belief, science, supernaturalMany atheists have arrived at the atheist conclusion based on skeptical (or sceptical!) thinking, and by being unable to see evidence of any sort of deity based on empirical data.
Is this same skeptical thinking applied to all other aspects of a person’s life? Are atheists less likely to believe that alt-med (homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc.) works, or other phenomena (UFOs, bigfoot, the Illuminati runs the world from its secret base in Switzerland, 9/11 was an inside job) than other members of the population, or are there individuals who are able to maintain beliefs in other nonsensical mythology whilst disregarding the god hypothesis for garbage?
When it comes down to it, atheism is just a lack of belief in god or god’s and allows for all sorts of mysticism while still falling under the definition of the word.
However, I like to think that, yes, most atheists are skeptics. Though, in this question http://atheism.stackexchange.com/q/361/88 it’s obvious that’s not always the case.
Oh, by no means does atheism = skepticism! There are plenty of reasons for someone to arrive at atheism through non-skeptical means, and everyone (including skeptics) is non-skeptical or non-rational about something at least some of the time (can we say Bill Maher?). So even someone who is skeptical may not necessarily be skeptical about the questions of religion and theism.
That being said, however, I would argue that skepticism does lead towards atheism more often than not. Again, one can be a skeptic and not be atheist. But just like the proportion of atheist scientists to theist scientists is completely the opposite from the general population, I think you are more likely to reach an atheistic conclusion if you are a skeptical person, than you would be to hold onto a religious or theistic belief while being a skeptical person. It is not an automatic equation (i.e. atheism != skepticism and skepticism != atheism), but I would say skepticism is positively correlated to atheism (although it could be argued that not the other way around).
Absolutely not. Bill Maher is a good example of a not very skeptical atheist. The guy won the Richard Dawkin’s award for atheism yet is an anti-vaccine nut.
As phrased, NO. But from a statistical, population oriented perspective, YES. Further, if skepticism is universally applied (especially to religious ideas) it will lead to atheism. It is only when a person refuses to equally apply skepticism to religious thought (or other silliness) that “woo” thinking continues. so I say, ultimately… YES.
On an individual basis, and within an individual’s set of opinions on different subjects, there will be a mix of skeptical and credulous thinking. Everyone is using Bill Maher as an example. Fine. The type-specimen of compartmentalized thinking, next to Francis Collins. It’s too easy to use outliers as “evidence” that a general premise is false. How many evolution deniers point to difficult-to-explain outliers in order to claim evolutionary theory is wrong? Do you want to join their camp in making this error in thinking? How many arguments against atheism go something like, “Pol Pot and Stalin were atheist, therefore Atheism causes murders.” Arguments from individuals will give you bad answers.
I think this question needs to be answered from a statistical perspective, thinking about populations, rather than looking for individual counter-examples and then discarding the premise.
So from a population perspective, I would hypothesize “YES, Skepticism is a statistically significant contributor, or defining factor in those who self-identify as atheists.” It is ESPECIALLY true (again, conjecture, but definitely testable) that with regards to arriving at atheism, skepticism is almost universally employed.
I have a fairly broad tolerance for what I consider “skepticism” here. It basically means having the ability to recognize and act on cognitive dissonance, and be willing to discard former truths for new conclusions, based on evidence. That “trait” seems to be almost universal in those who identify as atheist.
It is the opposite of credulity and faith: Believing and accepting everything told to you without asking any questions, and retaining the belief in spite of evidence.
Example: A believer’s mother dies of cancer at a young age, and he says, “I no longer believe in God… I prayed for a cure, it did not arrive. I watch pricks get cancer and survive while my mother is killed… there is no Divine justice. My mother suffered immensely, there is no compassionate or loving god.”
This person isn’t applying a rigorously argued technical skepticism, but he is recognizing and acting on “cognitive dissonance” to decide against that which he has been trained to believe is absolute truth. Skepticism, if applied to religious ideas without reservation, DOES lead to atheism. It is only the people who refuse to allow themselves to think skeptically on some topics who retain silly beliefs in those topics.
For those who don’t particularly like this formulation, please sketch me realistic counter examples of how someone could arrive at atheism without applying skeptical, critical thought. (And don’t just say “everyone is born an atheist, having yet to think at all. No skepticism there.”)
What a great question, I believe that there is a good chance a good skeptic will become an Atheist and not even be aware of it. But by no means is it certain however. It took me a long time to know there were like minded people out there who believed in what I did. I became a skeptic and then applied what I had learned to my spiritual belief (agnostic) and realised I was an Atheist.
theskepticsguide.org is a great place to start.
A critical thinker is a critical thinker, which often precludes accepting things on ‘faith’.
Skepticism may arise from an unexplained gut instinct. I wouldn’t generalize that many atheists are skeptics, but I would generalize that many are critical thinkers.
While they are certainly linked, I wouldn’t say that they are inseperable. People can be atheists for incredibly poor reasons that have nothing to do with sceptical analysis etc, be it due to upbringing or possibly simply never having thought about it. These people are possibly less likely to be sceptics, though not all the time - indeed, many parts of Europe are highly secular, yet belief in things such as homeopathy still prevails.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.