Scepticism vs. Credulity

[Cochise]

Exactly. You are not a witness to a crime - you have witnessed or experienced a phenomena whose rarity is a likely contributor to its lack of scientific evidence. It's not up to you to explain it, simply to file it.

That, it seems to me, is the precise definition of Forteana. It is neither credulous nor skeptic, it simply places the odder experiences of the world out there for people to consider. After all, a solitary observer of any event is often unable to furnish proof of even the most mundane occurrence.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Which then begs the question - why do I need to? Why would I care? what's in it for me? Your approval? Why yours above that of the gullible and the curious? Because when you think about it like that its not remotely obvious.

It's not at all obvious. Some people need a dogma to follow in order to feel a superiority in their views. Those who have abandoned religion sometimes use scientific method, as though we should all only think scientifically. As though we could even function if we only thought scientifically.

If science requires empirical evidence, and you are to think scientifically, then you are more justified in believing in ghosts if you yourself have experience a ghost than you have to believe in evolution, which you are unlikely to have experienced first hand. I've experienced ghosts, but haven't experienced evolution. I don't believe in ghosts, though, but do believe in evolution. I guess that means I have faith in scientific method and those who apply it, to the point that I doubt my own senses. Maybe, in that sense, faith in science differs little from faith in religion.

 

[krakenten]

The very strange thing about strange things is that they happen suddenly, infrequently and are usually brief.

I once saw a shadow man. A classic, too, elongated limbs, slow, dance like movement. Real enough that I gave chase through a very nasty basement. A quick look around told me that whatever I saw hadn't left that basement, and wasn't there. What did I see? Dunno.

I've also suffered sleep paralysis. You could easily become convinced that it was real. But if it is, it leaves no trace.

In the end, 95% of what we investigate is human misperception or outright fraud.

It's that last 5% that keeps us interested. Things like the Hornet Light, the
Seneca Guns, the Bloop and assorted monsters.

Remember, the gorilla, the giant squid and meteors were once denied by science.

I'm a skeptic. But I can be persueded.

 

[gattino]

"Some people need a dogma to follow in order to feel a superiority in their views. Those who have abandoned religion sometimes use scientific method"

The connection between former religious belief and obsessive proseltysing "scepticism" is something I've personally observed. In recent years I've had two different individuals on my facebook list whose every post, 6, 7 times a day is something (9 times out of 10 mocking or full of invective ) from one or other online atheist group, Richard Dawkins page, "I fucking love science" etc, day in day out.. In both cases they were clearly obsessed. What is intriguing is the first bloke had in younger years trained for the priesthood, and hte latter recently made some comment to suggest a similar formerly deeply religious bent. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

The other thing of interest is that subject A, dutifully dismissive of anything related to psi, mediumship etc etc, appeared to be desperately wanting to hold on to a belief in aliens/ufos and not a few potential conspiracy theories. That he needed to fill a hole where his former beliefs used to be didn't escape me...but I didn't like to point it out.

 

[PeteByrdie]

The connection between former religious belief and obsessive proseltysing "scepticism" is something I've personally observed. In recent years I've had two different individuals on my facebook list whose every post, 6, 7 times a day is something (9 times out of 10 mocking or full of invective ) from one or other online atheist group, Richard Dawkins page, "I fucking love science" etc, day in day out.. In both cases they were clearly obsessed. What is intriguing is the first bloke had in younger years trained for the priesthood, and hte latter recently made some comment to suggest a similar formerly deeply religious bent. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

That's interesting! It's long been a common accusation from the religious that atheism is 'just another belief' like religious beliefs, and therefore they should be treated the same. Instead of countering this by saying that not all beliefs are equal (which is my opinion), they counter it by saying atheism is a lack of belief. They justify this opinion by claiming that they would change their opinion if it was counter to new evidence, while the religious refuse to change their opinions.

I refute all of that! Religious folk will claim their faith is unshakable, but in fact they change their beliefs all of the time. They don't expect to, so say they won't. If you believe in something, you don't expect contrary evidence to come along so compelling it changes your belief, and you don't expect your faith to ultimately end up unsatisfying, but it happens, and they change their faiths or abandon religion.

On the other hand, atheists have something to prove by saying they would change their views with proof, which of course they would, just like the religious do. They need to prove not only that atheism is not a belief that fits in the same bracket as religion, but also that they are so much more scientific and so don't have beliefs, merely opinions based on evidence. Fine, but don't come telling me you're an atheist who somehow thinks it's more likely that you're going to encounter evidence of the existence of God than you are any other ludicrous notion. If that's the case, you're an agnostic.

