In my last installment I promised to “make a case for a form of skepticism that can accommodate the idea of a complete lack of true knowledge, but still functions as a stable platform for analysis, debate, morality, and all the other niceties of human interaction.”
I will do so after some definitional construals. I’m going to be critiquing and expanding two words here: Skepticism and Agnosticism.
Last time I recklessly accused the self-proclaimed Skeptic Michael Shermer of abusing the word ‘skeptic’ by using it selectively to bash ideas he doesn’t like while failing to test his own presuppositions as ruthlessly. (At least I’ve never seen this from him.) Now I don’t want to single this guy out. He’s not a horrible person or a liar. He’s just doing what everyone does. That is: exalt what he likes and tear down what he dislikes. I also want to be clear that I understand MY definitions of skepticism and agnosticism are probably different than most people’s. But I want to build a case that the dictionary is wrong about the definitions. Sort of.
What I’m trying NOT to do here is play Lewis Caroll’s Humpty Dumpty and torture words into fitting a meaning that I prefer. My complaint isn’t with the definitions, but rather the philosophical consistency of utilizing them ‘by the book’. For instance, Merriam-Webster says of skepticism “the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.” My case against Shermer and most other atheists is that they apply skepticism too narrowly. Only in “particular areas”. The problem is that the dictionary definition makes everyone in the world a “skeptic”, because everyone doubts something… no one believes everything. Hence, the word loses its meaning when applied to a person. It still works for describing an attitude one might have toward a particular idea. But that is not what the figurehead of Skeptic magazine is intrinsically claiming. If his magazine was more specifically called Religious Skeptic, or Metaphysic Skeptic than I wouldn’t be picking on him. But when one chooses to take on the moniker of a Skeptic it feels to me like the narrow dictionary definition shouldn’t cover you anymore. Being a narrow skeptic means being no more than a polemicist.
What I’m trying to do is to create a doctrine of skepticism that applies to all things equally. Science, religion, psychology, politics, and most importantly, my OWN perceptions, and the foundation of my philosophical outlook. This systematic skepticism is not defined by a skeptical attitude. That is to say: I’m not personally a cynical or bitter person who enjoys attacking and tearing people or ideas down. My critical analysis of ideas is simply motivated by a desire for a logically consistent theory of everything. A fool’s errand if ever one existed, but fun to pursue non-the-less.
Now let me tell you why I call myself an Agnostic even though I don’t fall under this specific part of one of the dictionary definitions: “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” Technically I could say I do fit this description, because I am not philosophically committed to believing in God. But I DO believe in a personal God based on several lines of reasoning. I am convinced that there is a God. (Please note that when one is convinced that does not mean they are unable to change their mind based on further evidence.) I guess you could say I’m not committed to being not committed. Just like I’m skeptical about skeptics. My point is that I think one can be agnostic while still holding beliefs about God. Just as one can believe a bridge will hold them as they cross it without knowing for certain that is the case. It seems to me that agnostics should be of all people, the most open to evidence of all kinds, both for and against any idea. That is my ideal, what I strive for, and that is why I call myself agnostic while maintaining a Christian identity and set of core beliefs.
There are two errors I try to avoid here. One is to pretend that I am unbiased and that all information on all topics comes to me unfiltered and free from prejudice. The other is to think that if all truths are impossible to prove, I cannot or should not form beliefs and act on them.
The first error is the reason I moved away from traditional, doctrine-based religion. I see the attitude of I’ve-got-it-all-figured-out in both the very religious and the very atheistic. Both groups put far too much faith in their own interpretive abilities. Yet, from the Christian tradition I believe we can derive the perspective that we are fallen, weak creatures with very limited physical and mental attributes. And from an atheist viewpoint we can derive the perspective that we are self-exalted monkey-men with senses evolved for survival purposes that probably don’t have much to do with apprehending the grander schemes of the universe. These things should make the Christian and atheist pause and reconsider the amount of credit they give themselves. Both these forms of fundamentalism have great big warning signs that should serve to keep us all humble. But we humans are great at ignoring warning signs, aren’t we?
