Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist? - Skeptic Exchange

Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-16T18:36:36Z

I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm interested to hear others' opinions. If you think the two are compatible, give reasons why, and boundaries on what you think is compatible vs. not. If you think not, then justify that position.

Answer by johnfx for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-17T03:47:12Z

Of course it is. Being a skeptic is not the same thing as not believing in anything. You can be skeptical about something and still ultimately come to the conclusion that it is justifiable/correct.

Answer by Rob T. for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-17T04:47:28Z

I think the decision whether someone's belief is "reasonable" if they're also a skeptic would really depend on their particular brand of belief.

If said skeptic believes that the Earth and man were created in their current form 6,000 years ago, then no, that's not reasonable. They are not being scientific and skeptical about the mountains of evidence that the Earth has been around far far longer.

However, if a skeptic wants to believe that God caused the Big Bang and also set the rules of the universe to allow for the eventual creation of stars and planets and life, then that is actually reasonable. What happened before the Big Bang is beyond science - it is (at least currently) unobservable, unmeasurable, and unknowable.

Answer by SurplusGamer for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-17T10:23:30Z

This depends on your definition of both theism and skepticism.

If skepticism means being skeptical of individual things, in the sense of doubting certain things but not others, then certainly theism and skepticism could both be simultaneously held. If, however, skepticism is (as I would define it) a methodology that applies to all things across the board, by which no belief is held without application of both reasoning and the posession of evidence, then the two would seem much trickier to reconcile.

The usual understanding of Theism is that it is belief in an all powerful being which created the universe and is interested in human affairs and potentially able to intervene in them. It seems extremely difficult to see how someone could hold a theistic belief whilst simultaneously applying skepticism as a methodology (rather than an arbitrary, ad hoc tool).

A metholodological skeptic is free to hold whatever beliefs they wish, of course, however if they did hold a theistic belief such as the above, they would also have to accept that their belief is irrational, groundless and inconsistent with the rest of their world view.

One may wish to relax their definition of Theism until it essentially becomes Deism. Deism is belief in a creator that is intelligent and had some hand in the creation of the universe, but is disinterested in human affairs, does not intervene and may or may not exist at the present time. For a perspective from someone who is both a skeptic and a deist, a speech which was re-recorded for the Skepticality podcast here, in which Dr. Hal Bidlack defended this kind of belief.

Answer by Podblack.com for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-20T16:04:17Z

There is also an article, 'The Deist Skeptic' on Skeptical Inquirer - and a comment I made on the Skeptically Speaking Radio show in response to whether people can be both.

Answer by Skepdude for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2009-12-23T16:43:14Z

Unless the theistinc belief can withstand skeptical scrutiny then no. But the word "theist" can be very broad. I have previously argued why I think skepticism properly applied must lead one to atheism, and my ramblings can be accesed here ( http://tinyurl.com/ykv7tws ), but I you would have to clarify a little further what you mean by theism in order to be able to get a proper answer.

In general I would say that any claim of the sort "X exists" must be reasonably supported by some evidence before a skeptic can entertain accepting that claim, and that applies to theism as well.

Answer by Awalmo for Is it reasonable to be both a skeptic and a theist?

2010-01-02T18:32:55Z

To properly address this question we must consider the label skeptic and the label theist in equally broad terms. To be skeptical sometimes and a theist sometimes is certainly possible, yet does not qualify one a skeptic and theist absolutely. In the broadest sense, the theist believes in the existence of least one god. Only if we define the skeptic as broadly, is it appropriate to ask if it is reasonable to claim to be a theist and skeptic. To be skeptical in only specific, narrowly-defined, instances is an aspect of being human and in no way indicates one is regularly skeptical in his or her daily life. Being a theist, yet rejecting alien abduction for lack of credible evidence, does not make one a skeptic – only skeptical.

