This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.
What do you think?
check it out.
https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg
peace
791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t know what came over me, cheating death and omnipotence.
The classical theists that I know would not say that the only evidence available is empirical evidence.
I’m not really asking for evidence I’m asking for an open mind. I want to know that you believe it’s possible that you may be wrong.
Let me try another approach
Suppose you claimed here to be skeptical that fermuricals existed. I would expect you to be able to conceive of some evidence that convince you that fermuricals existed. That is because in order to be skeptical you need to have some idea of what a fermurical is.
On the other hand I’m not skeptical that fermuricals exist. and I would never claim to be. I can’t be because I don’t even know what they are, I’m not even agnostic about their existence
When it comes to fermuricals I’m simply ignorant. Do you understand?
peace
I have to say, ‘there is no theory of evolution’ is the mosty devastatingly top-dog, killer critique of That-Which-Does-Not-Happen-Anyway-Even-If-There-Was-A-Theory-Of-It I have ever encountered. Vieing for top place with “and yo’ momma”, and “I know you are, but what am I?”. Bravo, IDists!
What evidence was that? You mean my power of prayer challenge? Not sure what was wrong with that exactly–I know televangelists have used it. Anyhow, I’m certainly not going to let your test work:
“Do you believe you’ve ever heard something that’s true?”
“Uh, I guess so, yeah.
“Hah! Not only does God exist, but you believe in him!! I win!”
Talk about nonsense, Fred.
Yeah, they’re really at the top of their game on this thread.
Yes that was it.
But Like I’ve said silly is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course at some point it might be interesting to discuss why you would find that particular evidence to be convincing.
I would not necessarily expect you to even if you took the time to understand it. Different strokes and all that.
What is important for the purposes of this thread is that it’s possible to conceive of your self being wrong
peace
The classical theistic god is also defined as necessary. It’s existence is presupposed by definition so deductive logic doesn’t work as evidence either. The same goes for your definition of god (you’re a presuppositionalist)
Those definitions of god are simply incompatible with skepticism because the only way to accept their existence is by assuming it a-priori.
That’s exactly what I’ve been telling you and you replied that “evidence” is an entirely subjective thing. That’s pure, unadulterated bullshit.
There would be no contradiction about being skeptical of a vague claim like that. You don’t know enough about fermuricals to collect evidence for them, so being skeptical is 100% warranted
Glad we agree
So you concede that when it comes to God’s existence you are not a skeptic?
I would strongly disagree, there are a near infinite number of things that exist that I’m unaware of. I don’t have good reason to doubt the existence of any of theses things. I just don’t know enough to make any judgment whatsoever.
then evidence that God is not necessary would convince a classical theist (or me) that he does not exist. Open mindedness is really not difficult
No a skeptic could accept the existence of God by discovering that he is indeed necessary.
peace
No, SMFH
You may not know enough to make any judgments, fine, but would you believe they exist? Not believing something exists is not the same thing as believing it doesn’t exists, or even doubting it.
That still presupposes that a non-necessary God exists. Besides a classical theist could play the no-true-Scotsman card and claim that such a thing is not really god. What evidence can there be for necessity anyway? You’re back to square one
Cool. How? You know all you have are presuppositions. That’s not discovering anything, it’s just your usual question begging.
Fred demands evidence
And this is the modern disease. Jumping to a conclusion without the necessary information required to make that decision.
We have two contradictory facts, either something exists or it does not exist. If we have no information about that thing then we are not in a position to say either way. We can only be skeptical through knowledge. I am skeptical with regards to fermuricals because I googled the word, but I am willing to change positions following more evidence.
I did not start from a position of skepticism. I came to it through gaining the knowledge that google cannot find the word on the ‘net. Do you think that there can be positive and negative without there being neutral?
So does this mean there must be a theory of the method for how God created the universe, in order for you to say it didn’t happen?
If if that is the case, there also must be a theory of how a dog named snoopy created the universe, before you can claim it never happened, right? Am I following your line of thought?
Bravo.
thefauxskepticalzone
This thread is perhaps the silliest example of crap burden tennis I’ve ever seen on this board. The idea is that it’s the theists who are really the skeptics.
Please.
“Faith” seems to now have become a dirty word for these guys. They want to be the skeptics too! (That’s where the girls are, I guess.)
So ridiculous.
I’m almost skeptical of that claim.
We don’t just have God, we’re also the scientists here! Sure we’ve got faith (if you’re listening Pascal), but we really don’t need it, since we’re the better skeptics and God’s right there anyhow!!
stage whisper: Ok so, where are the girls?
What a terrible argument.
