Skepticism Needs Evidence, Too

Critics of Christianity - or any other number of issues - sometimes think that skepticism is the default position toward our claims. Always posing questions and doubt, but never offering support for these. They think skepticism is a safe default position despite an argument offered them.

Many critics of Christianity pose counterarguments and reubuttals of our claims. But some merely pose questions to sow seeds of doubt and think they've done enough to dismiss Christianity. Doubts and questions do not constitute counter-evidence. Christianity and Christians offer a wealth of reasons and arguments of a wide variety to support our convictions and try to persuade others. These cannot simply be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders and a "what if" question. Some questions are sincere inquiries for more information. I'm talking about mere doubt.

This is a simple matter of epistemology and reason, not unique to Christianity. Any position supported by evidence and arguments should be met by critics with reasons and arguments of their own. If they only respond with skepticism, they've done nothing at all to to negate any of the justification for the other view. At this point, one view has evidence to support it, and the other - and skepticism is a position about a view - has none. The position that has been justified has the rational advantage. The one that hasn't, doesn't.

"What if" questions don't count as evidence. All kinds of things are possible, but they aren't likely or rational to believe. If you have good reasons for Christianity, don't be worried about mere "what if" questions that simply pose possibilities without reasons.

Skepticism isn't rational in the face of sound reasons. Skepticism doesn't automatically trump evidence. Skepticism needs it's own evidence against other evidence.

If a belief under debate is, say, 60% likely because of the arguments in favor of it, then not accepting those arguments and the belief that follows from them needs to be explained at that point.

So Ambassadors, when critics respond to your explanation for why Christianity is true and rational by simply posing a skeptical question or objection, let them explain why the mere possibility of doubt trumps what you've carefully explained. Let them carry the burden of proof for skepticism. Let them persuade you, not just sow seeds of doubt by a shrug of the shoulders.

This is really an application of the Columbo tactic. Why, in the face of all of these reasons, choose to be skeptical? Let them explain for a change. And don't be shaken yourself by mere skepticism.

CeriseRose,

First off, let me say that if you are addressing this merely to people who wish to have a personal belief in a religion, then I truly have no comment to make. Because, in that situation I have no desire to be critical of the spiritual beliefs of another person on a personal private level.

However, if a Christian is going to hold up the Bible as the "Word of God" in a political or social arena and start demanding that we all respect it as such, then it's not longer a mere personal spirituality, it becomes POLITICS and even appears to be basically a suggestion that social government should indeed be driven by religious beliefs, and in particular a specific version of an extremely fragmented and very ancient religious doctrine. A doctrine that even the myriad of Christian denominations can't agree upon. Not to mention Catholicism, and the other forms of related Abraham religions based on essential the very same foundational folklore tales.

The mere fact that it is a "confused religion" should be sufficient to "put it down" in the political or social arena.

You can't expect people of other faiths, or even secular-minded individuals to accept a highly confused religious mythology as the foundational basis of governmental laws for human behavior in general.

In fact, Christianity basically represent fascist dictatorship in terms of being used as the basis of a government. It's fundamentally incompatible with a FREE democracy. You can't vote out the "Laws of God". And that becomes extremely problematic also, when you have sects like Christian Amish who believe the book is telling us to not to become slaves to technology and mammon.

Who's "Christianity" do we ultimately go by anyway?

Having said all of the above, I would like to address this topic in terms of a public arena, and not at all meant to be questioning anyone's personal faith in a spirituality.



I agree that skepticism requires at least as much evidence as the original claim. However, it's my position that there isn't any, evidence for the superstitious claims of the authors of the Biblical stories that their writings represent the wishes, desires, or commands of any supreme being.

Therefore, skepticism doesn't require much evidence at all, IMHO.



I absolutely agree with this completely.

It is my sincere belief, that all of my "skepticism" of the supernatural claims of the bible does indeed carry with it more than sufficient evidence to trump the non-evidence offered by the Christians to support their claim that the stories might have merit.

First critique:

Right off the bat, the Biblical story is founded on a claim that mankind's fall from grace is what brought death, and imperfections into the world. It is important for the biblical story to place mankind as being the culprit for all the imperfections of the world. We are guilty and in need of repentance. Take away that claim and much of the rest of the Bible would be completely without its main foundational thesis.

Well, there is no evidence to support the biblical claims that mankind brought death and all manor of imperfections into the world.

