Hey, I was wondering if anyone else felt like it was okay to identify yourself as both, a person of a specific "spiritual" persuasion and a skeptic?

I have to echo what Chelsea said, and note that Grassroots Skeptics isn't itself an explicitly atheist organization. While a lot of skeptics don't have a religious faith, there are some who maintain a spiritual framework, who are nevertheless committed to critical thinking n most other areas of their lives.

The biologist Ken Miller is a staunch defender of evolution against "intelligent" design proponents, and author of one of the most widely used biology textbooks of all time. He's also a devout Catholic. I don't see why we should summarily dismiss his valuable work in science because his standards for evidence aren't as stringent in every area of his life.

Frankly, I think there are very few of us who are able to think critically about every subject all the time. Some people get really riled up about politics; other people cling to comforting routines, even though their effectiveness is suspect. I always reach for a bottle of vitamin C supplements when I get sick, even though I know that they won't have any actual effect on my illness.

So yes, I think there is a place for people who have religious faith in the skeptical community. They just need to understand that any claims their faith makes about effects that occur in the real world are going to be scrutinized right along side the claims of psychics, homeopaths and ghost hunters. And if their evidence isn't convincing, skeptics won't be shy about pointing that out.

Pokey, I apologize if you felt insulted by my response. Maybe I need to clarify a little bit. I'm not suggesting that there is nothing of value to be had from a religious or spiritual practice. Particularly among the more modern, liberal versions of religion, things like service and tolerance toward others are often a central part of the teaching, and I would never scoff at anything that teaches people to be kinder or nicer to each other.

I'm also very aware that religion has value in terms of ritual and tradition. These are things that every human craves to a certain degree, and I wouldn't diminish the importance of those things in the life of a religious believer. But I think that there is a big difference between religious practice and religious faith.

My wife, for example, practices a mostly secular form of Judaism. We have the ritual and the ceremony and the tradition. These practices keep her connected to a culture and a heritage, and she's gotten a lot of value from the philosophical teaching that she's been exposed to. It's been of immense value to her, and I would never try to take that away from her.

Religious belief, however, is at least analogous to the example about the vitamin C supplements, because they both represent a system of faith. Faith is, by definition, antithetical to evidence. If you need evidence, you don't have faith. Generally, the reverse is also true.

Individual skeptics, of course, take a lot of things on faith. Most of us will never sit down and reproduce all of the research and evidence that has supported evolution over the last 150 years. But we could if we wanted to, since it's consisted of well-documented observations and experiments.

Faith in the supernatural, on the other hand, can't be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. You either believe it or you don't. While I doubt any of us is perfect, skeptics endeavor to trust in concepts that are backed up by evidence, and not simply on an unsupported conviction. When I reach for the vitamin C drops, I know that I can't prove that they work; when a person prays to a deity, they are similarly unable to prove any effect. But we both feel a little better for the exercise.

So I'll say again, there is definitely room for religious people in the skeptical movement, but they have to be aware that they aren't go to be treated any differently from anyone else. I would fully expect to be criticized if I claimed that the vitamin supplements had any effect on the duration or severity of a cold, especially if I offered as proof merely my own feeling that it was true. If a person of faith chooses to make a claim that their religious belief has had an effect on the physical world, and they don't bring any evidence to the table, then they're going to face the same criticism.

Again, though, the real benefits of their religious practice are distinct from their faith, and I would defend the value of those practices in the lives of people who engage in them. Unless they're trying to use the government or the law to tell me that I should practice the same way, in which case I will lose my brains and start raving like a maniac.

I love this particular conversation whenever it rises.

My stance on this is simple and keeps me (and the skeptical society) out of a lot of trouble down here in the Bible Belt.

I don't believe, but it's certainly not the focus of my skeptical activities. Why?

As a skeptic, I am concerned with evidence. Got any? No? Then what, exactly, are we talking about?

When they bring me some evidence, we'll discuss it. Until then, let's talk about something else.

The two topics we have the "prefer not to discuss" rule on at the Jackson Skeptical Society are 1: religion and 2: politics. (Though, the pragmatic reason for this rule is that, if we started debunking political claims, we'd never, ever, ever do anything else.)

Atheism was my direct route to the skeptic movement, though obviously I was skeptic to get there, just not realizing I was part of the movement.

As weird as it may be, it was listening to Penn Radio (Penn Jillette's short-lived radio show) and BullShit that brought atheism (and then awareness of James Randi and Skeptics) to me. I was raised a critical-thinking Catholic (meaning my parents told me that Adam & Eve and the floods, etc were parables and not real). I was baptized, communionized, and confirmed. I went to church every week until I hit 18 and then gave it up. But I never evaluated my belief in god. It was something there, but I never thought about it. Once I forced myself to think about what I really think, I realized that I am a non-believer. That lead me directly to Skepticism.

