Deepak Chopra attacks Skepticism

[Eilonnwy]

Skepticism is about reserving judgment until proper evidence presents itself.

I would agree, but I think there is more to it. We may just have slightly different definitions of skepticism. I think honest skepticism is more about reserving absolute judgment, a complete decision, indefinatley. That doubt is the basis, but not the totality of a skeptical view.

Hold judgment indefinitely? So essentially everything is "up in the air"? So in essence are we unsure the earth is revolving around the sun? I don't know...do we have enough evidence?

You have it wrong. There is no such thing as absolute truth and I think it's naive to think you must know absolutely before accepting something as true. We cannot suspend judgment indefinitely, especially when we need to make decisions based on what we know. We need to try to accept things as true that has the most reliable evidence, and should that evidence change and prove false, then we should change our acceptance of something as true. Are think you are muddying the waters of skepticism when you say it's about doubting, and that we must hold judgment indefinitely.

But I know that is a debate we may never resolve, and I appreciate your right to think anything you want to about modern terrorism and Americana.

I guess we should just leave it at that. I don't want to continue beating a dead horse, but simply point out as an example that just doubting for the sake of doubting is not skepticism. We must and have made judgments based on what side has the best most reliable scientific evidence. Prove your case scientifically, and I will change my mind.

I personally don't think you can be a true skeptic if you believe in god, only because the act of believing on faith is completely in opposition to what a skeptic is.

There is that strange separation again. An atheist is not holding a belief, a view, an idea or an opinion. An atheist is by default seeing reality as it must be, full stop, end transmission... To think you are indelibly correct is a fault, and in glaring opposition to an honestly skeptical view. You don't-believe what you want, I will believe what I want, and on that playing field, I am sure to your disagreement, we are level.

Stop creating a straw man. I never once said that an atheist somehow knows everything about reality and is not a belief.

Atheism is a belief, however it is not a belief based on faith. Skepticism demands evidence before accepting something as true, and I don't think you can pick and choose what you accept on faith and what you accept on evidence and claim to be a skeptic. Obviously I think atheism is the logically correct view because there is no evidence for God, this is consistent with skepticism. However I'm not saying atheism is absolutely true and enjoys some special status as not being a belief. It absolutely is. (It's not a religion, however). I have consistently stated I am an agnostic atheist, I accept the fact that I cannot know if there is no God, but based on the lack of evidence (And some evidence in my mind that disproves God) I find it to be more reasonable than not that there are no God(s). I have never once said "I am correct, everything I say is true".

I have only ever said I have based what I believe on the evidence, show me good evidence to the contrary, and I'll change my mind. Your beliefs are based on what you accept as true, and I do the best that I can to base my beliefs on good scientific evidence. That's what makes me a skeptic, not just doubting for doubts sake. I doubt because I want honest inquiry and good evidence before accepting something as true. So please, don't accuse me of something I haven't done and create a straw man out of what I stated.

I also stated this issue about God is a personal opinion and a point of contention with the skeptical community at-large. I did not claim it as something that all skeptics agree on. However my point about believing something based on the evidence, that's a staple of skepticism.