Matt Dillahunty wrote a thoughtful post on the Atheist Experience blog that I somewhat disagree with. The post is worth reading, but the post is attempting to answer the question: can you be a skeptic and a theist?
I must preface that obviously I’m an atheist and a skeptic, and I do feel that if you equally evaluate every belief with scientific skepticism, you will most likely be an atheist.
However, part of the reason my blog was on a long hiatus is that I was bothered by the question: What separates believers from non-believers? It’s this thought process that leads me to disagree with Matt’s post.
The biggest overarching problem in Matt’s post is the lack of a definition of what skepticism is. There are hints of a definition, but it’s never set out as: “this is what a skeptic is.” Before writing this post, I decided to look for some sort of official definition. The best I could find is on Wikipedia describing scientific skepticism:
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
…
Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
That seems like a very good summary of what a skeptic is. Nowhere in this definition or in Matt’s post does it require that absolutely every belief a person holds must be rationally reasoned through scientific skepticism. In fact, as I think Matt would agree, sometimes there are questions that science cannot currently or may never be able to answer.
The leap I’m going to make is to claim that by asserting that Pamela Gay or Hal Bidlack are not skeptics is the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s a natural instinct to see someone who is generally of the same class but holds a different belief and say, “They’re not a true skeptic.” We see it all the time when one Christian sees another Christian of a differing denomination make a claim and justifying the cognitive dissonance by asserting that they aren’t a true Christian.
Even though I think that Matt’s post is arguing the No True Scotsman fallacy, I still think it has some interesting thoughts to pursue.
Can you believe without evidence and still call yourself a skeptic?
This is where my thoughts have been for the past year, and I have to say that my current conclusion is, “Yes.” Scientific skepticism is based on evaluating evidence and when there is no evidence an individual can decide to believe either way. This does not violate the idea of skepticism. It merely violates Matt and my preference that our beliefs be justifiable, and that if something is unjustifiable, we try not to believe it until we have a justification.
In fact, as Matt will claim on the show, he believes that there are no gods. He won’t do this when he’s debating a specific claim of a god, because he knows that believing in no gods is a positive claim. He realizes that he doesn’t have enough evidence to justify the “no gods” position to a reasonable certainty in terms of an actual debate. This belief that he holds is akin to believing that there is a god where that god’s definition contains no testable or evidentiary claims.
That’s not to say that my personal beliefs don’t line up with Matt’s, but I think we both recognize that the belief that there are no gods is not something that can be held up to a necessary level of certainty to assert it in a debate.
Should we be critical of other skeptic’s beliefs?
As an evangelical Christian, I was always taught to be sensitive to other people’s beliefs. If I saw another Christian swearing, I shouldn’t judge them and tell them they are going to hell. The reason was that god and that person had a relationship that was a work in progress, and that who are we to judge someone’s personal walk with god?
I’m no longer a Christian, but I still think that this is a good approach in general. No one is a perfect skeptic. If someone believes in something that is demonstrably false, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the subject with the person. But if that person isn’t ready to talk about that subject, we should be temporarily respectful and continue discussing other topics. If we aren’t, we risk turning that person away.
Now, if we see someone holding a belief in something that isn’t demonstrably false, but is a positive belief not backed up by any evidence, should we criticize that person? No, I think it follows the same approach as the previous situation. If someone is open to discussing it, then by all means discuss it. Otherwise, we move on and revisit the topic later.
Does that mean I don’t think the Atheist Experience show is any good?
Absolutely not. The Atheist Experience is a live call-in show broadcasted on both the internet and local access channel in the Austin area. I love the show. Why is the show different than what I just finished describing?
The people that Matt, Tracie, Jen, Martin, Russel, Don, Jeff, and others discuss and occasionally ridicule are reaching out to the show to discuss their points. If the hosts of the show were calling people randomly to discuss things, then I would be opposed to the approach in terms of spreading skepticism (although I do think it still would be entertaining).
My final thoughts
At TAM 8, I met a person who showed me this venn diagram:
I think it breaks things down nicely. I was a skeptic before I became an atheist. I was a skeptic-atheist before I became a humanist. However, there are skeptic-humanists that are not atheists. Likewise, there are atheists that are neither a humanist or a skeptic.
I don’t think it is our duty as skeptics to actively attack people. This was the point of Phil Plait‘s talk at TAM 8. We shouldn’t attack people, we should attack false beliefs. The moment that we attack the individual, the moment we lose the possibility of helping that person out of irrational beliefs. I know Matt wasn’t specifically picking on Pamela Gay — she just happened to be there with quotes to dissect.
I think that a skeptic can believe in a god, but that as skeptics we should always strive to look for what beliefs we have that are based without evidence and try to limit those beliefs. However, we must also recognize that our minds are wired for believing things. Because of this, in places with lack of evidence, it may be hard if not impossible for an individual to stop believing.
That’s all fine for people like Hal who is a deist. I do believe, however, that if you call yourself a Christian, Muslim, or some other religious person but also call yourself a skeptic that you should look at your own beliefs. The reason deism is different from Christianity, for example, is that to be a Christian you are making a few positive belief claims that can be investigated. Most Christians would agree that if you call yourself a Christian, you believe that Jesus came to Earth, was God’s son, and his crucifixion allows anyone who believes in him to get into heaven.
The claims of Jesus can be investigated, and many people have done so. The specifics of evaluating the evidence for those claims are not for this topic. I’m merely pointing out why I think that Christians who call themselves skeptics should continue evaluating all of their beliefs with a skeptical mindset.
Becoming a skeptic is easy, but evaluating all of your beliefs in the new method is the difficult part. No matter where you are at on the journey of evaluating your beliefs, I personally welcome you to our small group known as skeptics.
