Religious Skepticism

[Politesse]

I answered everything that had a question mark.
Only just now do you ask...
[can a Christian be] ...skeptical of the Genesis creation story of God creating the Earth?

If a Christian doesn't believe God created the Earth, I'd like to know who else they think did so.

Ok, I got it now.

A belief in a few lines of a disjointed inconsistent set of wrings from thousands of years ago saying that some god creatd the Earth and the universe. Any Christian who doubts is suspect as a Christian.

No True Scotsman is usually considered a logical fallacy.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was hoping for a theist to talk about why he or she is not skeptical of the biblical creation myth. I suspect it is fearful to even frame the thought of skepticism. To do so brings into question one's entire set of beliefs. It can not be answered without invalidating faith.

How does a child experience skepticism with regards to Santa?

Adults know Santa isn't real, doesn't bring presents or ride a sleigh and flying reindeer, live at the North Pole, have a workshop with elves. Children hear the same thing but believe it.

Then at some point a child experiences someone telling them that Santa isn't real. How do they experience this, skeptically speaking? What is going on with that child's thinking at this point, what does the child do, how does the child resolve the two conflicting claims?

Flat earthers must be experiencing heaps and heaps of skepticism, as are any number of people who embrace conspiracy theories. What's going on in the head of a person who claims the earth is flat?

Okay. I know this is off topic, but I stopped believing in Santa when I was four. I told my mother that I didn't think Santa was real and that it was the parents who gave us the presents. She told me I was correct, but not to tell my younger sister. I was told that Jesus was God and God was all powerful etc. I believed because I was heavily indoctrinated and my parents believed it too, but by the time I was 7, I had some doubts, aka skepticism about some of the things I was told. It took me until my late teens before I was sure I had been told something untrue and it took me until my mid 20s before I realized that gods were a human invention. I considered many other religions with a skeptical eye before I rejected all of them.

So, I think that there are probably a lot of Christians who are somewhat skeptical of what they claim to believe, but most probably keep believing for all kinds of reasons. These reasons could include fear, love of community, love of liberal Christian values, habit, etc.

It's like a climate change skeptic. At first it sounds crazy to think that the climate is changing due to human activity, but as more and more evidence appears, most people realize that there is plenty of science to support climate change. The rest are like the line from Paul Simon's song, "The Boxer." "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". This reminds me of the time I told my young church friends that we had been duped and one of them told me not to think about it so much. She was right. It's often easy to accept things if they are things that you want to believe.

If there was some actual evidence of the existence of gods, many if not most atheists would stop being skeptical about the existence of gods, but some would disregard the evidence. One can be skeptical of a claim made without any reliable evidence, but believing something without evidence has nothing do with skepticism.

I think god would have shown us that she exists if she really did, instead of telling people to take it on faith. People can have hallucinations, dreams etc. which make them think that something is true, but such things aren't the same as evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.

If you reject god than you reject Jesus in other NT narrative.

If you reject Jesus as savior then again you eject the gospel narrative.

Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.

People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.

 

[abaddon]

To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that to "reject the resurrection of Jesus" as an actual historical event obliterates the redemptive value of a metaphor about self-transcendence.

I have a little acquaintance with the neo-jungian archetypalist view about mythology, and from that POV I can see how a lot of things that maybe originally were meant as historical events really don't have to be viewed only that way. As products of the human imagination they're metaphors/symbols regardless of whatever their "presenter" intended, so they're true in some way imaginally. So they're potentially deeply informative for whomever takes the metaphors and symbols to heart and transforms the quality of their life using such tools for that purpose.

Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.

Again, so what about how it was originally presented? Artists don't get to tell you what you must make of their art, and neither do mythtellers. If it's good art or myth then it's bigger than its presenter's conscious mind knows.

I thought it was fundies who venerate the original texts as "The Word"? Are you scared religion's going to fail to be squashed by secularist ideologues for being a moving target? "Stand still while I'm shooting at you, dammit!" "Stay simple so I can make simple-minded criticisms!"

People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.

Or some don't believe in seeing it all in a fundy-esque light.

I would hope all religionists would "liberalize" their views and not be literalminded and dogmatic about how they have an inviolate objective truth that everyone must submit themselves to. And, same about secularist ideologues. Not everything shares the same "this is just how it is" quality of [some] scientific facts, nor should that be the barometer of what's true and false in everything.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is there a skepticism for atheists or non believers and a skepticism for Christians, or is there just one skepticism?

There's just skepticism. That's saying 'prove it' to a truth claim.
The difference is what you accept as evidence in support of a truth claim.

While not universal, an answer to evolution was to make it part of god's plan. Conflict between science and theology resolved.