I understand that not all Skeptics are atheists (and vice versa). And it should not be the focus of most skeptical discussions, though it is obvious that it comes up a lot (hence one of the first topics on this forum). I get all my spiritual-ness from science and nature. Staring at the stars or sitting in the woods is all I need.

Ok - I'm something of an atheist, and I enjoy these discussions, because religion always falls down logically.

Let's put it this way. To be a true sceptic - (spelt with a C as I'm British) - you have to look at things objectively based on cold hard facts, scientific methodology, and logic.

Religion has no place in any one of those three things. There is no FACT in religion, as it has been widely noted that most current religions are just variations on the theme of Horus from ancient Egypt, and his associated laws from the Book Of The Dead. The religions themselves, are based on misquoted 'stories', manipulated and twisted for political gain and control. Religion at best, is a lie, or at worst a tool to control the people.

There is NO scientific methodology in religion. Things do not happen because of spirits or the will of a so-called god. The universe is a system, vast in its expanse, and abyssal in the depth of its complexity. We, as humans, can only hope to grasp a small piece of the knowledge of this system within our lifetime. Religion tries to provide us with unsubstantiated and quite frankly insulting ideas about the things we don't understand through science. As has happened through centuries of scientific development, these illusions are stripped bare and shown up as idle prattlings when science finally reaches these subjects.

There is NO logic in religion. If your house is on fire, logic dictates that you either flee, or put the fire out. Logic does NOT dictate that you pray or 'hope for a miracle'. An overly simplistic example yes, but it works.

The fundamental problem with religion is that it purports to provide answers and surety, where there should only be questions and doubt. Questions and Doubt are Bread and Butter to a SCEPTIC - (with a C as I'm British)

In my view, you cannot call yourself a true, unbiased and unfettered sceptic if you hold religious conviction.

For the record - I believe in entities that people class as spirits, as well other supranatural occurrances. I just believe that they will be explainable through science one day. They have nothing to do with the occult, or spiritualism, or mysticism or any other 'ism'.

Parallex:

"If your house is on fire, logic dictates that you either flee, or put the fire out. Logic does NOT dictate that you pray or 'hope for a miracle'. An overly simplistic example yes, but it works."

Your example is, in fact, overly simplistic, but not in the way you think, and I argue that it doesn't work.

Logic doesn't dictate anything at all. Logic is nothing more than a group of axioms and their necessary implications that allows you to create some type of order out of propositions. What comes out of any given logical system depends on its rules and what you put into it, i.e. the premises you choose, and the conclusion generated is only useful in the real world as far as the premises can be shown, through empirical evidence, to accord with what is true in reality.

There are many different kinds of logic, some of which would seem "illogical" to one with only a surface-level understanding of logic; some logical systems, for example, hold that A and ~A can both be true at the same time.

Moreover, basic philosophical logic (which is what I assume you mean when you use the term "logic") still cannot dictate behavior because logic does not deal well with "oughts." The "is-ought" problem is one of the most pernicious in philosophy; you cannot reason your way from one or more facts to a prescription for behavior based on those facts. "My house is on fire" entails nothing except "My house is on fire," and perhaps some analytical details based on the particular definitions of "house," "fire," and "on fire" in play. A statement of brute fact simply cannot lead to a prescriptive course of action.

It takes emotions and values to move one from the brute fact of "My house is on fire" to a particular course of behavior regarding the fire (hence philosopher David Hume's famous declaration that "Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions"). Logic can dictate none of them by itself, and it most certainly cannot give a "definitive" prescription for that or any other situation. Rationally evaluating the situation will help you make a decision, but logic alone will get you nowhere.

Also:

"I believe in entities that people class as spirits, as well other supranatural occurrances."

On what evidence do you believe in these entities? Whether or not you regard them as "supernatural" or "mystical" is irrelevant if there is no evidence that they exist in the first place. Please present evidence for the existence of "spirits," however you define them, or withdraw to the null hypothesis.

Ahh yes, I am registered and ready to jump into this murky discussion. Unfortunately, I don't particularly have the time to devote towards properly explaining my thoughts concerning many of the individual answers, although I certainly would prefer to do so. I will say, in my only specific response, that those using large words should feel free to do so as long as they do not needless confuse the argument for the sake of verbosity. Likewise, those who prefer not to use large words should feel free to avoid using large words, but really need not criticize (passive-aggressively or otherwise) the fact that others prefer to make use of any particular large word.

