After I posted the blog entry, Atheism is the Beginning of Skepticism, I wanted to write more. I felt more needed to be said. I just wasn't sure at the time how to write it. But here's what I love about the blogosphere: sometimes, one of my readers, or another blogger who visits here, has finished a train of thought I began, or posted a response that completed what I started, or wrote comments that were just flat out better than anything I had to say. Such moments make me smile.
John Loftus posted this reply to my entry, Atheism is the Beginning of Skepticism:
"Skepticism takes you where the evidence leads."
I agree. My point is that skepticism leads people to the denial of supernatural forces and beings. It's the practical way of explaining what intellectual atheism is all about as far as it went with me. I like what I said because too many Christians claim that atheism equals metaphysical naturalism, something you and I agree isn't called for at all. What's the best way to communicate to Christians? That's what I seek, and that's what I was doing.
John emphasizes a point also expressed by commenter exrelayman in his response to that same blog entry:
Rather than atheism being the beginning of skepticism, for me skepticism was the beginning of atheism, as follows: I am a card holding Christian... Bit by bit I see problems [with Christianity]. I become skeptical. As more chinks appear in the Christian facade, my skepticism over time leads me to become atheistic.
This seems to be the reverse of what what you stated. Maybe there is an elucidation of your position that will harmonize this apparent difference.
I responded to exrelayman with the following:
You and I may be more in agreement than you think. I almost included in this blog entry a paragraph or two about how atheism is not only the beginning of skepticism, but also should be considered the *end* of it. What I mean is, we begin with no preconceived theistic notion - suspending judgment on god - lacking belief until proper judgment can be made. This is [Antony] Flew's "presumption of atheism." Skeptical inquiry then, carried out to completion, should bring a rational being to the conclusion that atheism is in fact the rational position to hold, simply because the evidence and argumentation for any particular theology is currently lacking severely. My skepticism has led me to the point where I see that maintaining a lack of belief in god(s) is proper and correct, and until evidence and argumentation is revealed to convince me otherwise, this is where reason will keep me.
So it's not the reverse of what I stated, it's simply looking at skepticism from the other end of the line. I also think this is a point that John Loftus is trying to make too (and perhaps even PZ Myers). So we're probably more in agreement with each other than we realize. Words are, as you said, slippery entities.
Consider the box illustration again:
If your task were to try to find out what's in this box, how would you start? Would you begin by assuming or "taking it on faith" that you already had some knowledge of what was in there? If, for example, someone told you a golden egg was in the box, would you assume that's true? Would you just take it on faith? If you did, you would still not really know what's in the box. But this is exactly what religionists do with god. Concerning my own spiritual journey, I wasn't able to truly question and examine the data objectively until I put aside my preconceived notions about god and religion. Faith proved to be a roadblock to critical thinking, leading to a lot of retroactive reasoning in a vain attempt to defend my beliefs.
If you want to know what's in the box, you must first not assume you already know. You must first withhold judgment until you find evidence. Concerning any possible golden eggs, you must lack a belief in the golden egg, withholding judgment so that you may be able to seek the truth objectively, lest your search for the truth of the contents of the box be skewed by bias. This is why I argue that atheism is the beginning of skepticism.
Atheism is also - in my estimation - the end of skepticism. By "end" I mean the consummation; in other words, atheism is where skeptical inquiry should lead you - at least for now, until evidence is discovered that speaks to the contrary (if that would ever happen). Skepticism takes you where the evidence leads, and if neither evidence nor argumentation warrants belief in god(s), then maintaining a lack of belief in god(s) is where skeptical inquiry should take us.
Dead-Logic.com