That wasn't the resolution, though.
The conflict came from two very different accounts being taken as historical: Genesis and Evolutionary Theory.
Making it 'god's plan' didn't resolve the conflict. That was accomplished by making Genesis allegory or metaphor or poetry, something other than a historical account.

So rather than holding both accounts to be accurate, one is accurate history, one is whatever it needs to be to not conflict with the accurate history.

Guided evolution is how many Christians resolve the problem of evolution and special creation. Francis Collins is a well known scientist who pushes this idea. He runs Biologos, an organization the promotes this claim. For example, he has written a book, "The Language of God" that expounds this idea. He admits that creationism is false, and that intelligent design is not scientific, and then claims guided evolution is the answer to the problem. Lots of more 'sophisticate' Christians accept guided evolution.

And there, skepticism stops. The proposition of there being a God is a shaky one. Especially if one accepts the perfect being theology of Anselm etc. Collins in his book (which I own and have read) does not demonstrate that God must exist. He just assumes that.

https://biologos.org/resources/what-is-biologos
...
So what is BioLogos? Well it all began with a scientist and a book. Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, wrote the book, The Language of God. In it he describes his own journey from atheism to Christian faith, and the harmony between Christianity and science (and especially evolution). Collins began receiving letters from people asking further questions about science and faith so he formed the BioLogos Foundation in 2007.
...

Plus the usual Youtube videos and podcasts.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As per Pew Research, 80% of Americans claim to believe in God, bit of that 80%, 23% do not believe in the god of the Bible, but rather believe in "some other higher power/spiritual force".

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/

19% do not believe in God, but 9% do believe in some "some other higher power/spiritual force". So this what do you believe about God is not as simple as it seems if we look at what people report about their beliefs in regard to God.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.

If you reject god than you reject Jesus in other NT narrative.

If you reject Jesus as savior then again you eject the gospel narrative.

Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.

People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.

There are people who accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but not as a divine being. And most certainly not trinitarianism. And old idea espoused for example by Thomas Jefferson. I have no idea of how many self proclaimed Christians hold this view.

 

[steve_bank]

Yeah, but I'm not sure that to "reject the resurrection of Jesus" as an actual historical event obliterates the redemptive value of a metaphor about self-transcendence.

I have a little acquaintance with the neo-jungian archetypalist view about mythology, and from that POV I can see how a lot of things that maybe originally were meant as historical events really don't have to be viewed only that way. As products of the human imagination they're metaphors/symbols regardless of whatever their "presenter" intended, so they're true in some way imaginally. So they're potentially deeply informative for whomever takes the metaphors and symbols to heart and transforms the quality of their life using such tools for that purpose.



Again, so what about how it was originally presented? Artists don't get to tell you what you must make of their art, and neither do mythtellers. If it's good art or myth then it's bigger than its presenter's conscious mind knows.

I thought it was fundies who venerate the original texts as "The Word"? Are you scared religion's going to fail to be squashed by secularist ideologues for being a moving target? "Stand still while I'm shooting at you, dammit!" "Stay simple so I can make simple-minded criticisms!"

People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.

Or some don't believe in seeing it all in a fundy-esque light.

I would hope all religionists would "liberalize" their views and not be literalminded and dogmatic about how they have an inviolate objective truth that everyone must submit themselves to. And, same about secularist ideologues. Not everything shares the same "this is just how it is" quality of [some] scientific facts, nor should that be the barometer of what's true and false in everything.

Neo what-ian? You make my point. Christianity is simply based on Jesus as savior and the Resurrection. There is no debate or philosophy. It is faith based on the gospels.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Neo what-ian? You make my point. Christianity is simply based on Jesus as savior and the Resurrection. There is no debate or philosophy. It is faith based on the gospels.

People like to have their cake and eat it too. No doubt even the most ardent fundy considers himself skeptically minded, able to make good observations. This is after they've assumed a lot of comforting beliefs.

Obviously lots of claimants don't adhere to their beliefs beyond lip service. I think it's like wearing your least favorite outfit.

 

[Tigers!]

There is no universal standard of what constitutes a Christian, so the question of "Do Christian believers have skepticism", sounds like you're trying to construct a paradox.

.......

If there is an all knowing, all power being who is independent of time and space, why should anyone assume a bunch of humans could hope to comprehend the true nature of such a being. Just being a human being in this situation means that any observation or conclusion is doubtful.

Damn you Bronzeage you occasionally have some absolute pearlers.

 

[Tigers!]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

 

[Politesse]

No, you can't be skeptical of atheism, it's a non-belief.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

e
Very clever attack, my compliments. All belifs scientific, religious, or philosophical are conditional. That defines being a skeptic.

I see no evidence for a god based on scripture, personal experience, and demonstration. I am skeptical.All science is conditional. Naturalism says just that, anything that exists is natural, there can be no supernatural. If a god exists or ghosts then by definition they are natural even if we can not understand he causal connections.

