Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 03-20-2003, 07:56 PM

What is the relationship between:
atheism
freethought
skepticism?

Rene

Psycho Economist · 03-20-2003, 10:14 PM

I might be forcing these to fit, but I want to posit that they're different (progressively more specific) degrees of incredulity.

Skepticism is a general tendency to critically examine the veracity of claims presented to the skeptic, especially extraordinary ones. A refusal to take others' words without investigating the matter personally.

Freethought is the willingness to apply skepticism to religion, believing religious doctrine-as-authority cannot stand on its own. It is the willingness to say that religious claims are extraordinary, and require extraordinary support.

Atheism is one step beyond free-thought. In addition to being unconvinced by dogma, the atheist is unconvinced by religion generally.

ekorczynski · 03-21-2003, 01:32 PM

Folks:

I'm compelled to comment on this again.
Let us go back to source, for these debates/discussions have been occuring for over 2000 years with little change in the fundamental perspectives. The only major change in the last 2000 years IMHO appears to be that the empirical evidence exposed by the modern scientific era completely supports the Skeptic perspective (relativity, uncertainty, etc.).

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm
From the original Skeptic perspective (starting with Pyrrho of Elea, as recorded by Sextus Empiricus), both Theists and Atheists are dogmatically contrained. As a Skeptic inspired by this original perspective, I see Theists and Atheists wasting time in argument without considering assumptions, and without fully following logic.

It seems that any attempt to PROVE an assertion by an Atheist or by a Theist will inevitably rely upon one or more logical falicies (such as blatant assertion, circular logic, appeal to experts, recursive paradox, etc.). Given what appears to be inherently contradictory dogmas, and further given that we can find no objective but only subjective/relative perspectives for comparison, the only logically honest response is to choose no belief at all (i.e., neither asserting "God is" nor asserting "There is no God").

IMHO, this most reasonable and prudent perspective was censored from the Western tradition by the Catholic church. Consequently, much of what is termed "skeptical" today (in particular so-called "Modern Sceptics" or "Scientific Skeptics") seems merely to be the application of some of the original Skeptic arguments against Theists, without a corresponding application against Atheistic/Materialist dogmas. So, most people today mistakenly associate the Skeptic perspective with Atheism, when in principle it opposes Atheism just as much as Theism.

Michael Shermer's "Manifesto" at www.skeptic.com contains the following obnoxious and ignorant blatant assertion regarding the original Skeptic perspective, "Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except for a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing." What a load of shit. I experience the original Skeptic perspective as rich and productive, leading to happiness and relative wisdom. BTW, like Shermer, Catholic philosophers (whether motivated by ignorance or willful lies) also mischaracterized Skeptics as Solipsists.

While I generally support much of what SCICOP does, from their words it appears that they've completely lost a Skeptic perspective. Later in Shermer's "Manifesto" we read, "Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticsm." This statement appears incredible, considering that Sextus Empiricus consistently repetes just the opposite: nothing in the Skeptic statements should be considered as a positive assertion. Thus, properly speaking, there never has been such a thing as "Skepticism", in that the "-ism" suffix implies some set of dogmas. I don't know Shermer personnaly, so I cannot comment on his motivations, but his words regarding the original Skeptic perspective appear as at best completely ignorant.

To differentiate myself from this relative conceptual confusion, I've chosen the modifier "transcendent" to evoke the feeling of having trascended all limited beief systems.

So, while many people today consider a Skeptic as a "soft" Atheist along some hypothetical scale of credulity that includes Theists at the other end, IMHO (based on the translations of the original Skeptic texts) Skeptics do not belong on any such scale between Atheists and Theist.

Your Transcendent Skeptic friend,
edo

Philosoft · 03-21-2003, 01:59 PM

ekorczynski,

You seem to be laboring under a definition of "atheism" that, if not outright wrong, is at least rarely seen. In fact, I'll ask you to come up with an example, a single post maybe from this board, that illustrates dogmatic atheism. If you can even do that, it will show that position to be in a significant minority. Modern skepticism is very much a part of modern atheism.

ekorczynski · 03-21-2003, 04:49 PM

Dear Philosoft:

At your suggestion, I've just spent a few minutes looking for an "Atheist posting" in this forum, and I can't find one. I'm not surprised, since this forum is termed "science and skepticism" not "atheism". However, please recall that from first principles, any Atheist post would necessarily assert that god does not exist, and any such assertion would invariably express dogma.

At the risk of oversimplfying:
a Theist believes in god(s),
an Atheist believes in no god(s),
a Skeptic chooses no beliefs.