I’m skeptical that fermuricals exist. I’m skeptical because:
I have never heard of them;
Google doesn’t have anything on them;
the dictionaries don’t have anything on them.
Those seem fair reasons for skepticism. That I haven’t any idea what a fermurical is supposed to be (if anyone actually supposes it to be), is not particularly relevant.
now you are my new favorite
peace
So you have some information then. Like CharleM said Skepticism requires information.
Folks like Patrick and Dazz and Woodbine and Robin claim they have no information at all about God yet they are skeptical that he exists. That is just silly
Once again for probably the tenth time
Faith for the Christian is not belief in the absence of evidence it’s trust in someone who has shown himself to be faithful
peace
It’s not about who has the burden of proof. It’s not about proof at all. It’s about who has an open mind and who is a Frediean
I think we have pretty much established who that is
peace
Yes, anti-evolutionists (anti-Darwinists if you’re especially delusional), and presuppositionalists.
They wouldn’t infer proper conclusions from observations of entailed evidence, however rampant and abundant.
Glen Davidson
I’m skeptical that God or gods exist. I’m skeptical because:
I have never heard of God or gods;
Google doesn’t have anything on God or gods;
the dictionaries don’t have anything on God or gods.
Wow, just wow. What I’m saying is that we can’t derive what evidence would support the existence of God as some of you define it. Take walto’s example about those mind reading aliens, you have quite a lot of “information” about them, but no way to derive from that any way to collect evidence that would support or falsify their existence. Get it now? Of course not
The skeptical position is to withhold provisional acceptance of a claim until evidence is provided.
There are not “contradictory facts” there are simply unevidenced (potential) claims. Until evidence is presented the skeptical position is to withhold provisional acceptance of the claim. This is the case with an infinite number of potential claims, including those for the existence of gods.
No, it’s simply the default skeptical position for any unevidenced claim.
OK I’m not asking anyone to grant provisional acceptance to anything. I asking folks to demonstrate that they are capable of doing what Cromwell and lizzy ask them to do.
quote:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
end quote:
peace
I’m amazed you can quote that without your mouth tasting of ashes.
I’m always willing to change my positions based on evidence. Presuppositionalists, not so much.
OK, So you think there are unworkable definitions floating around. Why is that an obstacle to you?
There are unworkable definitions of Zombie out there as well.
There are even “Zombies” who are empirically indistinguishable from normal humans
yet everyone on the island but Fred knows that Zombies exist.
peace
Ok Prove it fred.
What evidence can you conceive of that will convince you that God exists?
peace
Please provide an operational definition of “god”, including the entailments were such to exist. Once you do then, assuming the association with the entailments is valid, observing the entailments would provide support for the claim that a god or gods, as defined, exist.
If you cannot provide such a definition and entailments then the problem is with your concepts not with those who lack belief in them.
Disaster averted, problem solved. The islanders can sleep well tonight
thanks Fred
peace
I answered your question about what evidence I would consider as supporting the claim that a god or gods exist. The fact that you can’t define your terms rigorously says nothing about my skepticism but speaks volumes about the nonsense you believe.
Patrick,
😉 😉
Suppose in the 4th-century BC I went around telling Athens that there is a “strong nuclear force.” Should Aristotle believe me, or would he do well to be skeptical?
He asks, what’s the evidence for it? And I say that it holds the smaller bits of matter together. Are things flying apart? He says, well you know, it might be that something else does that, or that things have no reason to fly apart in the first place. And anyway, if it’s so strong, why don’t we see everything clumping together into extremely dense spheres? Well, I say, it only operates across very short distances. And he says, oh really, why didn’t I think of that?
Then I call him a Freddyist, because he doesn’t come up with reasons why he would believe in the strong nuclear force. He says, you haven’t given me the first observable entailment, you’re only prattling about matters that make your force unperceivable. It’s your case that has to be made. And I go off claiming that he’s a closed-minded bigot because he won’t believe in my “strong nuclear force.”
Given that I don’t actually have a nuclear model at that time that requires a strong nuclear force to keep protons in close proximity to each other, or evidence of the strong nuclear force’s rapid drop-off of force, nor even a compelling case for atomism, I don’t know why Aristotle should not be skeptical. He doesn’t need to say what would convince him, he just needs to show that I haven’t come up with a convincing claim.
Or, consider atomism itself at the time. Aristotle was no atomist, but should he have been? It was a good idea, but it certainly lacked observable entailments at the time. It maybe could account for why metals could be refined and combined, still there was no obvious reason that only atoms could explain that. In the end, of course, we don’t actually believe in the indivisible atom that is the smallest particle possible (could quarks be the “true atoms,” though? Not really, they’re tied up with color fields and the like, and we’re not certain that they can’t be composed of particles themselves), but for the most part the atomists do seem to have been thinking fairly well, and even to be mostly right.