However, there is evidence that points to just the opposite as being the actual truth of this universe. We have been able to uncover sufficient evidence to know that mankind did not always exist on this planet, and that life, along with all manor of disease, natural disasters, and animals eating other animals has always existed long before mankind ever came onto the scene.

~~~~

So right off the bat, we have evidence for skepticism and no-evidence for the claims made by the Bible.

Skepticism = 1
Blind Faith = 0

This is just the very tip of the ice berg. This just goes on, and on, and on, all through the entire Bible.

There is much evidence for skepticism, and no evidence for the outrageous claims of the Bible.

So when you say things like: "They think skepticism is a safe default position despite an argument offered them."

The problem is that convincing arguments to support these types of biblical claims simply don't exist. The Christians seem to be under some delusions that they do, but they don't.

Typically what their argument amounts to is nothing more than counter-skepticism saying that they simply don't believe that any such evidence exists that death and imperfections existed prior to mankind (which they can't support)

Or they are in denial that mankind is responsible for all imperfections and death, and that the death and disease of animals and plants doesn't "count". But that would imply that in the beginning God looked upon a world filled with diseased animals and plants that were eating each other and "Saw that it was Good".

So in my humble opinion, it simply can't be made to work. It's already shot down at square one before it even gets off the ground.

Like I say, as far as personal faith is concerned, I wouldn't tell anyone. Shhhhhhhhh! Let them believe they are guilty, especially if it keeps them in line!

But if people are going to try to push this religion onto me as the "Official Word of God" that should be used as a basis for social politics and government, then I object wholeheartedly and stand by my observations and evidence.

And this will continue to go on, and on, with every turn of ever page of the Bible. I have reasons to back up my skepticism that easily match or trump their reasons for wanting to support the stories, every step of the way.

In fact, I have yet seen any "evidence" against what I've shown in this post alone. All I've seen are Christians who give make-shift reasons why they refuse to accept my "evidence". In other words, all they do is offer ungrounded skepticism to my skepticism.

So it becomes an impossible circular argument where neither side accepts the other side's, "Skepticism".

But I'm in complete agreement with what you say:



Where's the evidence that mankind is responsible for bringing death and imperfections into the world? There isn't any. No such evidence exists.

So what's to "trump"?

Yet we DO have evidence to the contrary. We can "trump" non-evidence with actual evidence.

That's pretty POWERFUL skepticism if you ask me.

Doesn't this belong in the Christian community of threads?
Seems to be the kind of support they like to see there.



They might even claim to understant that quote.

Truly.

If they move this thread I hope they remove my post too, because I really don't want to be in the Christian forums at all. I totally respect the rights of Christians to have whatever faith they want to have without it being 'critiqued' as long as they recognize it as "personal faith"

But like I said in my post above, as soon as they want to push the religion onto me as though they have some sort of 'evidence' for some holy dictator in the sky that spoke through some ancient crazy Hebrews in a rude and crude society, then criticism is going to flow like all hell broke loose.

There simply is no evidence for it. Period.

It's entirely a faith-based belief system, and more power to anyone who wants to have faith in it.

Just don't tell me that I need to believe in it. I'll choose what I wish to believe on my own, thank you very much.

http://asilee.com/2009/02/16/keep-your-scriptures-i-cant-be-convinced/

Interesting page.

Here's the thing on this, when it comes to religion. Everyone thinks their ideas of God, their beliefs, their faith are the only right one and the only path to the Almighty. The reason for this is simple but also complex.

Short answer is God is everywhere and His presence can be felt everywhere we go if we are looking for it. Given that, it stands to reason that no matter who you are, where you live or what you believe, you will find God there if you are searching for Him. The problem is, having felt that presence, we automatically attribute it to being a sign our beliefs are correct, when none really are.

In saying God is only here or there, or that only one path to God is the correct path, we put God in a box. He can't be everywhere, and be in one place only at the same time, it's illogical and limits God. Yet when we claim only our religion, our faith, our beliefs are right, we do exactly this.

So beyond our different cultural upbringings and teachings regarding God, the reason we think we're all right is because God is everywhere. This of all I have come to understand about God and society's view of Him, is one of the biggest revelations I have had. If we all were to collectively realize this simple truth, there would be no need for organized religion at all, it would cease to be. We then would much easier be able to unite as one in love and peace, as we were meant to.

Yeah. God works in mysterious ways. Because of this everyone wants to be his spokes person. Some people don't like organized religion and some of those same people don't like organized crime for the same reason. One philosopher said (paraphrasing) power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that was Ayn Rand. But ask yourself this question: Is unorganized religion any better than organized religion? Was the crusades organized or not? Or was it one organized religion against another organized religion? When you look at it historically with the movies all you see is these mutilated bodies all over the battlefield. I mean what is organized when it comes to mayhem? I watched Mayhem on that Allstate commercial and I think he is a terrible driver. IMHO

I'm almost in 100% agreement with everything you said. The only part I disagree with is the idea that everyone thinks their religion is the only way to God.

I'm not saying that a person cannot get to God through Christianity, nor am I say that a person cannot even walk with God in a Christian Faith. On the contrary, I believe they most certainly can. Many Christians are indeed very close to God. No question about that in my mind.

For me, it's not about which religion a person should worship in terms of spirituality. What I speak out against is when they try to use their views of a particular religion as a model for all human behavior.

You say,