A fundamental difference today IMHO between a Skeptic and an Atheist seems to be whether one has taken what I term a "leap of faith" in moving from probability to certainty.

As a Skeptic I value empirical facts and logical anaysis, and I can say that all evidence to date probably means that there is no personal interventionist God as propounded by most Theists. But I leave it at probably. I do not make the leap to certainty and conviction and declare that "it is not so." The distinction between probability and certainty feels fundamental. Even after reading Julian Jaynes, I'm still unwilling to state "there is no god."

If, in an annoying thought-experiment, you put a gun to my head and say you'll shoot me if I don't choose Theism or Atheism, assuming for the sake of the thought-experiment that I consider your threat as credible, I'd probably consider that I want to stay living and probably lie and tell you whatever I thought you wanted to hear.

If you feel like giving the universe the "benefit of the doubt", then you probably should self-identify as a Skeptic. If you feel that you have certainty that the Theists are wrong and that there just is no god, then you should probably self-identify as an Atheist.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what perspective to take, I'm just trying to ensure that we're using appropriate terms. I'm a "Skeptic", in that I choose no beliefs, and I object to the corruption of the definition of Skeptic into some variant of Atheism. I'm not an Atheist, and I've never been one. If you're an Atheist, call yourself an Atheist, no problem. I'm not changing definitions, I'm using the original definitions that still apply after 2000 years.

BTW, I never accused anyone posting here of being a dogmatic Atheist. Most all of the posts that I can find seem to come from a relatively healthy Skeptical perspective. The origin of this thread was the definitions of the terms "skeptic" "free thinker" "atheist", to which I added my perspective.

Perhaps I should not have dragged Shermer's bogus statements into this discussion board, as he's not posting to this tread (unless he's using a pseudonym), but I wanted to emphasize that people should in no way accept his ignorant definition of a Skeptic. Don't accept his word or my word for that matter, go back to the sources, read and contemplate; translations are available. If all that you know of the Skeptic perspective comes from "Modern Skeptics", then in my experience you know only a pale shadow of the real deal; they seem to have added nothing fundamental (lots of new examples based on new data, but the same logic), while subtracting the essential goal of transcendence (a.k.a. the "aim of quietude").

I'm open to someone arguing that we must change our definitions of Theist, Atheist, and Skeptic from the original definitions of 2000 years ago, but I'd have to see some rather thorough logic in support. Again, what do you think needs to be changed from the following definitions:

Theist believes in one or more gods (belief).
Atheist believes in no gods (belief).
Skeptic doesn't believe anything (no belief).
Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

{{{off for the weekend, re-connect in 2 days}}}

Secular Pinoy · 03-21-2003, 05:26 PM

Such hubris without actually making any good points. I think modern skepticism is a few rungs higher than classical skepticism. Your philosophizing would not resurrect that outmoded (and rightly considered, sterile) position.

ekorczynski · 03-21-2003, 07:04 PM

Secular Pinoy accuses me of hubris in a blatant assertion.

Pinoy further declares the original Skeptic perspective to be "outmoded" (and echoes the obnoxious blatant assertion that it is "sterile"), without any supporting statement. Please explain how anything that I posted is not still accurate today (and thus of-the-mode). Try to use logic and analysis instead of insult and blatant assertion.

Also, I'm very interested in Pinoy trying to explain/define how precisely "modern skepticism is a few rungs higher"... define a standard or metric, then analyze away... but I'm quite curious as to what original Skeptic texts were read as references for comparison.

Philosoft · 03-21-2003, 09:26 PM

ekorczynski,

You're welcome to use any forum, not just this one... Anyway...

What about the person who says, "I've heard all your god-concepts and I am unconvinced that any of them are true"?

I would call that person an atheist. I know many atheists here who would gladly identify with that statement. Is it really your contention that such a position takes a "leap of faith"? Is there really any faith involved in not believing something? I don't believe a lot of things I hear about, god-concepts being just a few. Are these all decisions of faith?

You seem quite certain that this brand of faith-leaping atheist is a fair representative of the genre. I don't know everyone's story, but I feel confident saying you're not going to get a chance to mix it up with one. I'm sure they exist, but, as far as I know, I've never met one.

ekorczynski · 03-24-2003, 04:06 PM

As my motivation is to discuss and understand issues relating to emirical data and what provisional relative "truths" can be derived thereof, "Science and Skepticicm" seems to be the best possible forum within IIDB...

Simple, but accurate, definitions repeated:
Theist believes in god(s); holds a belief.
Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief.
Skeptic does not believe in anything; no belief.
Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true.