This is where I apply my skepticism: at the very root of human capability and reasoning. This is why I admire Socrates’ assertion: “All I know is that I know nothing”. I do however modify thusly: “The thing I believe most is that I know nothing.” But that doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely, does it? At least it’s logically consistent. You see, the most fundamental component of my attempt to build an honest philosophy is to start with the machinery that’s building it. My mind is the machine, and to assume that all it produces is high quality grade-A stuff -perfect and complete- seems a bit on the arrogant side to me. While most folks would agree with me that no one is perfect and that everyone makes mistakes and has errors in judgment, very few want to follow me to my conclusion that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we think must therefore be suspect. Why not? I think it’s because that position is very annoying. Seriously, it is. To question every single idea we have is not only annoying, but impossible: as every thought about a thought is a thought in itself that must be questioned. Therefore a true skeptical approach to one’s own mind is not possible, and if it is pursued, it is done so inconsistently.
But that is the beauty of the position to me: its utter humility. It's ok to be inconsistent as long as one tries to compensate. It starts with the conviction that I am a flawed being, and therefore anything I think can be flawed. The next step is to posit that other humans share my condition, and thus all their thoughts may be flawed. This is where the fundamentalists and atheists start gnashing their teeth, because without a solid foundation of FACTS, they don’t think you can build a stable theory for anything, and all argument and even communication becomes meaningless.
That’s what brings me to the second error that a radical skeptic can make. It’s the idea that progress can’t be made if certain foundational concepts are not established as 100% reliable. In other words, some might just leave all action to fate, or operate in a moral vacuum since there can’t be any true Knowledge of values. We can become stuck in a permanent limbo with no particular direction to go. This could be a serious problem with my position if not for the fact that we already live without certainties in every area of our lives. Everyone does. As in the bridge analogy above, we move freely about our world only because we have FAITH in the infrastructure around us. It’s impractical to test every road, bridge, tunnel, building, etc. for structural integrity before utilizing them.
This uncertainty also applies to our relationships. I can say that I know that my wife loves me. But I can’t be completely certain. She might simply be a fantastic actress, and maybe there is some motivation for pretending to love me that I’m unaware of. (It certainly isn’t money, I’ll guarantee you that!) Or maybe she has some psychological blindness to a part of my personality that if revealed to her, would cause her to stop loving me. Maybe there is a tumor in her brain that will suddenly change her feelings for me. All these things could be true, but I still live my day to day life without testing each of these possibilities. I have FAITH that she loves me and I act accordingly.
There is also uncertainty in scientific work. Physical laws are established as fact simply because they have yet to be disproven. I always return to the ground after jumping, and I live my life under the assumption that things will continue that way. Scientists use the laws of gravity as a given because they have not failed us yet. However only the most stubborn scientist would declare that the laws of gravity are immutable and universal and no other unknown law might ever supersede them. Furthermore all these laws are simply human constructs based on limited observation and subject to the biases of our worldview, and more fundamentally, our finite senses. (See Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Polanyi for a varitey of critiques of science.) It’s quite possible that we perceive EVERYTHING wrong. Yet this does not stop us from using a scientific method to create stunning works of technology.
This habit of using FAITH in the physical, psychological and scientific areas of life can also work in the philosophical and religious areas of life. You don’t HAVE to establish any particular doctrine as True beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt in order to use it as a foundational building block for your system of thought. Sure, it would be nice to have at least one Truth to start the project. That’s what Descartes’ whole “I think therefore I am.” was about. But I think the radical skeptical position is so strong that they even trump his argument. And since we are used to making life work and making rational decisions without total certainty in other areas, we should be comfortable building a case for our philosophical and religious beliefs without a claim to certainty backing them up. And materialists should recognize that they do the same thing, only with more consensus.
But before you jump on my bandwagon, (which I know you were all excited about doing, right?!) let me warn you about what you will lose by doing so. It’s something so valuable to so many people that very few want to join my party... You will lose your ability to argue people into submitting to your particular point of view. You will be forced to recognize that it just might be YOU who are wrong. That can be very unsettling to people who are right all the time.
