Climate Change And Religion

[Rayschism]

Skepticism is just another form of religion.

Skepticism is essentially the polar opposite of faith, and thus the opposite of any concept of "religion" in which faith is a central feature.

Daria would be giving you a major eyeroll, if she heard your comment.

No, it really is just another religion because a lot of skeptics suffer from huge amounts of confirmation bias.

They conclude that something cannot be true, and so therefore proceed to prove it. Often filtering out things that are contradictory to their conclusions. Just like religion.


And no, Daria would not. She is a very intelligent girl and can often see the faults that many people do not. Denying faults is just like another religion.
You really do not

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, it really is just another religion because a lot of skeptics suffer from huge amounts of confirmation bias.

So, that would not really be 'skepticism.'
You're confusing the practice with poor practitioners.

You could say that many people who THINK they are skeptics are just practicing a form of religion. Maybe some other term applies. But if they're not actually being skeptical, then they are not good evidence for skepticism being a religion, are they?



It'd be like saying science is stupid because creationists keep saying they're using science to prove the Earth is only 6000 year old. That's not really criticizing science, but rather people misusing the term.

 

[Rayschism]

No, it really is just another religion because a lot of skeptics suffer from huge amounts of confirmation bias.

So, that would not really be 'skepticism.'
You're confusing the practice with poor practitioners.

You could say that many people who THINK they are skeptics are just practicing a form of religion. Maybe some other term applies. But if they're not actually being skeptical, then they are not good evidence for skepticism being a religion, are they?



It'd be like saying science is stupid because creationists keep saying they're using science to prove the Earth is only 6000 year old. That's not really criticizing science, but rather people misusing the term.

That I have no answer for. Thanks for the post.

 

[ronburgundy]

Skepticism is essentially the polar opposite of faith, and thus the opposite of any concept of "religion" in which faith is a central feature.

Daria would be giving you a major eyeroll, if she heard your comment.

No, it really is just another religion because a lot of skeptics suffer from huge amounts of confirmation bias.

They conclude that something cannot be true, and so therefore proceed to prove it. Often filtering out things that are contradictory to their conclusions. Just like religion.

Skepticism is not "concluding that something cannot be true" prior to examining the evidence. Your right that activity is religion, because that is what religion (and all supernatural thinking) does. To conclude something IS true inherently entails concluding that other things cannot be true. Belief is an act of closing one's mind to all possibilities but one. Religion and faith promote such closed minded belief and thus close minded disbelief.

Skepticism is the the act of requiring that any claim be well supported before accepting it and thus before rejecting as untrue its alternatives. It is the epitome of open-mindedness and given each idea a fair chance to prove itself.

There are likely instances of people claiming to be "skeptics" engaging in religious like close minded bias. But most seeming are examples are just people rejecting a faith-based view and pointing out that the "evidence" for it is objectively far weaker than the evidence for the alternatives.

Note that the concept of "skepticism" as a verb and general concept is not the same as when the root is attached to a specific topic, such as "Climate skeptic". In that use of the root, it simply means someone who doubts or rejects a specific idea, such as human caused climate change. In that use, it has no meaning in term of the philosophical method one used to reach that position, only what position they hold. One can be a climate skeptic because they think it contradicts the Bible, or because it serves their greedy self interest to deny the harm done by the actions they hope will make them $. Technically, one could be a climate skeptic because one thinks the science is against it, but the science is so objectively for it that such a position isn't plausible by any honest analysis of the topic.

 

[J842P]

Hogwash.

Sure ... but its still debateable to people. Theres NO denying climate change (even as a theists) because for sure some regions on the earth have found the climate colder and other regions have found it has got warmer. Drought in some places and torrential rain to floods in others where noticeable changes have occured.

It is undeniable that *overall* climate has gotten hotter. Significantly hotter. Yes, people might find it "debatable", but the fact that the climate is warming and that human carbon emissions are causing it is not controversial.

 

[Rayschism]

No, it really is just another religion because a lot of skeptics suffer from huge amounts of confirmation bias.

They conclude that something cannot be true, and so therefore proceed to prove it. Often filtering out things that are contradictory to their conclusions. Just like religion.

Skepticism is not "concluding that something cannot be true" prior to examining the evidence. Your right that activity is religion, because that is what religion (and all supernatural thinking) does. To conclude something IS true inherently entails concluding that other things cannot be true. Belief is an act of closing one's mind to all possibilities but one. Religion and faith promote such closed minded belief and thus close minded disbelief.

Skepticism is the the act of requiring that any claim be well supported before accepting it and thus before rejecting as untrue its alternatives. It is the epitome of open-mindedness and given each idea a fair chance to prove itself.

There are likely instances of people claiming to be "skeptics" engaging in religious like close minded bias. But most seeming are examples are just people rejecting a faith-based view and pointing out that the "evidence" for it is objectively far weaker than the evidence for the alternatives.

Note that the concept of "skepticism" as a verb and general concept is not the same as when the root is attached to a specific topic, such as "Climate skeptic". In that use of the root, it simply means someone who doubts or rejects a specific idea, such as human caused climate change. In that use, it has no meaning in term of the philosophical method one used to reach that position, only what position they hold. One can be a climate skeptic because they think it contradicts the Bible, or because it serves their greedy self interest to deny the harm done by the actions they hope will make them $. Technically, one could be a climate skeptic because one thinks the science is against it, but the science is so objectively for it that such a position isn't plausible by any honest analysis of the topic.

So, say as a hypothetical, Bigfoot bit you on the arse, then you would believe in the existence of Bigfoot?