Now, both Theists and Atheists can be considered as "Dogmatists" in that they hold to one or more beliefs that require "a leap of faith" to reach certainty from probability. If you doubt, you are a Skeptic. If you are certain, you are a Dogmatist (whether Theist, Atheist, Politician, Economist)with a perspective clouded by one or more beliefs. When a politician says, "I believe that a tax-cut for the rich will help the poor," this appears as a statement of dogma.

You are, of course, completely correct when you state as a question, "Is there really any faith involved in not believing something?" No belief means no faith means you hold the Skeptic perspective.

I'm somewhat new to IIDB and this forum, but I've met many people in my life, some Theists, some Skeptics, and some Atheists. The Theists believe in god(s) with certainty and conviction. The Atheists belieive in no god(s) with certainty and conviction. The Skeptics don't believe one way or the other and lack certainty and conviction.

If we don't agree on definitions, then we'll miss communicate. Someone asked a question as to what the definitions and/or differences are between Atheist, Skeptic, and FreeThinker. I posed a set of definitions and distinctions based on classic 2000-year-old perspectives. My perspective and definitions thereof have been criticised (perhaps for good reason) without supporting argument. If someone thinks that the "modern era" has fundamentally changed the philosophical landscape such that new/altered definitions would be more appropriate, I'm all for hearing about it...

IMHO,
A Skeptic could say, "I've heard about your god concepts and I am unconvinced that any of them are true," or "I doubt that God exists," or "I've considered your Theistic perspective and remain unconvinced." The Skeptic deals in probability.

However, IMHO, a Skeptic cannot hold the perspective that "I've heard about your god concepts and I've decided that they are false," or "I know that God does not exist," or "I've considered your Theistic perspective and you're wrong," for all of these require a dogmatic certainty of a leap of faith into Atheism. The Atheist deals in certainty.

I'm not telling anyone what perspective to hold, but I am saying that people should use clear and consistent definitions of terms, and that we should use the established terms unless data show that they have become obsolete.

Mageth · 03-24-2003, 04:19 PM

Simple, but accurate, definitions repeated:
Theist believes in god(s); holds a belief.
Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief.
Skeptic does not believe in anything; no belief.
Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true.

Do you really believe those definitions are accurate?

03-20-2003, 07:56 PM	#1
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	a question for us What is the relationship between: atheism freethought skepticism? Rene

03-21-2003, 01:32 PM	#3
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Skeptics not dogmatic Atheists Folks: I'm compelled to comment on this again. Let us go back to source, for these debates/discussions have been occuring for over 2000 years with little change in the fundamental perspectives. The only major change in the last 2000 years IMHO appears to be that the empirical evidence exposed by the modern scientific era completely supports the Skeptic perspective (relativity, uncertainty, etc.). http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm From the original Skeptic perspective (starting with Pyrrho of Elea, as recorded by Sextus Empiricus), both Theists and Atheists are dogmatically contrained. As a Skeptic inspired by this original perspective, I see Theists and Atheists wasting time in argument without considering assumptions, and without fully following logic. It seems that any attempt to PROVE an assertion by an Atheist or by a Theist will inevitably rely upon one or more logical falicies (such as blatant assertion, circular logic, appeal to experts, recursive paradox, etc.). Given what appears to be inherently contradictory dogmas, and further given that we can find no objective but only subjective/relative perspectives for comparison, the only logically honest response is to choose no belief at all (i.e., neither asserting "God is" nor asserting "There is no God"). IMHO, this most reasonable and prudent perspective was censored from the Western tradition by the Catholic church. Consequently, much of what is termed "skeptical" today (in particular so-called "Modern Sceptics" or "Scientific Skeptics") seems merely to be the application of some of the original Skeptic arguments against Theists, without a corresponding application against Atheistic/Materialist dogmas. So, most people today mistakenly associate the Skeptic perspective with Atheism, when in principle it opposes Atheism just as much as Theism. Michael Shermer's "Manifesto" at www.skeptic.com contains the following obnoxious and ignorant blatant assertion regarding the original Skeptic perspective, "Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except for a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing." What a load of shit. I experience the original Skeptic perspective as rich and productive, leading to happiness and relative wisdom. BTW, like Shermer, Catholic philosophers (whether motivated by ignorance or willful lies) also mischaracterized Skeptics as Solipsists. While I generally support much of what SCICOP does, from their words it appears that they've completely lost a Skeptic perspective. Later in Shermer's "Manifesto" we read, "Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticsm." This statement appears incredible, considering that Sextus Empiricus consistently repetes just the opposite: nothing in the Skeptic statements should be considered as a positive assertion. Thus, properly speaking, there never has been such a thing as "Skepticism", in that the "-ism" suffix implies some set of dogmas. I don't know Shermer personnaly, so I cannot comment on his motivations, but his words regarding the original Skeptic perspective appear as at best completely ignorant. To differentiate myself from this relative conceptual confusion, I've chosen the modifier "transcendent" to evoke the feeling of having trascended all limited beief systems. So, while many people today consider a Skeptic as a "soft" Atheist along some hypothetical scale of credulity that includes Theists at the other end, IMHO (based on the translations of the original Skeptic texts) Skeptics do not belong on any such scale between Atheists and Theist. Your Transcendent Skeptic friend, edo