Let me offer some words of comfort to my fundamentalist friends. First to the fundamentalist atheists: If religion is a destructive, vestigial growth on the brain of society, it will eventually be bred out of the species, and your view will triumph. Besides, people aren’t religious because they were argued into it, so attempting to argue them out of it is mostly pointless. And to my Christian brethren: God is the One who softens hearts and minds to His Truth. If He is not active than no amount of sermonizing, judging, or arguing will force someone to convert. Besides, people aren’t unchristian because they were argued into it, so attempting to argue them out of it is mostly pointless.
In the end, I believe that both the fundamentalist Christian and atheist suffer from the same delusion. They are both convinced that their interpretive faculties work so well that the resulting doctrine is legitimate grounds for insults, anger, and the creation of artificial walls separating the enlightened from the ignorant masses.
In my next article I’m going to go into a little more detail about living without certainty and its practical ramifications.
Comments
The good news is that you don't have to be sure what's right to be sure what's wrong. As Isaac Asimov put it, "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
There's also a very common equivocation about the word "faith". Trust based on a reasonable amount of confirming evidence and history is one thing. But believing in something without evidence - or even *against* evidence - is something entirely different. But people frequently muddle the two concepts with the same word, 'faith'. I can get behind the former, but not the latter.
Ray, that's pretty much the greatest way I've ever seen that put.
Ugh, a young atheist too ashamed to call himself what he truly is.
Joshua, grow a pair.
I don't base love on "faith". I base it on evidence of the way a person treats me. Sounds like "faith" is an excuse to ignore real issues.
I am open to new information. I do look into the claims of theists and I find them lacking in credibility. Deists are much more reasonable. I do not personally believe in a god. I accept the possibility of one or many existing, yet I see no evidence of that being true.
I think religion is a tool. The problem I see is that many people don't acknowledge the problems with it. It can be used for good or bad things. It needs some regulation since it doesn't seem to be able to regulate itself.
Ray Ingles says: "Trust based on a reasonable amount of confirming evidence and history is one thing. But believing in something without evidence - or even *against* evidence - is something entirely different. But people frequently muddle the two concepts with the same word, 'faith'. I can get behind the former, but not the latter."
I agree, and I’m using the former definition. I like to define everything, but then my articles end up 20 pages long.
Harrison Papil says: "Ugh, a young atheist too ashamed to call himself what he truly is. Joshua, grow a pair."
One thing I’ve noticed in my short 34 years on this earth is that philosophical dispositions are always in flux. I assume you’re older and wiser than I, so please let me know which of my points alerts you an inevitable evolution towards atheism.
Mike says: "I don't base love on "faith". I base it on evidence of the way a person treats me."
That’s what I was trying to communicate. I believe that true faith is what we call the impression we get from various evidences.
Mike says: "I think religion is a tool."
I think religion is many things. But I agree that it is often used as a tool for a variety of purposes.
Ray Ingles says: "The good news is that you don't have to be sure what's right to be sure what's wrong. As Isaac Asimov put it, "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Ah, I see. You are commenting on my claim that both atheists and Christians are deluded by a reliance on human interpretive faculties here. My claim is that the delusion is of the same type, not the same quantity. This is not to say that both sets of claims are equally invalid. I find much wisdom and usefulness in both camps. They branch into separate spheres of human endeavor and so comparing the results of religion and science is very much apples and oranges to me.
Ray Ingles says: "The good news is that you don't have to be sure what's right to be sure what's wrong. As Isaac Asimov put it, "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Ah, I see. You are commenting on my claim that both atheists and Christians are deluded by a reliance on human interpretive faculties here. My claim is that the delusion is of the same type, not the same quantity. This is not to say that both sets of claims are equally invalid. I find much wisdom and usefulness in both camps. They branch into separate spheres of human endeavor and so comparing the results of religion and science is very much apples and oranges to me.
Ray Ingles says: "The good news is that you don't have to be sure what's right to be sure what's wrong. As Isaac Asimov put it, "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Ah, I see. You are commenting on my claim that both atheists and Christians are deluded by a reliance on human interpretive faculties here. My claim is that the delusion is of the same type, not the same quantity. This is not to say that both sets of claims are equally invalid. I find much wisdom and usefulness in both camps. They branch into separate spheres of human endeavor and so comparing the results of religion and science is very much apples and oranges to me.