That being said, I think that the original issue at hand has been thrown slightly off track. The thread, although titled with the word "religion", was phrased in the actual topic as concerning skepticism and "spiritualism." I think that treating religion and spirituality as synonymous creates a false choice between reason-based thinking and the concept that God is a person hanging out in space looking over us, sorting through prayer requests and preordaining everything concerning humanity. Personally, I think that somewhere in the middle lies "spirituality". To me, the concept does not necessarily hinge upon an actual deistic entity hovering omnipresently around me at all times. (Note: I am aware that "omnipresently" is not a word, but I'm keeping it there because it fits. :p). Rather, spiritualism to me represents a very human-based occurrence, which does not eschew reality, but rather seeks to find a way to achieve inner peace through types of moods, thought processes and experiences which are specifically devoid of rational bases. There are many very intelligent and precise examples of this, which I am certainly not profound enough to describe. Rather I would analogize it to my personal "spirituality" which often presents itself in the form of an angst-filled conversation with my bedroom ceiling. This is laughable for many reasons, including its utter simplicity and the more befuddling fact that I am an avowed atheist. However, there is still an element of reassurance that I gain from it. Rationally, I don't believe that there is anyone "up there", listening to me (all upstairs neighbors excluded...they know all my darkest secrets I'm sure). Instead, it represents a moment of pure, personal spirituality; a "no man's land" between reason-based thought and actual religion. Frankly, I see it as the counterpart to rationality, rather than the antithesis. In essence, I believe that spirituality can not only exist with skepticism, it can thrive.

Here is a particularly excellent article written on this very concept. I would highly suggest reading it in its entirety, regardless of which side you may prefer in this debate. As you do so, you may find some striking similarities to my preceding argument...rest assured that I was not plagiarized, but rather that the article was my predominant source for elucidating the proper way to describe what I've long felt was the relationship between skepticism and spirituality.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html

Parallex wrote: "I think there's plenty of reason to make religious people feel inadequate - because they are. They are suffering from (to quote the father of modern atheism) a massive 'God Delusion', and should not be allowed to contribute to level-headed, logical, scientific debate until they can do so without religious bias."

I am an atheist myself, but I think that adopting this sort of attitude is a terrible mistake. It comes across as arrogant and condescending. This is an excellent way to make enemies.

Does Parallex actually talk to religious people this way? Does he openly express contempt for them and call them deluded to their faces? If so, he must lead a rather lonely existence. The vast majority of people are religious (at least here in the U.S.), and if I go around insulting every person I meet who isn't an atheist, I will have very few friends. (Perhaps it's different in the U.K., where Parallex lives.)

The same goes for the skeptical community. Expressing this sort of hostility is the best way I can think of to marginalize skeptics and ensure that no one will listen to them. Why would we want to do that?

Parallex also wrote: "A TRUE sceptic will be able to 'debunk' issues with a level head, obeying scientific method, the ONLY TRUE method capable of proving ANYTHING beyond reasonable doubt." Actually, that's not how science works. The scientific method examines the available evidence and forms hypotheses. It doesn't try to prove these hypotheses true, because that's not logically possible. Scientists try, as hard as they can, to DISprove their own hypotheses. And if their efforts fail, they don't conclude that the hypothesis is true; they publish the details of what they've done and invite other scientists to do THEIR best to prove the hypothesis wrong. Only after it has withstood multiple attacks from different sources is a hypothesis accepted as fact. And such acceptance is always tentative, subject to future revision if new evidence comes to light. In science, nothing is EVER proven beyond all doubt.

That's the point, really. Doubt is the essence of skepticism. We can and should doubt everything. The moment we start viewing any idea with unswerving certainty, we stop being skeptics and become True Believers. Perhaps even fanatics.

This is why I think Parallex's intolerance of religious people is a mistake. It's an expression of certainty. I'm not religious myself, but I will always acknowledge that I could be wrong. I see no evidential basis for belief in any deity, but that doesn't mean such evidence won't be discovered tomorrow. I think it's highly unlikely that it will, but I don't KNOW. So if a religious person wants to discuss this topic with me, my attitude will be "I'm afraid I don't share your beliefs, and I don't think it's likely that you can change that. But I'm willing to listen, as long as you'll also listen to MY point of view." It will not be "You are WRONG, and you're a delusional moron for believing that stuff!" Even if I did feel that way, I wouldn't be rude enough to say so.