03-21-2003, 04:49 PM	#5
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Skeptics versus Atheists Dear Philosoft: At your suggestion, I've just spent a few minutes looking for an "Atheist posting" in this forum, and I can't find one. I'm not surprised, since this forum is termed "science and skepticism" not "atheism". However, please recall that from first principles, any Atheist post would necessarily assert that god does not exist, and any such assertion would invariably express dogma. At the risk of oversimplfying: a Theist believes in god(s), an Atheist believes in no god(s), a Skeptic chooses no beliefs. A fundamental difference today IMHO between a Skeptic and an Atheist seems to be whether one has taken what I term a "leap of faith" in moving from probability to certainty. As a Skeptic I value empirical facts and logical anaysis, and I can say that all evidence to date probably means that there is no personal interventionist God as propounded by most Theists. But I leave it at probably. I do not make the leap to certainty and conviction and declare that "it is not so." The distinction between probability and certainty feels fundamental. Even after reading Julian Jaynes, I'm still unwilling to state "there is no god." If, in an annoying thought-experiment, you put a gun to my head and say you'll shoot me if I don't choose Theism or Atheism, assuming for the sake of the thought-experiment that I consider your threat as credible, I'd probably consider that I want to stay living and probably lie and tell you whatever I thought you wanted to hear. If you feel like giving the universe the "benefit of the doubt", then you probably should self-identify as a Skeptic. If you feel that you have certainty that the Theists are wrong and that there just is no god, then you should probably self-identify as an Atheist. I'm not trying to tell anyone what perspective to take, I'm just trying to ensure that we're using appropriate terms. I'm a "Skeptic", in that I choose no beliefs, and I object to the corruption of the definition of Skeptic into some variant of Atheism. I'm not an Atheist, and I've never been one. If you're an Atheist, call yourself an Atheist, no problem. I'm not changing definitions, I'm using the original definitions that still apply after 2000 years. BTW, I never accused anyone posting here of being a dogmatic Atheist. Most all of the posts that I can find seem to come from a relatively healthy Skeptical perspective. The origin of this thread was the definitions of the terms "skeptic" "free thinker" "atheist", to which I added my perspective. Perhaps I should not have dragged Shermer's bogus statements into this discussion board, as he's not posting to this tread (unless he's using a pseudonym), but I wanted to emphasize that people should in no way accept his ignorant definition of a Skeptic. Don't accept his word or my word for that matter, go back to the sources, read and contemplate; translations are available. If all that you know of the Skeptic perspective comes from "Modern Skeptics", then in my experience you know only a pale shadow of the real deal; they seem to have added nothing fundamental (lots of new examples based on new data, but the same logic), while subtracting the essential goal of transcendence (a.k.a. the "aim of quietude"). I'm open to someone arguing that we must change our definitions of Theist, Atheist, and Skeptic from the original definitions of 2000 years ago, but I'd have to see some rather thorough logic in support. Again, what do you think needs to be changed from the following definitions: Theist believes in one or more gods (belief). Atheist believes in no gods (belief). Skeptic doesn't believe anything (no belief). Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/) {{{off for the weekend, re-connect in 2 days}}}