Joshua, I really like that you call yourself an agnostic and yet you also believe in a god. It drives me crazy when people presume that an agnostic is a person who lacks belief in gods and an atheist is a person who is absolutely certain that no gods exist. These are total misdefinitions. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, theism/atheism pertain to belief. I'm an agnostic atheist just as much as you are an agnostic theist. I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe that any gods exist. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't think that we can ever disprove the gods' existence, mostly because gods are so vaguely defined it would be impossible to define a suitable experiment. I also believe that we can't disprove the existence of trolls, fairies, unicorns, and Big Foot. In fact, I'm probably an agnostic about everything, which leads me to my second compliment that I will pay you ...
... that you used the word "convinced". That's really all that matters, isn't it. You see enough evidence to convince you. I like to qualify my beliefs in terms of probabilities, by using statements like "If I had to place a bet", or "I am x% certain". Like you, I'm open to changing my mind based on newly-presented credible evidence, but when it comes to the god thing, I'm at the point where god is going to have to appear directly before me and speak with me. All of the other evidence just doesn't cut it.
(eeek, my comments are showing out of order, read up !)
Josh - If you're not using "faith" in the sense of "belief without or in spite of evidence", then I suggest you use words like "trust" or "confidence" instead of "faith", to avoid the common confusion among definitions that "faith" is liable to.
E.g., "we move freely about our world only because we have [trust or confidence] in the infrastructure around us".
And I'd have to take issue with your characterization that "both atheists and Christians are deluded by a reliance on human interpretive faculties". Deluded *by*?
You seem to agree that people can have reasonable confidence (not "absolute" confidence) in things like, say, infrastructure. Is someone *deluded* when they drive over a bridge showing no obvious signs of wear? They might well be *mistaken*, but *deluded* carries the connotation of *irrational* belief.
Some erroneous beliefs do rise to the level of delusion, sure. But that doesn't mean *all* of them are. It really is possible to be confident enough of something that it would be irrational *not* to believe it - e.g. heliocentrism.
"Furthermore all these laws are simply human constructs based on limited observation and subject to the biases of our worldview, and more fundamentally, our finite senses. (See Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Polanyi for a varitey of critiques of science.)"
Sure. And the next time you have a bowel movement, take a wipe, and then have a good close look at the tissue to get an idea how important scientists feel philosophy of science is to the actual performance of science.
E pur si muove!
"This habit of using FAITH in the physical, psychological and scientific areas of life..."
Oh wow, and it's in ALL CAPS! You must really mean it. Even though I don't think you did an adequate job of establishing that "faith" is applicable to science first.
"For instance, Merriam-Webster says of skepticism “the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.”"
1) You took a single definition from a general dictionary. You did not go to a specialized reference, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2) You don't inquire as what definition Shermer himself might use for the word.
"What I’m trying to do is to create a doctrine of skepticism that applies to all things equally. Science, religion, psychology, politics, and most importantly, my OWN perceptions, and the foundation of my philosophical outlook."
I don't think that all those things are equally deserving of skepticism.
Science, for example, holds that all its findings are provisional and open to question, that testing against the actual world is the best way of verifying knowledge, and it actually gets results.
Most religions, on the other hand, hold some dogma, and they use epistemological methods that are known to be unreliable (ancient texts, inspiration, internal warm fuzzy feelings). As for verification, that's right out the window. Religions are not big on verification, and much of their "knowledge" is unverifiable by any method. So what do you do when two religions hold incompatible unverifiable doctrine? At least one of them must be wrong
Since you didn't seem interested in exploring Shermer's definition of skepticism, you readers can find it at the Skeptic web iste:
www.skeptic.com/about_us/
"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..."
Ray Ingles says: "Josh - If you're not using "faith" in the sense of "belief without or in spite of evidence", then I suggest you use words like "trust" or "confidence" instead of "faith", to avoid the common confusion among definitions that "faith" is liable to.
E.g., "we move freely about our world only because we have [trust or confidence] in the infrastructure around us"."