As skeptics, we'll make more friends and convince more fence-straddlers if we exhibit a bit of humility. Most of my friends and neighbors have some sort of religious beliefs, but (unlike Parallex) I don't find them to be mentally inferior or deluded. They are people just like me, who simply disagree with me on this one particular point. And if they ask me about it, I'll happily explain to them, in a polite and non-confrontational way, why I don't believe as they do.

Over in the Introductions thread, Parallex wrote: "I believe we are all at war, against the tyranny of money, the oppression of religion, and the prison of ignorance." I have to disagree. If skeptics -- or atheists, for that matter -- try to fight a war against religion, they will lose. There are far too many religious people, and religion is far too deeply rooted in the human psyche. It would be much more productive to view the relationship of skeptics to religious folks as a dialogue. We aren't -- or shouldn't be -- out to conquer or destroy them. Our goal should be to persuade and influence. And we won't do that by insulting them.

"Religious people want 'undue privilege'. They demand this 'undue privilege' for themselves in stating that they are part of a religion. They are part of a special club, as a general rule they demand special privileges in situations where those of an atheist or agnostic persuasion would demand nothing. How is this fair?"

I think this depends on the person. To generalize like this is the same as them calling us all old curmudgeons. There are some religious people that are up for discussion and debate and are willing to talk about things that may make them uncomfortable.

"Why do religious establishments get tax exempt status?"

That's a political and somewhat historical question, not really a skeptical one.

"They don't deserve this 'undue privilege'. I want tax exempt status as well - am I going to get it? No."

There are skeptical groups that are 503c's that are non-profit organizations and are tax exempt as well.

"The term 'Religious Sceptic' is something of an oxymoron. The two terms are mutually exclusive and cannot exist together."

How so? While I agree that some of the beliefs that many religious people believe can be tested, many can not. You can not test the existence of god. By god's very nature they are untestable. Through rational thought you may be able to come to the conclusion that there is no way for god to exist, but belief in a higher power that is untestable is not a weakness in that person's skepticism.

"As I stated above, they are incapable of making rational viewpoints about any subject that conflicts with their religious conviction - therefore they are handicapped in this regard, by their religious conviction."

This is a huge generalization. Have you been to TAM? Have you talked to people that are religious at TAM? I think you'd be surprised. Even Perry from the SGU has said that a TRUE skeptic should be an agnostic, because you simply can not know the answer.

Pat Berry: "There are far too many religious people, and religion is far too deeply rooted in the human psyche. "

Those interested in that claim might find this talk by Andy Thompson from the University of Virginia rather enlightening on that subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg. There is indeed evidence that our brains have evolved to favor belief, even religious belief.

I have researched this topic - here's my blog post on it, which was published in the Skeptical Inquirer's 'Skeptical Briefs':
The Deist Skeptic - http://podblack.com/?p=1167

"They defend their religious convictions until they are blue in the face, and do not suddenly declare that they have seen the light, and that god does noe exist."

I assume you meant "not exist". Again, please prove to ME that god does not exist. I'm an Atheist, but even I admit that you can not PROVE that god does not exist, because that hypothesis is not testable. Even Dawkins says that he's only 99% sure that god does not exist.

"The tax issue: It is a political and historical question, but why is it that a religious issue has been brought into politics or historical context at all? Religion has no place in politics at all. It is only due to religious lobbying that religion enjoys any form of 'undue privilege', and as such, it is clearly OBVIOUS that religious people demand this and expect us atheists and agnostics to give it to them."

The fact that they are a huge lobby has more to do with their number than anything else. I pointed out that there are plenty of non-religious groups that are tax exempt (503cs for example). I'm not saying that the churches shouldn't pay taxes, or even other tax exempt groups, but that is a political debate, not a scientific one.

"You are defending the 'concept' of religion by saying that 'You cannot test the theory'. Good luck. Religion is not a singular 'concept' as declared, fought for and died for by millions of people through the millenia. Religion is defined by the religious people practicing it. Each of those religious people will state their reasons for the existence of God/s, and of course, won't be able to prove it rationally. However, they use these reasons nonetheless as PROOF of God, and club everyone else around the head with this PROOF to get their does of 'undue privilege' in society."

And you're doing exactly the same. You can say you're being the rational one, but in order to do so, show us your test to disprove the existence of god. If you don't you're being just as dogmatic. I even said that you can do the same for parts of religions. For example, during communion the Catholics they really believe that the wine is the blood of Christ. Well, we can test that. After the priest blesses it, grab a sample and test it. Of course it's just going to be wine, and they will probably say that you have to have faith, and the fact that it's not actually blood, but they believe that it is that is important. You know what, they might be right, but there's no way to test that part.

"That - right there - is evidence that if there is a god, he's an absolute bastard and doesn't deserve to be part of the world he created."