I always think neither the religious nor the atheist expect to have to change their view, but the religious admit it. Who's the more honest?

But the scientific atheist has one thing going for him. Some kind of understanding of what constitutes logical, empirical evidence. In that case, what we believe often rests on evidence, but what we consider evidence, and how we weigh and apply it, changes considerably. One guy's coincidence is another's religious experience.

Anyway, I always say I used to think I was an atheist because I believed God didn't exist, but some atheists informed me atheism isn't a belief but a lack of belief, so I guess I must have been something else.

The other thing of interest is that subject A, dutifully dismissive of anything related to psi, mediumship etc etc, appeared to be desperately wanting to hold on to a belief in aliens/ufos and not a few potential conspiracy theories. That he needed to fill a hole where his former beliefs used to be didn't escape me...but I didn't like to point it out.

The feelings that drive us to a world view are often shared feelings. The view we adopt is all that changes. As is so often the case when I observe the people around me, I think they always see the divide between themselves and their opposites, while to me it seems the same type of people latched onto different extremes. Some people judge others by what they think, some judge others by how they think.

I'm glad I thought of some ways to flesh this post out a bit. I was worried it would be too short.

 

[Cochise]

If you don't believe God doesn't exiost, the surely you believe he exists? (I don't mean you personally).

What we are describing here is extremism, whether religious or skeptic.

Your average religious person in say, the Church of England, does expect their beliefs to at least be modified round the edges in the light of events. A true scientist should expect his beliefs to be modified in the event of new research or new discoveries, but is unlikely to throw out a basic faith in the efficacy of the scientific process. I am describing reasonable people who retain a core belief but are able to adjust to change.

The problem is with the huge number of unreasonable people who will seize on a belief and either misunderstand it from the outset or mangle it beyond recognition in order to force their own views ion everyone else. They exist in all areas of belief - including the 'non-belief' of atheism, and they are all, whatever they believe, dangerous to our health if they are allowed to bully and veto those with a more malleable and conciliatory turn of mind - eventually, everyone becomes either a fanatic or a victim.

 

[PeteByrdie]

If you don't believe God doesn't exiost, the surely you believe he exists? (I don't mean you personally).

No, I get that there is a position that, if we can't know something for sure, then we can have a functional assumption without calling it a belief. I just think atheists shouldn't take that position with something a ludicrous as the existence of God. I can't see any proof against the notion that unobserved house bricks grow little arms and legs and dance to the music of trumpet playing paving slabs, but I wouldn't claim to be atheistic about it just to stop dancing-house-brick believers from calling me a narrow minded person with an inflexible belief, just like theirs.

...eventually, everyone becomes either a fanatic or a victim.

Indeed, and I think the extremist mindset is to encourage that situation, because extremists are only comfortable in an environment of absolutes.

 

[Cochise]

I've been through periods of thinking the idea of gods is ridiculous as well.

 

[ramonmercado]

If you don't believe God doesn't exiost, the surely you believe he exists? (I don't mean you personally).

No, I get that there is a position that, if we can't know something for sure, then we can have a functional assumption without calling it a belief. I just think atheists shouldn't take that position with something a ludicrous as the existence of God. I can't see any proof against the notion that unobserved house bricks grow little arms and legs and dance to the music of trumpet playing paving slabs, but I wouldn't claim to be atheistic about it just to stop dancing-house-brick believers from calling me a narrow minded person with an inflexible belief, just like theirs.

...eventually, everyone becomes either a fanatic or a victim.

Indeed, and I think the extremist mindset is to encourage that situation, because extremists are only comfortable in an environment of absolutes.

I believe in Loki; the Mono-Theistic Gods of The Book might not plant false fossils but Loki would.

Yes, the bricks and mortar of Evolution are fakes planted by the Great Loki.

 

[Ulalume]

For me, it's kinda like this -

In an issue of FT once, there was a story about a panic at a school, when the students believed their teacher had been turned by witchcraft into a yam. My husband says "of course, that's total BS, No one has ever been turned into a yam." I was a little surprised he took that view, since for me the point was very different. I said, "well, yes, I seriously doubt that anyone has actually been transformed into a yam. The fascinating thing is the belief in the possibility that someone could be transformed into a yam."

That pretty much sums it up for me.