03-24-2003, 04:06 PM	#9
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Skeptics versus Atheists As my motivation is to discuss and understand issues relating to emirical data and what provisional relative "truths" can be derived thereof, "Science and Skepticicm" seems to be the best possible forum within IIDB... Simple, but accurate, definitions repeated: Theist believes in god(s); holds a belief. Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief. Skeptic does not believe in anything; no belief. Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true. Now, both Theists and Atheists can be considered as "Dogmatists" in that they hold to one or more beliefs that require "a leap of faith" to reach certainty from probability. If you doubt, you are a Skeptic. If you are certain, you are a Dogmatist (whether Theist, Atheist, Politician, Economist)with a perspective clouded by one or more beliefs. When a politician says, "I believe that a tax-cut for the rich will help the poor," this appears as a statement of dogma. You are, of course, completely correct when you state as a question, "Is there really any faith involved in not believing something?" No belief means no faith means you hold the Skeptic perspective. I'm somewhat new to IIDB and this forum, but I've met many people in my life, some Theists, some Skeptics, and some Atheists. The Theists believe in god(s) with certainty and conviction. The Atheists belieive in no god(s) with certainty and conviction. The Skeptics don't believe one way or the other and lack certainty and conviction. If we don't agree on definitions, then we'll miss communicate. Someone asked a question as to what the definitions and/or differences are between Atheist, Skeptic, and FreeThinker. I posed a set of definitions and distinctions based on classic 2000-year-old perspectives. My perspective and definitions thereof have been criticised (perhaps for good reason) without supporting argument. If someone thinks that the "modern era" has fundamentally changed the philosophical landscape such that new/altered definitions would be more appropriate, I'm all for hearing about it... IMHO, A Skeptic could say, "I've heard about your god concepts and I am unconvinced that any of them are true," or "I doubt that God exists," or "I've considered your Theistic perspective and remain unconvinced." The Skeptic deals in probability. However, IMHO, a Skeptic cannot hold the perspective that "I've heard about your god concepts and I've decided that they are false," or "I know that God does not exist," or "I've considered your Theistic perspective and you're wrong," for all of these require a dogmatic certainty of a leap of faith into Atheism. The Atheist deals in certainty. I'm not telling anyone what perspective to hold, but I am saying that people should use clear and consistent definitions of terms, and that we should use the established terms unless data show that they have become obsolete.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2003, 10:14 PM	#2
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	I might be forcing these to fit, but I want to posit that they're different (progressively more specific) degrees of incredulity. Skepticism is a general tendency to critically examine the veracity of claims presented to the skeptic, especially extraordinary ones. A refusal to take others' words without investigating the matter personally. Freethought is the willingness to apply skepticism to religion, believing religious doctrine-as-authority cannot stand on its own. It is the willingness to say that religious claims are extraordinary, and require extraordinary support. Atheism is one step beyond free-thought. In addition to being unconvinced by dogma, the atheist is unconvinced by religion generally.

03-21-2003, 01:59 PM	#4
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	ekorczynski, You seem to be laboring under a definition of "atheism" that, if not outright wrong, is at least rarely seen. In fact, I'll ask you to come up with an example, a single post maybe from this board, that illustrates dogmatic atheism. If you can even do that, it will show that position to be in a significant minority. Modern skepticism is very much a part of modern atheism.

03-21-2003, 05:26 PM	#6
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Such hubris without actually making any good points. I think modern skepticism is a few rungs higher than classical skepticism. Your philosophizing would not resurrect that outmoded (and rightly considered, sterile) position.

03-21-2003, 07:04 PM	#7
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Secular Pinoy accuses me of hubris in a blatant assertion. Pinoy further declares the original Skeptic perspective to be "outmoded" (and echoes the obnoxious blatant assertion that it is "sterile"), without any supporting statement. Please explain how anything that I posted is not still accurate today (and thus of-the-mode). Try to use logic and analysis instead of insult and blatant assertion. Also, I'm very interested in Pinoy trying to explain/define how precisely "modern skepticism is a few rungs higher"... define a standard or metric, then analyze away... but I'm quite curious as to what original Skeptic texts were read as references for comparison.

03-21-2003, 09:26 PM	#8
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	ekorczynski, You're welcome to use any forum, not just this one... Anyway... What about the person who says, "I've heard all your god-concepts and I am unconvinced that any of them are true"? I would call that person an atheist. I know many atheists here who would gladly identify with that statement. Is it really your contention that such a position takes a "leap of faith"? Is there really any faith involved in not believing something? I don't believe a lot of things I hear about, god-concepts being just a few. Are these all decisions of faith? You seem quite certain that this brand of faith-leaping atheist is a fair representative of the genre. I don't know everyone's story, but I feel confident saying you're not going to get a chance to mix it up with one. I'm sure they exist, but, as far as I know, I've never met one.

03-24-2003, 04:19 PM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Simple, but accurate, definitions repeated: Theist believes in god(s); holds a belief. Atheist believes in no god(s); holds a belief. Skeptic does not believe in anything; no belief. Belief: the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true. Do you really believe those definitions are accurate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.