that came across the board is not an assertion, it’s an observation.
The poster did not address the subject matter, he addressed the poster.
Which is what ad-hominem is.

It is good that you point to learning. Perhaps the first step to learning is simple observation.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Learn the difference indeed!
The exchange is a perfect example of an ad-hominem.
The poster does not address the issue, but attacks the poster personally, calling his opinion ignorant. The fact that you agree the poster is ignorant has not much to do with whether or not there is an ad-hominem. This happens frequently when posters have not thought through an argument very well and have exhausted relevant discussion.

You are merely bending definitions of words to suit your personal preferences.

Charlie makes an ignorant assumption about my “gnawing fear”. Which has nothing to do with the topic. That is NOT considered an “ad hominem”. I point out that he is not qualified to make such assumptions and that is an “ad hominem”. What a joke!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**I am not interested in “respect”, **QUOTE]

Yes, it’s clear you don’t want respect, so you have lost mine for good. :sad_bye:

 

[wanstronian]

Charlie makes an ignorant assumption about my “gnawing fear”. Which has nothing to do with the topic. That is NOT considered an “ad hominem”. I point out that he is not qualified to make such assumptions and that is an “ad hominem”. What a joke!

I have seen so many theists on this board over the years call “ad hom” when there’s been nothing of the sort. Some atheists too, of course.

People seem to think that if you call someone ignorant, then it’s an ad hom.

Even Wikipedia does a decent job of describing ad hom, it’s not like there’s a great time investment involved in reading up.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . People seem to think that if you call someone ignorant, then it’s an ad hom. . .

Since God exists, when an Atheist asserts He doesn’t, the appropriate term for the person’s condition is one of ignorance, agreed.

It is an attempt to explain why the Atheist does not see what is clearly knowable, and to offer them the hope of a cure for this condition through the Church.

There is no argument being proposed, simply statements as to what constitutes reality.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Since God exists, when an Atheist asserts He doesn’t, the appropriate term for the person’s condition is one of ignorance, agreed.

Is it OK to say that you are mistaken? Some atheists may assert that a specific god does not exist, but in general atheism is simply the lack of BELIEF in god or gods - any god or gods.

It is an attempt to explain why the Atheist does not see what is clearly knowable, and to offer them the hope of a cure for this condition through the Church.

Strange choice of words. Atheism is not a malady which needs to be “cured”. If I would say that theistic belief is a kind of mental illness, I would be properly accused of using an “ad hominem”.

 

[tonyrey]

Strange choice of words. Atheism is not a malady which needs to be “cured”. If I would say that theistic belief is a kind of mental illness, I would be properly accused of using an “ad hominem”.

In the eyes of the world Christianity is a mental illness because it is based on belief in the **folly **of the Cross. To die for strangers is usually regarded by non-believers as a sign of lunacy…

 

[tonyrey]

I have seen so many theists on this board over the years call “ad hom” when there’s been nothing of the sort. Some atheists too, of course.

People seem to think that if you call someone ignorant, then it’s an ad hom.

Even Wikipedia does a decent job of describing ad hom, it’s not like there’s a great time investment involved in reading up.

It depends on whether the person is ignorant of a fact relevant to the discussion… If he/she isn’t it is a downright lie in addition to being a worthless attack on the opponent (hominem) rather than his/her argument

 

[Aloysium]

In the eyes of the world Christianity is a mental illness because it is based on belief in the **folly **of the Cross. To die for strangers is usually regarded by non-believers as a sign of lunacy…

A cruel indifferent nature and the supremacy of power, are clearly identified as being at the core of the world.

Acknowledging that this is the case, we know that those who wield earthly power are powerless to alter the outcome of their earthly existence, a fate no different from that of their victims. We also know that there is no honour that remains through the eons except that grounded in the eternal. Any wealth accumulated in and of this world will remain in this world. Pleasure never endures; in this world, it all ends in pain.

All that is left, is to do what we do with love, in thankful acceptance, returning all that we are to He who has made us.
In the transcendent symbol of the cross we find what truly fulfills in eternity.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In the eyes of the world Christianity is a mental illness because it is based on belief in the **folly **of the Cross. To die for strangers is usually regarded by non-believers as a sign of lunacy…

Is it OK to say that you are mistaken? Or would this be another “ad hominem” attack? (One can never know…) To die for strangers is a common phenomenon in wars, where the soldiers sacrifice their lives to protect others. I never heard of an atheist who would consider this sacrifice a “mental illness”… but I will admit, that I have not talked to all atheists. I wonder how many non-believers agreed that protecting others with their life is a “lunacy”?