This is a very good point that I should have clarified. My conception of faith is synonymous with trust. Faith is trust in a religious or relational context. So it was a bit of a juxtaposition to apply the word to physical matter.
I think it is a typical atheist straw man to define faith as belief without or despite evidence, and I don’t use the word that way.
Ray Ingles says:
“Is someone *deluded* when they drive over a bridge showing no obvious signs of wear? They might well be *mistaken*, but *deluded* carries the connotation of *irrational* belief.”
The delusion I’m referring to is not in any act of faith or trust as you prefer to call it. It is the epistemological assumptions that are drawn from them. We are lulled into a false sense of security by relying on our senses, and build heuristics of action and thought predicated on an unarticulated concept of 1 to 1 cause and effect. I call this a delusion because it is demonstrably untrue. Both philosophic and scientific experimentation has shown this, yet most people sweep that fact under the carpet without considering the logical ramifications. I’ll be going into this in my next article.
Reginald Selkirk says:
"Sure. And the next time you have a bowel movement, take a wipe, and then have a good close look at the tissue to get an idea how important scientists feel philosophy of science is to the actual performance of science.”
My contention is that this attitude is incredibly short sighted and hinders the potential for scientific progress. That fact that science is moving right along does not mean our current practices are perfect. Being unaware or uncaring of philosophical biases will weaken any endeavor whether it be politics, war, love, or science.
Reginald Selkirk says:
“Oh wow, and it's in ALL CAPS! You must really mean it. Even though I don't think you did an adequate job of establishing that "faith" is applicable to science first. “
Sorry, it’s just difficult to italicize in the editor for this site, so I go caps sometimes. I’m sorry for using the word faith, when trust is more applicable. I consider them synonyms, but I should have considered that many people don’t. As to establishing that trust is applicable to science… wow, to adequately address that would be several articles in themselves. That’s why I just linked to a couple guys who have done a good job of it already. But my overall point is that we are trusting our senses to be accurate. We are trusting our tools to be accurate. We are trusting our interpretive abilities to be accurate. You can agree with that, right? Using peer-review only pushes the problem back one step and every peer has the same intrinsic trust issues.
Reginald Selkirk says:
“1) You took a single definition from a general dictionary. You did not go to a specialized reference, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2) You don't inquire as what definition Shermer himself might use for the word.”
1) You are right, I’m trying to combine popular definition with more technical meaning and the result is uneven.
2) The contention of this and the previous article is that scientific skepticism is circular and invalid. I’m aware that Shermer is a scientific skeptic and not a philosophical skeptic. I’m attempting (rather poorly apparently) to show weaknesses in that position.
"But my overall point is that we are trusting our senses to be accurate."
No. We KNOW that our senses are unreliable. Example:
www.neatorama.com/2008/02/27/the-purple-nurple-optical-illusion/
In some instances we can even decipher the ways in which they are unreliable.
"We are trusting our tools to be accurate."
No. I'm guessing that you are not an actual scientist, or you would know that calibrating your tools and _demonstrating_ their reliability is a big part of science. There is a huge field of mathematics called probability which is useful for this. In addition: this gets to your use of "faith" and "trust." Once we have demonstrated that our tools are accurate, we "trust" them to the extent of the demonstration. This is in no-wise related to the usage of "faith" which Ray Ingles mentions, and which is commonly used in philosophical discussions. Since "faith" is ambiguous, it is best to avoid other usage of it in philosophical discussion.
"We are trusting our interpretive abilities to be accurate. You can agree with that, right?"
We KNOW that our cognitive processes can be inaccurate. Example:
thinkingworlds.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/cognitive-illusions/
In some cases we can even decipher and quantify the inaccuracies. Here's a great video you may have seen before, see if you can count the number of basketball passes:
viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
While science has skepticism and verification (experimental controls and repetition, peer review) built in, religion does not. And the methods of epistemology used by religion, i.e. (alleged) eyewitness testimony, ancient texts, warm fuzzy inner felings, we KNOW to be unreliable.
Reginald Selkirk says: “I don't think that all those things are equally deserving of skepticism.”
