What Are the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Philosophy
Click For Summary
The discussion identifies two main camps of scientific skepticism: one that dismisses non-scientific ideas as nonsense and another that seeks to understand and debunk these ideas with evidence. The first group is viewed as less useful, while the second is considered more constructive in fostering inquiry. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the reasons behind differing beliefs, particularly regarding religion, which is seen as more complex than mere pseudoscience. There is a call for skeptics to engage thoughtfully rather than simply dismiss beliefs, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of human belief systems. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the value of critical thinking and the necessity of questioning beliefs while grounding arguments in evidence.
  • #61
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by Zero
Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence.
The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

So? I'm not planning on suing you or anything!
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.

But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it?
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Tom
First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position.
And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation. In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.

Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either. And what do you mean by default position? Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Zero
But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it?
No, I'm just saying some things you just have to see and/or experience for yourself. Like falling in love for instance. How can you possibly objectify an experience like that? (not without rending it to pieces anyway).
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Iacchus32;
Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference.
Well, if you claim to “know” that ‘He’ exists then I would wonder why you are so quick to repeatedly point out that we must take everything on ‘faith’’ (as you defined it earlier). If you make the claim because deep down you want God to exist, then of course you would likely be only fooling yourself.
So what I’m wondering about is your level of skeptism.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation.

No. If you follow the analogy, god finds its legal counterpart in the guilt of the defendant.

In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.

I do admit that there is not enough evidence to support the negative claim.

Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either.

Yes. So, when there is not one shred of evidence for or against god, why keep talking about it?

And what do you mean by default position?

I mean the position that one takes when one has not been indoctrinated or delusional. One either must be taught religion, or one must make it up. Atheism is what results when neither of those things take place.

Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?

What are you talking about?
 
  • #69
Tom I disagree. There is NO evidence for the claim that any of the Gods in mythological texts exists.

But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.

I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?
 
  • #70
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.

OK, then present some of that evidence. I have studied logic, statistics, and science (physics), and I have not heard of any such proof.

I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?

You are talking about atheism as if it were some kind of religion. It is not something about which one needs to feel confident. In fact, if it were not for religious people, there would be no such thing as "atheism" (why on Earth should I be defined in terms of what I don't believe?).

You seem to be an anti-theist ("I know there is no god, and I have evidence to prove it."), whereas I am a skeptical atheist ("I do not believe in god, because there is no evidence.")
 
  • #71
...In addition, I don't normally tell atheists it's a good idea to read scientific texts that disprove all the major religions.

In the case here, since I see so many atheists (and wonderful to see you) that usually agree there's no proof to the claim god exists, but who also claim that no evidence against God (of any type) exists.

Becuase I see this, I would highly suggest you atheists learn of the logical, statistical, and scientific evidence towards the claim that no god of any type whatsoever exists.

I can provide some links if you wish to amazon.com books I know of...
 
  • #72
Yes Tom. And my point is that you say exactly:

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God."

But why is it that you have chosen not what my definition is:

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God, and there is evidence supporting the claim that no God exists."

You say you are versed on logic stats and science. I will assume this is true, then how is it you have not taken this to work against the religious claims?

Just no interest? I understand if one doesn't want to look at the "case against a God". It's a choice, but from one atheist to another I just don't see why one would choose that.
 
  • #73
Tom I disagree. There is NO evidence for the claim that any of the Gods in mythological texts exists.
LA, it is often a difficult task to make yourself understood perfectly in a forum, and so you have to word things as carefully as possible to present your position. Looking at the above text you are claiming that no evidence exists for the claim that certain mythological gods exist. In truth, you can go to any church where someone will prove this untrue.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, if you claim to “know” that ‘He’ exists then I would wonder why you are so quick to repeatedly point out that we must take everything on ‘faith’’ (as you defined it earlier). If you make the claim because deep down you want God to exist, then of course you would likely be only fooling yourself.
So what I’m wondering about is your level of skeptism.
I don't accept anything based upon somebody else's say so, especially when it comes to something like this. Neither do I expect anyone else to do differently. It doesn't mean a damn thing to hear it come from someone else's lips ... unless of course you have the "ear to hear," meaning you know your stuff.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by BoulderHead
LA, it is often a difficult task to make yourself understood perfectly in a forum, and so you have to word things as carefully as possible to present your position. Looking at the above text you are claiming that no evidence exists for the claim that certain mythological gods exist. In truth, you can go to any church where someone will prove this untrue.

First off, you spliced my words and changed the meaning.

Secondly, even if that statement was my own, WHAT?

I can go to a church where someone will show me evidence that a God exists?

1. What are you smoking..

or

2. Is this some magical Harry Potter church?
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I don't accept anything based upon somebody else's say so, especially when it comes to something like this. Neither do I expect anyone else to do differently. It doesn't mean a damn thing to hear it come from someone else's lips ... unless of course you have the "ear to hear," meaning you know your stuff.
Great! Now, are you making any claims of 'knowing', or are you still taking everything on faith?
 