IMO, the world, and the way humans interact with it, is infinitely strange. Fact-based evidence is good and I like science as much as anyone else, but how we perceive things is what's especially interesting to me. So it's no big deal to me, really, if we can't "prove" that someone saw little green men. It's that someone had the experience of seeing the little green men in the first place.

The world is full of mysteries that may never be solved, but that's fine by me.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

bunnymousekitt: "The fascinating thing is the belief in the possibility that someone could be transformed into a yam."

Catholic children still try to get their heads around the concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidental" qualities of the bread and wine at Eucharist are ignored in favour of a holier Truth: we are eating Jesus in the wafer.

It makes you weird.

Actually, I don't know if this is much taught these days. It was, when I was alive. :?

 

[ramonmercado]

bunnymousekitt: "The fascinating thing is the belief in the possibility that someone could be transformed into a yam."

Catholic children still try to get their heads around the concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidental" qualities of the bread and wine at Eucharist are ignored in favour of a holier Truth: we are eating Jesus in the wafer.

It makes you weird.

Actually, I don't know if this is much taught these days. It was, when I was alive. :?

Its till very much the central tenet of the RCC. Transubstantiation more than anything else separates the RCC from the Anglican Communion.

 

[uair01]

Recently I discovered this approach by the French philosopher Quentin Meillasoux. It is really original!

The dramatic conclusion to The Divine Inexistence offers a pretty good summary of where he stands in relation to religion. “Humans can establish four different links with God,” he writes, “of which only three have been explored so far:”

Not believing in God because he does not exist. This is the atheist link [t]hat all lead to the same impasse: sadness, tepidity, cynicism, and the disparagement of what makes us human.
It is the immanent form of despair.

Believing in God because he exists. This is the religious link […] leading to the same impasse: fanaticism, flight from the world, the confusion of sanctity and mysticism and of God as love and God as power.
It is the religious form of hope.

Not believing in God because he exists. This link […] is the Luciferian position of rebellion against the Creator which expresses a reactive need to hold someone responsible for the evils of this world.

Only the fourth link, the philosophical link and immanent form of hope — believing in God because he does not exist — has never been systematically defended.
It has now been done.
The four possible links of humans with God are henceforth known.
One must choose.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Recently I discovered this approach by the French philosopher Quentin Meillasoux. It is really original!

Aye, it is original. I don't agree with the conclusions, but it boils the issue down to what can be known, how people believe, instead of what cannot be known, whether the divine exists.

 

[GingerTabby]

JamesWhitehead wrote:
bunnymousekitt: "The fascinating thing is the belief in the possibility that someone could be transformed into a yam."

Catholic children still try to get their heads around the concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidental" qualities of the bread and wine at Eucharist are ignored in favour of a holier Truth: we are eating Jesus in the wafer.

It makes you weird.

Actually, I don't know if this is much taught these days. It was, when I was alive. Confused


Its till very much the central tenet of the RCC. Transubstantiation more than anything else separates the RCC from the Anglican Communion.

There is a long history of misunderstanding surrounding the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine was first promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and was expanded upon by Thomas Aquinas later in the 13th century. Neither the Lateran IV statement nor Aquinas mentioned any idea of a physical presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. It was theologians of the later medieval era who erroneously put forward this idea. In their writings on the Eucharist, the 16th-century Reformers were reacting to this later, incorrect understanding of transubstantiation.

The fixation on the Eucharistic elements came about as a result of a shift in sensibilities that began in the late patristic/early medieval era and continued over the course of several centuries. Around this time, the Eucharist ceased to be a community celebration and gradually turned into a ritual drama which became focussed on the priest producing the consecrated elements on the altar. This focus led to a preoccupation with Christ's presence in the elements and how that presence came about. Hence the decision to address the matter at Lateran IV. Festivals such as Corpus Christi and the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament also came about as a result of this fixation with the Eucharistic elements.

The RCC, the Anglican Communion and some other denominations are in fact on the same page about the issue of Eucharistic presence, although this point of convergence isn't widely recognised. The idea underpinning the sacraments is that they are meant to convey God's grace, hence the notion of Christ's presence being associated with the elements of bread and wine. Many Christian denominations, but not all, make that connection. The misunderstanding about the supposed physical presence in the elements has been a bugbear in this discussion since the Reformation. It's unfortunate but perhaps not surprising that it is still being perpetuated today.

If anyone is interested, and if I haven't yet bored other posters into somnolence, a helpful book on this subject is: William R. Crockett, Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation (New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1989). He explains the whole sorry mess far better than I can. I'll crawl down off my soapbox now.