Okay, but that doesn't prove that there is no god. Nothing said he has to be nice. In fact in a lot of holy books he's a downright bastard. Doesn't make him exist any more, or any less. I think we're confusing religion with atheism. You can be against all religion, groups of religions, or whatever.. But that doesn't really have anything to do with god. You also have to understand that there are plenty of people that follow religious practices for the culture and history. The one that pops into my head are secular Jews. There are plenty of Jews that don't believe in god but still follow the rituals and remain a part of the community.

Again, if you want to be truly scientific and rational about this, conduct your experiment. You have your hypothesis that god does not exist. Have fun setting up your protocol to test a supernatural being. Once you're done let us know the results. "god" is not always the god of the bible that sits in the cloud watching over us with nothing better to do. To some he just set off the big bang and let the universe do it's own thing.

To answer the original question: Yes, you are able to identify yourself with anything you can imagine. There are no rules whatever about this. But, as has been pointed out, if you are unreasonable about what you identify with, don't expect to be taken seriously. That way, when you are, it’s like finding gold. At least, that is my attitude, and it has been working well so far.

Also, the question was vague. “Spiritual” persuasion”? My intuition tells me that you were attempting to not expose yourself somehow. IMHO, you should not have waffled; you should have asked what you really wanted to ask. One tends to get more concise answers that way.

Before evolution had created sentience, the only instructions an organism had for getting by came straight from the organism’s DNA. There was no freedom of choice, and all stimulus required interaction with said genetically dictated instructions. Then along came sentience, and with it, freedom of choice. An organism could now engage in thought that was, to varying degrees, independent of the DNA’s otherwise inescapable directives. But the DNA is still there, still attempting to dictate the organism’s behavior. We sense these attempts to dictate and/or modify our behavior. We call them “feelings.” It is our feelings that drive a sense of spirit: Team spirit; she is a spirited person. I'll get back to this.

Religion is nothing more than lazy science gone bad. Ancient peoples questioned the world around them. Okay, so far, so good. They attempted to come up with explanations: invisible sky gods. So far, so good, the scientific process is still being followed at this stage. They attempted to test their explanations: paint yak blood on the 3rd big red rock just south of the oak tree where the river branches and it will rain 4 days later. The scientific process is still being followed. Yak blood painted, no rain 4 days later, the invisible sky gods must be upset. Ohhhh. Bad science! The assumption that the invisible sky gods existed pretty much ruined everything, and this is where theism is born. And theism grows. And grows. Soon, it is a thriving business, and it really gets a cash boost when it efficiently condenses polytheism into monotheism in the majority of cases. And theism gets it’s filthy little fingers into just about every last nook and cranny. It pollutes everything. Notably, religion. Religion ceases to be a way of life, instead becoming a belief that supposedly guides your life. This has gone on for such a long time that the common perception of religion assumes theistic association. I have no ideas on how to accomplish this, but if there is a way to stop being so slipshod with our language that we allow such associations to continue, we should pursue it. This seems wise to me. And Ron Stringfield, you are wrong, especially your remark about faith.

Back to spirituality. Theism has polluted this concept as well. Use the word spirit or spiritualism these days and the typical assumption is that you are referring to some kind of ghost, or arranging candles so as to contact some mystical entity, or something along those lines. Clean up the theism pollution and it becomes clear that spiritualism is nothing more than being aware that you have feelings. In other words, spiritualism is something that you practice every moment you possess sentience. You can’t not practice spiritualism.

So, pokeyfokey, I translate your question to literally mean “Is it possible to be a skeptic and still have feelings?” The answer is, of course it is. What you really meant to ask instead of tip-toeing through the tulips was “Is it possible to be a skeptic and be [moslem/christian/catholic/etc]?” The answer is, “Yes, but your skeptical skills leave plenty of room for development if you can believe in something for which there is absolutely not even the slightest shred of evidence. Keep trying though, and good fortune to you. Your willingness to honestly and earnestly consider the idea that not everything you have been taught is true does you credit, and you are to be encouraged in your pursuit of skepticism.”

The original question seems to have developed into something of a debate that does not address the original question. I am leary of joining in that, but I can’t help but notice some, shall we say, inconsistencies and bad form. I’ll make this quick.

What is the difference between believing in a “true” skeptic and believing in, oh, say, the christian god? Answer: No difference whatsoever.

What is the difference between atheism and theism? Answer: No difference whatsoever. They both require you to believe in something you are unable to prove or for which you can provide evidence. On a personal note, I recommend ignosticism. It is, so far as I know, the only answer to the god question which survives the scrutiny of the scientific process.