Well I’ve been reading again and this time I came across this gem of a site: http://www.godandscience.org/
I’m not sure I’ll ever get tired of reading the assumptions made by apologists, there always good for a giggle. I’m going to quote Rich Deem in this article and do my best to tear him apart.
Do skeptics have beliefs?
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.”
Lol. “Atheists believe in only facts and those aren’t beliefs!” I’m being sarcastic of course… Atheists don’t believe in any deity not we don’t believe anything.
We do take offense to being told we have “faith” which religious people often assume mean the exact same thing. Just google “define: faith” and read. Why is having complete trust in something good? Why is having unshakable confidence in anything good? Faith is a desirable trait to believers but it encourages people to NOT think critically about their environment which, in my opinion, is bad. The second definition pretty much nails why’s it’s offensive to tell an atheist they have faith. Faith – a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. No atheists do not have faith and we are proud of it, probably in a similar way the the religious are proud when they do have it.
All human’s have “beliefs” – an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Which you acknowledge in this statement:
However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.
Might give that book you mentioned a read . According to one reviewer it has a section about “nations where atheism was abundant and the majority, that they were happier and lived with less conflict. Now they did have their downsides too, but it just goes to show that a person can be just as happy and fulfilled without being a religious person.” Interesting…
So to your question “Do skeptics have beliefs?” I would answer yes. Some may not but to say all would say No is not accurate.
The skeptical worldview
The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence.
I would agree I it is a good principal to base our beliefs on observational evidence. “First and foremost”… well only a Sith lord deals in absolutes. I still don’t like that you tell skeptics that we must completely rely on physical evidence. Why can’t we base theories on current physical evidence and make predictions about unexplained things that we can then test… oh wait that is what science is. Sometimes I agree with a currently un-testable theory just because it’s the best option we have available today. In another 20 years new evidence could change the best possible theory and then I’ll probably move to that one. The probably I have with religion is that it fights change. Science says evolution is a pretty solid thing… religious people say ‘It can’t be god made us it says so in the bible!’. Science says the earth is 4.54 billion years old… creations say “It can’t be because the bible says it was created less than 10,000 ago.” The crazy thing is that if new evidence was discovered that put the earth at 10,000 years old I’d probably change my belief but some poorly-translated 2,000 year old book is not evidence. Belief is easy to change faith not so much…
The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence.
Why must skeptics be logically consistent at all times? Must all christians be like Jesus at all times (wasn’t he perfect or something… j/k)? I think it’s an admirable goal to be as constant as possible but heck, I’m human, I make mistakes.
Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, “Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?”
I do believe all phenomena have naturalist causes. “Supernatural” events are often times just un-explained phenomena. Don’t get me wrong I get why people believe in super natural stuff, but just because we can’t explain it now does’t mean our species won’t someday. In this statement you infer that a belief in naturalist causes means “cause and effect”. This is, however, not the case please reference naturalism. Also note that not all skeptics are naturalist.
However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
Agreed… mostly… I would re-phrase: “Supernatural events should never occur because they are extremely statistically unlikely. To be truly skeptical, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events can occur.” For example gravity could suddenly stop working as we know it in the universe. The laws of nature in so far as we have discovered could change. However, the possibility of these things happening are so remote that it is not worth while to worry about them. From my light foray into Quantum Mechanics this is what I believe. Again you are putting things into absolutes and make logical fallacies in your assumptions, which is seems to be common practice in christian apologistic writing.
Problem with the skeptical worldview
Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are “strong atheists” (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism – that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.
So let me summarize… we don’t know yet therefor God. Also where did you find your “rules for atheism”? I don’t remember reading that in our dogma! Oh wait we don’t have any and you made up the rules for us. Sure God could be the “cause of the universe” just as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Heman could be the cause. But they are all equally unlikely.
The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2).
The closer that we come to defining the variable that our universe uses the more apologists will swear by design. “Narrow ranges” do not equal god. I’ll just quote Dawkins on this one, “However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.” Human beings the best thing since sliced bread, and why not, we created bread. There are a TON of philosophical arguments against the Teleological argument.
If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism.
“If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of”… a designer is what you meant, but again insert God.
The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.
That may be what a lot of people think now but you never know what will change in the future. You say bleak and I say hopeful. Humans learn, the more we learn the more we know and the more we know the closer we get to never needing deities every again.
Dawkins lays this whole line of argument to rest in “The God Delusion”, which is, simplified, just because we don’t know now, doesn’t mean we won’t know. He points out flat earth. And now Cassini is finding many planets that can very likely support life. Dawkins also differentiates between beleif that all can be proven once the facts are in, and belief of things that have and can’t have factual support.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out Dawkins and Hitchens do seem to have blind belief in market economies, in the face of evidence (the historic record of what happens when you go in the libertarian direction and also with Piketty’s dataset) to the contrary.
We have have blind spots in our beliefs systems, it’s one of the joys of the way the human mind works. I would contend that despite the evidence against market economies we have yet to see a more successful wide-scale alternative. I don’t think any country is ready for a Socialism only approach. I would argue that balance between the two is best because an absolute of either is desirable. I would like to see more Socialist practice take root in the US and I think as time goes on we will. Which Socialist policies would you promote to move america in a better direction?