Can I be wrong? Of course. The continuous rec vision of science over the last 300 years shows the underlying lack of any absolutism. The difference between naturalism based on science and theology is science can be tested.

When you are on jet on the takeoff roll why do you believe when the pilot pulls back on the yoke the plane will fly?

 

[Tigers!]

No, you can't be skeptical of atheism, it's a non-belief.

That's why I threw in the term naturalism.

 

[Tigers!]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

e
Very clever attack, my compliments. All belifs scientific, religious, or philosophical are conditional. That defines being a skeptic.

I see no evidence for a god based on scripture, personal experience, and demonstration. I am skeptical.All science is conditional. Naturalism says just that, anything that exists is natural, there can be no supernatural. If a god exists or ghosts then by definition they are natural even if we can not understand he causal connections.

Can I be wrong? Of course. The continuous rec vision of science over the last 300 years shows the underlying lack of any absolutism. The difference between naturalism based on science and theology is science can be tested.

When you are on jet on the takeoff roll why do you believe when the pilot pulls back on the yoke the plane will fly?

Provided the plane is above take-off speed it will fly.
It flies because it obeys natural laws that are reliable, regular, dependable and importantly for us, discernible.
Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and importantly for us, discernible.
Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there.

How did you discern this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

Wonderfully, all behaviors are constantly selected for. We shouldn't confuse or equate belief and behavior.

I would think that someone skeptical of naturalism, and who actually behaves as such, not merely talking the talk, won't be around very long. The reason people who believe in religious fantasy are still around is because their fantasy beliefs are accompanied by unmistakably naturalistic behaviors, without which their fantasy beliefs would die along with themselves. It is impossible to work the other way around but you can give it a try anytime. Without naturalistic behavior you will die.

Atheism? It's as natural a behavior as eating. On the other hand, all those superstitious rituals that religious people undertake cannot survive without accompanying naturalistic behaviors.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

Wonderfully, all behaviors are constantly selected for. We shouldn't confuse or equate belief and behavior.

I would think that someone skeptical of naturalism, and who actually behaves as such, not merely talking the talk, won't be around very long. The reason people who believe in religious fantasy are still around is because their fantasy beliefs are accompanied by unmistakably naturalistic behaviors, without which their fantasy beliefs would die along with themselves. It is impossible to work the other way around but you can give it a try anytime. Without naturalistic behavior you will die.

Atheism? It's as natural a behavior as eating. On the other hand, all those superstitious rituals that religious people undertake cannot survive without accompanying naturalistic behaviors.

Probably skepticism of naturalism meant doubt that "only natural laws and forces operate in the world". It's not a disbelief of every "naturalistic" phenomenon.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

e
Very clever attack, my compliments. All belifs scientific, religious, or philosophical are conditional. That defines being a skeptic.

I see no evidence for a god based on scripture, personal experience, and demonstration. I am skeptical.All science is conditional. Naturalism says just that, anything that exists is natural, there can be no supernatural. If a god exists or ghosts then by definition they are natural even if we can not understand he causal connections.

Can I be wrong? Of course. The continuous rec vision of science over the last 300 years shows the underlying lack of any absolutism. The difference between naturalism based on science and theology is science can be tested.

When you are on jet on the takeoff roll why do you believe when the pilot pulls back on the yoke the plane will fly?

Provided the plane is above take-off speed it will fly.
It flies because it obeys natural laws that are reliable, regular, dependable and importantly for us, discernible.
Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there.

That is strange. I thought it was because angels carried the plane.

Another Christian dodge. I believe the plane flies because god created natural laws.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder if steve_bank is sceptical of naturalism or atheism in general?

Wonderfully, all behaviors are constantly selected for. We shouldn't confuse or equate belief and behavior.

I would think that someone skeptical of naturalism, and who actually behaves as such, not merely talking the talk, won't be around very long. The reason people who believe in religious fantasy are still around is because their fantasy beliefs are accompanied by unmistakably naturalistic behaviors, without which their fantasy beliefs would die along with themselves. It is impossible to work the other way around but you can give it a try anytime. Without naturalistic behavior you will die.

Atheism? It's as natural a behavior as eating. On the other hand, all those superstitious rituals that religious people undertake cannot survive without accompanying naturalistic behaviors.

We've seen this one before. An attempt to turn the table and make it on the atheist to prove atheism.

The onus is on the Christian to make a case for god. I do not have to prove or be skeptical of my rejection of Christian proofs. If there were no theists I would not be atheist. Theists create the duality. It is the theist that makes an affirmative declaration and claim.

I simply reject theist claims as inadequate, that makes me atheize to the heist. I reject the duality altogether as nonsense. I do not go around being 'atheist'.