In the broadest sense, a skeptic is one who believes a claim only when appropriate evidence and/or argument is given in support. The type of evidence will vary by claim. On the mass, however, a modern skeptic will demand evidence from multiple sources, under differing circumstances (multiple paradigms), by those who have no stake in the outcome. The more rigorous the research, the closer it conforms to the scientific method, the more inclined will be the modern skeptic to accept the claim. Of course, this assumes the skeptic has accepted the scientific method, and specifically, the experiment as the strongest kind of evidence. Nevertheless, it is often not possible to conduct a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment on a giant randomized subject base due to ethical other issues and complications. Even so, the skeptic demands evidence to be observable, measureable, and repeatable when measured again by others. Evidence which leads to models which are predictive in various situations is stronger yet. If these minimal requirements are not met, the skeptic will reject the claim until a time when more evidence is available. Thus the skeptic is open to examining and re-examining any claim so long as new evidence is presented.

Argument, for the skeptic has to be cogent, and avoid common logical problems. Arguments from authority (no necessity for evidence), moving the goalposts when claims are not borne by evidence and other weak or misleading argument strategies are readily rejected by skeptics. More importantly, and more fundamentally, argument must come from evidence…it cannot be contrary to evidence. Argument must incorporate good evidence, not ignore evidence that is contrary to the position being argued. In other words, the skeptic must not cherry-pick—must not look for supporting and ignore contrary evidence when developing a position on a specific claim.

If this is what it is to be a skeptic, the question becomes, “Is this what it is to be a theist?” Or, “Can one be a theist without violating the skeptic’s demands for evidence and good argument?” To answer this is surprisingly easy when framed in these broad terms. To be a theist is to believe. There is no evidence requirement. To believe in at least one god does not allow one to predict anything we observe. And it does not need to predict anything observable. For the skeptic, the belief in a god—any god, any gods—has nothing to do with anything observable simply because there is no evidence that a god has anything to do with anything observable.

Often it is argued that if one were able to present evidence of the need for a god to explain something, anything, we observe, then a skeptic would by definition have to entertain that evidence and the resulting argument. This, though, is a twisting of lack of evidence into evidence. Simply because one has no complete (or even satisfactory) explanation for a phenomenon, is not evidence for god. Instead this is the definition of a question. For instance, to ask “What caused the big bang,” is a valid question for which there is currently no solid evidence. To then conclude that there must be a god is negative evidentiary stance. God exists because there is no other (better?) explanation. So by the same argument, anytime we lack good observation-based evidence and explanation, we should simply cite a god as explanation. This has the ironic result that the more ignorant we are, the more theistic we should be. God is for the ignorant. Or, if one prefers, in general, as we explain ourselves, our world, our universe more, we diminish our god’s role in each of those areas. The logical error of this argument is to confuse the lack of evidence with evidence. Just because we have no evidence (yet?) for a scientific explanation of the big bang does not by default offer evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

So, do I think you can be a theist and a skeptic? No. Skeptics cannot just believe; they require evidence, and argument from evidence, to believe. Can you be a theist and be skeptical in many, most, or almost all aspects of your life? Sure. Can a religious person be skeptical? Why not? Throughout history, many religious, theistic thinkers have been skeptical, critical, or rational and are responsible for the state of science and skepticism today. To name a few: Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Kierkegaard, and more recent (some still even alive!) such as Kenneth Miller. Does the skeptical movement need to be puritanical and anti-dogmatic to succeed? No. As a movement, skepticism needs to gain acceptance, not estrange itself from those who would support its principles were scientism’s proponents not so imperious and arrogant. With over 80% of U.S. residents surveyed claiming to be Christian, and only 30,000,000 reporting to be atheist or agnostic, there is little sense preaching to the converted.

What skepticism must fight against is the tendency for people to settle for simplistic explanations, made by the religious, reducing difficult subjects and as-of-yet unexplained phenomena to the realm of the supernatural. The danger is not only that this is intellectually insulting and does nothing to further understanding, but such a position eliminates our personal responsibility to resolve major humanitarian crises and human-made or other global catastrophes.

I offer the closing lines of one of my favorite books on the subject, The Survival of God in the Scientific Age, by Alan Isaacs. “But perhaps our greatest gift to posterity is that we have released our children from the fear of the supernatural. The concept of God is still available for those who need it – those who do not, have no longer to be ashamed and no longer to be afraid.”