I agree that we don’t need to apply the same level of scrutiny to physical claims as to philosophic, relational, or religious claims. What I’m advocating is a very intense examination of philosophic ideas that drive our research and beliefs in other areas. As you pointed out with your toilet paper analogy, that’s something scientists don’t like to do.
Reginald Selkirk says: “So what do you do when two religions hold incompatible unverifiable doctrine? At least one of them must be wrong .”
Sure, in some cases. That’s why I’m agnostic before I’m Christian.
Reginald Selkirk says:
Since you didn't seem interested in exploring Shermer's definition of skepticism, you readers can find it at the Skeptic web iste:
www.skeptic.com/about_us/
"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..."
For the record, I posted 3 links to his websites in my last article.
Suppose you read in a scientific paper: "We do not trust the Smith paper's results using the ST-288 vorticizer, because that instrument has been shown to be inaccurate. So we ran our own experiments, which we trust, using the ST-288 vorticizer..."
That would set off a red flag, wouldn't it?
But if a religious person told you, "Hindu miracles are not real; they are all delusions, misperceptions, and sometimes outright pious fraud. But I believe in Mormon miracles, as detailed in the Book of Mormon"
Would you notice the same error? Religion has not accepted the same requirements for verification and consistency that we demand of science.
Reginald Selkirk says:
“No. I'm guessing that you are not an actual scientist,”
That is correct. I’m an artist. My lack of math and science skills obviously hinder my performance as a philosopher. But I assume everyone has some gaping hole in their knowledge banks. Anyway, that is why I appreciate your input. But I think my statement still stands. We are trusting our tools to be accurate in this sense: every measure that can be applied to a tool is contingent. We take a sort of Gestalt approach to minimizing risk by applying as many measures as possible, but there is always a chance for error, even if there appear to be consistent results. Especially if an observer or group of observers are biased towards a particular result. (No, I’m not an anti-evolutionist young-earther, so don’t go there!)
Reginald Selkirk says:
“But if a religious person told you, "Hindu miracles are not real; they are all delusions, misperceptions, and sometimes outright pious fraud. But I believe in Mormon miracles, as detailed in the Book of Mormon"
Would you notice the same error? Religion has not accepted the same requirements for verification and consistency that we demand of science.”
You are absolutely correct. You cannot apply peer review and material tools to religious claims. Religious claims need to be examined for internal consistency and explanatory/predictive power. (Assuming you are searching for Truth in a religion rather than mere utility as a self-improvement mechanism.)
Reginald Selkirk says:
“But if a religious person told you, "Hindu miracles are not real; they are all delusions, misperceptions, and sometimes outright pious fraud. But I believe in Mormon miracles, as detailed in the Book of Mormon"
Would you notice the same error? Religion has not accepted the same requirements for verification and consistency that we demand of science.”
You are absolutely correct. You cannot apply peer review and material tools to religious claims. Religious claims need to be examined for internal consistency and explanatory/predictive power. (Assuming you are searching for Truth in a religion rather than mere utility as a self-improvement mechanism.)
"You are absolutely correct. You cannot apply peer review and material tools to religious claims. Religious claims need to be examined for internal consistency and explanatory/predictive power."
I am not sure that you understood me fully. I am not saying that religious claims cannot be tested and that is OK. I am saying that religious claims cannot be tested, and therefore should not be accepted.
Josh, I'm afraid the sense of faith being "despite evidence" is far from an atheist strawman. See, e.g., the case of Kurt Wise: www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html
Reginald Selkirk says:"I am saying that religious claims cannot be tested, and therefore should not be accepted."
I'm saying that they can be tested, but the tools are not material and the results are not quantifiable. The results are far more probabilistic than that of a study of bacteria growth. At what point does the probability have to be for you to stop considering results?
Ray Ingles says:"Josh, I'm afraid the sense of faith being "despite evidence" is far from an atheist strawman. See, e.g., the case of Kurt Wise: www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html "
Thanks for the article. Upon consideration, I've decided that you are right about my misuse of the word "faith". Despite me and my small circle using it differently, the world at large certainly reads it a specifically different way. I'm editing the article I'm currently working on to reflect this. Thanks for the feedback!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!