![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A city in Florida that I love
Posts: 3,416
|
![]()
When you encourage people to be skeptical of the existence of the gods, doesn't that encourage people to be skeptical of other things that are actually true--for instance, democracy? I mean, I think that's one reason for the popularity of nondemocratic ideologies like fascism and communism.
Don't confuse this with the crude connection some people make, where they lump atheistic democrats with communists because both oppose religion. That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that both are connected with skepticism. After all, a Marxist who disagrees with his democratic culture is just as skeptical, and considers his skepticism to be just as rational and good, as an atheist who disagrees with his theistic culture. I think that encouraging skepticism creates a skeptical society that doesn't always know when not to be skeptical, and that this happened in a place like 1940s Italy. Is there any way that a skeptical culture can exist without skeptics who question true things like democracy or the moon landing? Just insisting that the desirable kind of skepticism is rational isn't enough, since in those two examples the adherents consider themselves to be following reason quite well. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
![]()
In what sense is democracy 'true'?
And what's 40's Italy got to do with it? |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Self-banned in 2005
Posts: 1,344
|
![]()
I'm afraid we can't allow the spread of skepticism because before long some damned fool would be questioning the existence of Santa. I - for one - want presents, and no skeptic is gonna scupper my chances.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,759
|
![]()
Oh God, if this skepticism thing get out of hand Santa isn't the only one that'll be out of work. Think of the psychics. Oh the horror of a world without James Van Praagh.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Talk Freethought Staff
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, eh
Posts: 42,293
|
![]()
Skepticism about everything is good.
If a communist wants to be skeptical about democracy, more power to him. The facts, however, make a strong case that, in general, democratic societies are richer, more powerful and give a better quality of life to a larger portion of their citizens than communist ones. Sure, there are a lot of problems with democracy but I have yet to see a system of government that works better. Governmental systems and actions are the place where we need the most skeptics since they are the things that have the most bearing on the life that we lead. It's always good to question them. The people who question the moon landing, however, are just plain dumb. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 451
|
![]()
peteyh: Why? The only evidence they have is from TV and what the government tells them.... why shouldn't they be skeptical (especially considering all the outlandish things TV shows them these days)?
If your original statement, "Skepticism about everything is good," is true, then it logically follows that skepticism about the moon landing is good. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
![]()
Reasonable scepticism is good.
However I've never heard a decent definition of reasonable so I'm not sure that helps much. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
Talk Freethought Staff
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, eh
Posts: 42,293
|
![]()
VeilOfFire,
Quote:
Quote:
The people who believe the claims that we have not landed on the moon, after reviewing the evidence, are just plain dumb. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,358
|
![]() Quote:
In my opinion, other forms of government have been preferred only based on faulty logic or poor evidence - and therefore a skeptical analysis of democracy vs other forms of government would come down on the side of democracy. That is however not your main point here. The question is not "is democracy 'true'?" so much as - well, let's move on... Quote:
There are five propositions inherent in the above: 1. God(s) exist(s). 2. God(s) do not exist. 3. Democracy is the "best" form of government. 4. Fascism is the "best" form of government. 5. Communism is the "best" form of government. What is wrong with the notion that skepticism should be applied to all of these? I happen to believe that when the light of logic and evidence is applied to the above, the result will be 1. False. 2. True. 3. True. 4. False. 5. False. Others may disagree, but the point is - the argument needs to be based on logic and evidence. That is all skepticism means in this context. Your implicit assertion that "skepticism can lead to negative outcomes" does not hold any water - let alone the implicit corollary that "therefore we should not be skeptical about god(s)". Quote:
![]() (Edited because an objective examination of the evidence led me to the conclusion that I had not spelled "principles" correctly.) [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p> |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,358
|
![]() Quote:
It is true that the common definition of "skeptic" is "one who doubts" or even "one who disbelieves". It is in some people's minds almost a synonym for "cynic". (not in yours, I hasten to add - we've had this conversation earlier). However, for those of us who call ourselves "Skeptics" (with a capital "S") and for the various "Skeptics" organisations around the world, the practical definition goes somewhat beyond that. A Skeptic is not simply "one who doubts" any more than, in Monty Python terms, an argument is the mere gainsaying of what your opponent asserts. Certainly doubt is a key part of the Skeptic nature. But so is examination of the evidence, the application of logic and critical thought, and the drawing of conclusions there from. A Skeptic will not accept any assertion or adopt any belief without a compelling reason (in particular, evidence) to do so. As I once read a fellow skeptic say, in offering that form of definition, "...and I cannot imagine any other way to live." So, "skepticism about the moon landing is good" only in a very limited fashion. As I said above, and as peteyh said, to believe the claims that we have not landed on the moon, after having examined the evidence, is not "skeptical" - it's "dumb". Now, it is true (I believe) that very few people, if any, are 100% Skeptic - that is, that they apply cold logic and evidence-based reasoning to every aspect of their lives. And people can be selective in their Skepticism - it is possible for a Skeptic to be a Theist, for example, even though there is no objective evidence for the existence of a God. It is possible for a person to be immune from the claims of quack medicine, and yet the fall for am investment scam. We're funny critters, us humans. So, I stand by the argument that, in South Park terms "Skepticism's good, 'Kay?" I don't think the examples that you (and OJuice) offer are valid. |
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|