I agree, but the problem is that many people hold that some Book contains the "Laws of God" and therein lies the problem. You can't appease those people unless you worship their BOOK as the "Word of God". If you reject their BOOK, then you are declared to be rejecting God.

Therein lies the problem.

Dammit!

I knew I should have predicted "zero evidence". Oh well, too late now.

Are you sure you have "zero evidence" or are you just being skeptical?

Nice post

There are some flaws in this piece. Having seen those flaws, I wanted to be sure that I directed my comments to the original author. Since the sentence structure suggests a different kind of mind than usually suggested by Cerise's comments, I looked for the original author. I believe they are to be found here:

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/08/skepticism-needs-evidence-too.html

In any case, the text is found there, verbatim.

I'm curious, Cerise, if you are the author of this text. If not, IMO it is dishonest to open a thread with text taken completely and exactly from another site, with absolutely no indication that you've done so. I don't always cite my quotations from others, but at least we can indicated that we are quoting others.

Oh - and the comments on that page already expressed my objections to this piece, the so the original author has already had a chance to learn from their mistakes.

...
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/08/skepticism-needs-evidence-too.html

Yeah really, it's basically plagiarism to just quote from another author and not even mention that it's a quote.

Although I seriously doubt that these authors ever learn anything. They continue to not think, just like they didn't think before they wrote it.

I’m paraphrasing here but: I think it was Christopher Hitchens that said, “That which is created without evidence can be disregarded without evidence”. But, I like Steven Hawking’s take on god. He said something like, “If there is a god then god is an observer because god doesn’t seem to be able to violate the laws of physics”.
But, I feel there is still is a place for god. There is more unknown than known to humanity. And as long as this remains true, which will be for a long time, people are free to attribute the unknown to god. The problem modern religion has is that in the face of real evidence religion remains dogmatic. I say, lets embrace the good that science has brought us and let god own what we don’t know until we discover it. Good or bad, because of science, god’s domain is shrinking.

Excellent quote, and I would surely hope that most people can see the common sense logic in this.



Well, that's a bit more complicated because what is Hawking referring to as "god". If he's thinking along the lines of the mythological gods of Greeky Mythology or Biblical Fables then I see his point. Because in those fables god is seen as completely separate from the universe and basically "supernatural" with respect to it.

However, in an eastern mystic sense we are god. In other words, our very conscious awareness is the mystical consciousness that is "god".

When it comes to physics, can physics truly explain precisely what it is that has become "aware"? I think not.

Also, the concept of 'Free Will' seems to be problematic for physics too. If everything is based on cause and effect, then there could be no 'free will'. (which there very well may not be as that concept itself can't truly be proven). None the less I think most people believe they have free will.

Now, randomness could account for something that isn't exactly straight out 'cause and effect' but then it should be 'random'. Free will seems to be something other than both of these. Neither carved in stone like pure 'cause and effect' nor totally random, as pure randomness would make it.

So maybe there is evidence for something that defies the laws of physics, and basically we're it.

Of course, to call that "god" requires an Eastern Mystical view.

Tat t'vam asi.

But still, why sell out to the Abrahamic religions when considering a concept such as 'god'. They don't own the word, nor do they have the exclusive rights to define it for other people. Although I'm sure that many of them feel they do. No news there.

Just the same, restricting the "god concept" to only a concept of a totally external and separate conscious being seems a bit restrictive to me.

I'm sure that Hawking was pretty much addressing that kind of "God". The "God of the gaps", if you will. But a panenthestic God may very well be the very source of our conscious awareness.

Just a thought.

Abracadabra,
Yea, free will is problematic for my limited mind. Since we don’t have that definitive answer I’m ok with it remaining in the arena of god (like so many other things). I’m sure there are those that would attempt to explain it but it’s not clear to me yet. And “we are god” is an interesting concept, it might fall prey to the Hitchens quote though. Neuroscience may give some of these answers in the near future. I try to remain open to the possibilities; either way.

For me, Hawking was trying to explain the things that folks attribute to god; maybe that is what you mean by “god of gaps”. For example, there is a cause and affect with volcanos. We find no evidence that a given volcano erupts due to causes outside of known science. Title waves, meteors, earthquakes, storms, lightning and so on were once under the privy of god but are now clearly understood with science. This is what I meant when I said, “Good or bad, because of science, god’s domain is shrinking”. And maybe, this is what “god” wants of us? Again, want to remain open to the possibilities.

On a lighter note, when I’m watching one of the paranormal shows with my daughter and she wants to believe the rubber ball on a floor slowly rolls three inches because of ghosts when I know there are just too many terrestrial causes to explain it just drives me crazy. Now if that ball suddenly lifted thee feet and shot across the room at an alarming speed I would be left wondering because that would violate the laws of physics as we know them.

And Tat t’vam asi, very interesting. I learned something new tonight. Thanks for that.

Thank you, Cerise.

In the time between my comment above and now, I've noticed (in other threads) that you usually do indicate when you're quoting someone.

I got a good laugh at some of these replies. Move it to the Christianity section!!!!!!!!We can't possibly have a pro Christianity topic in the General religion section.No,no,no we can only have the nauseating,Christianity sucks,Christianity is bad for the planet,Christianity is the reason for all my problems and yours,blah,blah,blah.

Maybe I can follow suit and start posting a bunch of dirt on Atheism and wicca and see where it goes.

Isn't it a little arrogant to presume only your way of thinking is right though man? How can God be everywhere and yet be in one place? He can't, this is the problem in a nutshell with christianity and really organized religion as a whole. From a wholly logical standpoint, it simply does not make sense.