On the other hand, when self-sacrifice is NOT necessary, then it is perfectly sensible to describe it as sheer lunacy. According to Aloysium, atheism is a kind of “malady”, which needs to be “cured”. I strongly reject this assertion. Atheism is usually based upon the rejection of a claim for which there is no objective evidence. It is NOT a disease or a mental condition, which needs to be “cured”.

If atheism is an erroneous worldview, then the proper procedure would be to introduce some incontrovertible evidence which makes God’s existence beyond any doubt… oops… but then we would be deprived of our freedom to choose to believe or not. So we are between a rock and a hard place. If an atheist finds the evidence unsatisfactory, then he is a stubborn, willfully ignorant person… but complete, undeniable evidence cannot be presented so our “precious” free will would not be interfered with.

Life is so strange. The game can be summarized as this:

The theist says: “let’s toss a coin. If it is heads I win… if it is tails, you lose”.
Atheist says: “No, thank you”.
Theist says: “Aha! Your reluctance is a sign of assent!”

Before I will be accused of unfair and incorrect generalization, I will freely admit, that this “hypothetical theist” does NOT represent ALL theists, not by a long shot. On the contrary, it is a miniscule minority of all the theists.

 

[tonyrey]

Is it OK to say that you are mistaken? Or would this be another “ad hominem” attack? (One can never know…) To die for strangers is a common phenomenon in wars, where the soldiers sacrifice their lives to protect others. I never heard of an atheist who would consider this sacrifice a “mental illness”… but I will admit, that I have not talked to all atheists. I wonder how many non-believers agreed that protecting others with their life is a “lunacy”?

On the other hand, when self-sacrifice is NOT necessary, then it is perfectly sensible to describe it as sheer lunacy. According to Aloysium, atheism is a kind of “malady”, which needs to be “cured”. I strongly reject this assertion. Atheism is usually based upon the rejection of a claim for which there is no objective evidence. It is NOT a disease or a mental condition, which needs to be “cured”.

If atheism is an erroneous worldview, then the proper procedure would be to introduce some incontrovertible evidence which makes God’s existence beyond any doubt… oops… but then we would be deprived of our freedom to choose to believe or not. So we are between a rock and a hard place. If an atheist finds the evidence unsatisfactory, then he is a stubborn, willfully ignorant person… but complete, undeniable evidence cannot be presented so our “precious” free will would not be interfered with.

Life is so strange. The game can be summarized as this:

The theist says: “let’s toss a coin. If it is heads I win… if it is tails, you lose”.
Atheist says: “No, thank you”.
Theist says: “Aha! Your reluctance is a sign of assent!”

Before I will be accused of unfair and incorrect generalization, I will freely admit, that this “hypothetical theist” does NOT represent ALL theists, not by a long shot. On the contrary, it is a miniscule minority of all the theists.

The key words in my post are “the folly of the Cross”.That is where the scepticism usually comes in… Do you believe Jesus was justified in choosing to die?

 

[tonyrey]

A cruel indifferent nature and the supremacy of power, are clearly identified as being at the core of the world.

Acknowledging that this is the case, we know that those who wield earthly power are powerless to alter the outcome of their earthly existence, a fate no different from that of their victims. We also know that there is no honour that remains through the eons except that grounded in the eternal. Any wealth accumulated in and of this world will remain in this world. Pleasure never endures; in this world, it all ends in pain.

All that is left, is to do what we do with love, in thankful acceptance, returning all that we are to He who has made us.
In the transcendent symbol of the cross we find what truly fulfills in eternity.

Indeed. The blood-stained history of the human race is ample evidence that the lust for power is a dominant factor in “civilisation”. I don’t believe most people are evil but when millions of our brothers and sisters lack the basic necessities of life even in “civilised” nations such as the US and the UK love for others is sadly lacking - or democracy doesn’t really exist. That is where scepticism comes in. It is not what we claim to believe but how we live that reveals the truth.