Could we legitimately demand of Aristotle that he come up with reasons that would convince him of atoms, given what they had as scientific instruments at the time? Not really. Probably everyone should be at least somewhat skeptical of atomism up until the time when observations established them. Stoichiometry and crystals pointed toward atomism as a pretty good empirical stance before the atom was truly established, however one probably did better to call atoms a good heuristic model up until nuclei and electron “orbits” became obvious using modern science techniques. What “atom” even meant changed along with evidence that it exists. Ancient thinkers could not have said what would end up being convincing that atoms exist
One is right to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. That’s really it. One might or might not be able to say what would convince a person that an unsubstantiated claim is true, but that is certainly not required in order to be rightly skeptical of a claim.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Well said.
GlenDavidson,
Agreed — well-said. Assessment of specific claims always requires a background set of beliefs, accepted theories, attitudes, practices, norms, expectations, and values (epistemic, aesthetic, ethical, social, and political).
He would be skeptical, but not for the reasons you give. You would be asking him to believe that that which is by definition indivisible, is in fact not indivisible. IOW, you’d be asking him to be irrational.
Those aren’t the only options.
He could be confused or mystified. He might be unenlightened or uniformed or even curious.
He could be any or all of those things with out being skeptical or accepting the claim that was being made.
Now If instead of being curious and open minded he was dismissive and hyper-skeptical we’d call him a frediean.
peace
We would only ask him to conceive of reasons that convince him if he claimed to be skeptical of the claim.
He could simply say “I don’t know if atoms exist” or “I don’t know enough to say one way or the other”.
There is noting wrong with admitting ignorance
peace
phoodoo,
No. How does that follow?
No again.
Ah, the old “use your opponent’s phrasing against them” gambit. #43 in the ‘How To Take The Crusade To The Internet’ playbook. You’re such a team player, phoodoo!
Mung,
Youreonlyskepticalifisayyoureskeptical
I guess I don’t know what you are trying to say here then Allan. One gets the impression that you find it strange to not believe in evolution if there isn’t even a theory of evolution.
But now it seems that is apparently NOT what you are getting at. So what you are getting at is still a mystery I guess.
Like what happens at Skull and Bones meetings and like the theory of evolution. We can’t confirm or deny.
phoodoo,
Certainly it would be strange to believe in something if you don’t even have a conception of what ‘it’ is. But no, I don’t find it strange to not believe in evolution if there isn’t a theory of evolution – whatever that really means. I find it more dumb than strange that people are trying to make capital out of this idea that ‘there is no theory of evolution’. As a position to defend, it is dumb, untrue and pointless. It doesn’t mean you should accept evolution, just because you are pushing a dumb, untrue and pointless argument in relation to it.
Hey, you are the one pushing the ‘there is no theory of evolution’ line. I am merely ridiculing it. Nothing particularly mysterious about that, it should have been obvious from the leaden sarcasm of my opening post on the topic. I am simply saying that is a particularly feeble line of argumentation – like the one about it being a tautology. That thing that doesn’t exist.
I will use this approach with Patrick and his ilk when the claim that no evidence would convince them that God exists because there is no operational definition of God.
peace
PS great analogical insight phoodoo,
Allan Miller,
Are you a Mason? Have you promised to never reveal the theory of evolution in public, just like Alan?
Good grief!
That’s it! We found it! The theory of evolution:
“Good grief”
“Bad, no grief!”
Readers and contributors are the life-blood of a blog and I’m grateful that we get such a variety of OPs and comments. It’s a bonus when comments are from experts in their field, inciteful, amusing, controversial or just interesting.
But I’m baffled by these recent comments of yours. Is there a point you want to make? Do you seriously want to claim there isn’t a well-supported scientific theory of evolution? If you are intending to be funny, I’m missing the joke.
Yes Alan, I seriously want to claim that.
Do you seriously want to claim there is?
Something like “if your have variation, some variations will prosper more.” You call that a theory of life?
No, I can’t think that you do. The point is not whether you think reiterated variation and selection in a particular niche is a good theory. Whether it is terrible or wrong is beside the point. Darwin first publicly formalised and proposed the theory and the addition of genetics developed it into the “Modern Synthesis”.
I’ve repeated the fact that the theory is alive, well and at the centre of biology.
I call the theory of evolution well-supported scientifically. Your parody is not an apt one. And the theory of evolution does not and does not pretend to offer an explanation for how life on Earth got started.
If you want to claim the theory of evolution is a poor, wrong or unsupported theory, you are welcome to make a case. Repeating that the theory of evolution doesn’t exist is plain daft.