  • #77
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You say you are versed on logic stats and science. I will assume this is true, then how is it you have not taken this to work against the religious claims?

I don't think that any math, science, or logic has anything to say on the subject. The religious claims is basically that god exists both within and above the natural universe. They claim that it has the power to suspend and even break its laws.

How on Earth does one use math, science, and logic to falsify the unfalsifiable?
 
  • #78
Well the question is loaded. It is falsifiable. I think there is one common error that people make when they attempt to speak about

"The existence or non-existance of God"

To say "God (with all it's parameters) exists" is to make a claim.

This claim is in a few books, let's say the bible.

The bible is an individually published text.

The bible makes this claim.

The bible provides all the parameters of (this particular) God.

If logic can show that the parameters of this god are logically impossible, because of logic itself, or because of science, then this God (defined as being identical to all these paramaters) cannot exist.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If logic can show that the parameters of this god are logically impossible, because of logic itself, or because of science, then this God (defined as being identical to all these paramaters) cannot exist.

First, let's just assume you're right here. You've disproven the god of the Bible. That means: one down, infinity to go. The human mind can conjure up an endless parade of gods for you to disprove; attacking the Bible does not disprove the concept in general. A Muslim, for instance, would not feel threatened by that disproof.

Second, you aren't really showing me anything here. You simply said "it is falsifiable", without pointing out the falsifying property of it. I maintain that the concept of a being that can manipulate the very laws (those of science) by which you seek to disprove it is unfalsifiable.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
First off, you spliced my words and changed the meaning.
I thought I had used your exact words when I quoted you. With regard to the meaning, I simply misunderstood it. After reading it again I see where I went wrong, sorry.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Great! Now, are you making any claims of 'knowing', or are you still taking everything on faith?
Faith is very much a part of knowing. In fact it's the beginning of knowing. I put faith in everything that makes sense to me, and practically discount everything that comes out of the mouths of others, that is until I have a means by which to ascertain it for myself. This is how one learns to "know" for oneself. Now does that sound unreasonable? And what was kerrie saying questioning everything?

And really what it all boils down to is that nobody is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise there would be no freedom.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just saying some things you just have to see and/or experience for yourself. Like falling in love for instance. How can you possibly objectify an experience like that? (not without rending it to pieces anyway).

On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.


Exactly. because it feels so strange it needs a strange and luxurious answer.

Love is just an electrochemical response. Humans are NOTHING but electrochemical entities. Not a shred of evidence to propose anything else out of the infinite amount of obscure pseudo-scientific blabber.
 
  • #84
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Faith is very much a part of knowing. In fact it's the beginning of knowing. I put faith in everything that makes sense to me, and practically discount everything that comes out of the mouths of others, that is until I have a means by which to ascertain it for myself. This is how one learns to "know" for oneself. Now does that sound unreasonable? And what was kerrie saying questioning everything?
I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand.

And really what it all boils down to is that nobody is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise there would be no freedom.
Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse?
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.
What are saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).
 
  • #86
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand.

Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse?

Habits are the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colorful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.
The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
She dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
She accepts substance,
And does not put abstractions on a pedestal.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand.
What are you turning into a werewolf or something?

Of course I have to admit a werewolf is very much a mythological creature, that is unless it originally had something to do with getting rabies or something?

Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse?
Do you mean like with a gun pointed at my head or something?

Now how is that possible? I've been thinking for myself for so many years now ... Whereas if somebody really wanted show me a better way, they had better be willing to put their money where their mouth is. That's all I can say.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.
What are you saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2391" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Alexander
We recently (during last ~100 years) learned that Big Bang was (and still is) the creator of the universe. Then what?
But doesn't that imply God had a mistress? Hey maybe that's the problem? If we understood that God was sexual in nature, as the whole of nature might suggest, then maybe we wouldn't be so afraid of Him/Her? We might even learn to take it as a great gift.

And what did God say in the Garden of Eden? ... "Be fruitful, and multiply!"
Actually this has just about everything to do with it. For when considering that men and women by themselves are only half of the equation, and that "wholeness" (and hence God) can only be achieved when the two "reciprocal halves" are united as a whole, then it stands to reason that this becomes a means by which to discover God. Or else why would the church make a holy sacrament out of marriage? (drawing focus on the "interior" relationship between men and women). In which case I think the sense of worship towards God, becomes manifest through the love of another human being (interiorly).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).

No, I am saying that emotions are simply manefestatiosn of biological processes. They don't 'exist' any more than Spider-Man exists.
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And really what it all boils down to is that nobody
is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise
there would be no freedom.
What about the dude/gal who told you:
- "Hey, there's an all powerfull thingy called God."
and you answered:
- "Oh, really ? O.K." :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 

Similar threads

[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Explore Banned Book Week & Its Impact on Free Speech
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Fact checking - Scientific method
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Photo Contest-Just The Two Of Us (3/24-3/30)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
So what are dreams made of? How do they differ from our waking reality?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
What Can You Discover from a USB Stick Found in the Grass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Are Geometric Points Affected By Forces?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K