If you haven’t read my previous series of blogs, I strongly recommend going back and starting at the beginning and working your way through to this one. That will give you a good idea of why I am now such an advocate for science and skepticism.
For those of you who haven’t been following along, I used to hold some really terrible ideas. Ideas that I had no justification to hold other than the fact that I was simply trying to force my worldview to fit reality. My belief that the world was six thousand (or so) years old required me to deny the nearly 97% scientific consensus on the theory of evolution by natural selection. This caused me to distrust the scientific community—except when the science seemed to confirm what I already believed—and inevitably led me to believe in a whole swarm of conspiracy theories and pseudosciences.
I’m not going to sit here and claim that now that I’m an atheist, I have ‘found the truth.’ By saying that I’m an atheist, I’m not making the claim that there are no gods and that this is purely a materialistic universe. I’m simply stating that I do not see evidence for any gods or anything supernatural. That could very well change tomorrow, and I would change my mind. After all, if you’ve read my blogs, you’d see that I made every excuse in the book to hang onto my faith. In the end, I just had to be honest with myself.
I remember, as a Christian, thinking that atheism was the belief that no gods exist. I remember thinking it was just another faith-based belief system, trading one faith for another — which, ironically, is a sweeping admission that faith isn’t such a noble thing. I’d make statements like ‘even the atheist is using faith because they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist!’ That seems to be one of the fundamental issues with those who don’t understand how science works.
Science
“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.” —Carl Sagan
When engaging with science deniers, I’m often met with the criticism that scientists are arrogant. Which is hilarious to me because there’s no discipline that fosters humility more than science. Without people who are willing to admit their ignorance, there would be no science. If we already knew the answer, as the religious so often claim, what would be the point of seeking it? So, who is arrogant, again?
Another criticism of science is the fact that it sometimes gets things wrong, so how can we trust it? However, the very fact that science acknowledges its mistakes is precisely why we should trust it. Scientific knowledge is provisional, and this constant process of refining and correcting is a strength of science. It does not mean that anyone’s guess is as good as scientific knowledge. That’s an important distinction to make!
In his book, The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience, Lee McIntyre argues that what distinguishes science from its rivals is what he calls “the scientific attitude” – caring about evidence and being willing to change theories based on new evidence.
Those of you with a background in science or a keen interest in the subject, like me, may be familiar with the demarcation problem. This problem lies at the core of McIntyre’s book and deals with the challenge of distinguishing between science and non-science, specifically pseudoscience. The demarcation problem has been a longstanding debate among philosophers of science and scientists for centuries, and various attempts have been made to address it.
One such attempt is known as Methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism seeks to address the assumption underlying philosophical naturalism, which posits that only the natural world exists and the supernatural is inherently impossible. Methodological naturalism imposes limitations on scientific research, confining it to the study of natural causes. This approach is taken because any attempts to establish causal relationships with the supernatural have historically proven unproductive and have led to scientific dead ends and God-of-the-gaps hypotheses.
It’s worth acknowledging that methodological naturalism is an assumption within the realm of science. However, as mentioned earlier, it is a necessary one based on the reasons outlined above.
Indeed, there have been several notable attempts to tackle the demarcation problem, including logical positivism, paradigm shifts, and NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Another significant approach is falsifiability, as advocated by Karl Popper and others. According to this perspective, for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be potentially falsifiable in principle. In other words, there should exist empirical observations or experiments that could, at least hypothetically, prove the theory wrong.
Popper’s criterion of falsifiability helps distinguish scientific claims from those that are unfalsifiable or non-scientific. Ideas or claims that cannot be tested or potentially refuted through evidence are often referred to as “science stoppers.” Falsifiability serves as an important criterion in scientific inquiry, encouraging the formulation of testable hypotheses and the continuous refinement of scientific knowledge.
In a chapter of his book titled ‘The Dragon in My Garage’ from ‘A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,’ Carl Sagan presents an analogy to illustrate the concept of an unfalsifiable claim. The analogy begins with the claim, ‘A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.’ When asked to provide evidence of the dragon’s existence, the garage contains only ordinary items such as a ladder, empty paint cans, and an old tricycle, but no dragon. The claimant then asserts that the dragon is invisible. To test this, it is suggested to spread flour on the floor to detect the dragon’s footsteps. However, the claimant dismisses each proposed test with ad-hoc reasoning, offering reasons why they would not work. This fallacious tactic is employed solely to dismiss any tests or arguments against the claim. As Sagan writes, ‘What’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?’ The analogy demonstrates that unfalsifiable claims, such as the dragon in the garage, ultimately rely on belief in the absence of evidence based solely on one person’s say-so.
The purpose of Sagan’s analogy is not to assert that the dragon or any other unfalsifiable claim does not exist, but rather to emphasize the importance of not believing something without adequate evidence. The analogy serves to demonstrate that we should withhold belief until sufficient evidence is presented. If evidence were to emerge in the future, that would be the appropriate time to reconsider our position. Since the claim of a dragon in the garage cannot be tested within the confines of science, it falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry, and therefore it is prudent to adopt an agnostic stance.
Going back to my time as a Christian and my notion that my worldview was, at least, as valid as the atheist’s simply because the atheist couldn’t disprove it, was a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Using the dragon analogy, and applying the same logic, the claim of the dragon’s existence would be considered valid simply because the skeptic couldn’t disprove it. However, as we see in the analogy, this goes against the essence of the scientific method. While it is true that the dragon or God might exist, a good skeptic would never assert that they do not. Instead, until we have reason to believe in their existence (evidence), it is more rational to withhold our belief regarding these claims. The burden of proof lies not on the skeptic to prove a claim false, but on the claimant to provide evidence in support of their claim.
Skepticism
A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.
—Steven Novella
It’s important to note that there are two distinct kinds of skepticism: philosophical skepticism and scientific skepticism. Philosophical skepticism asserts that we cannot know anything and promotes permanent doubt. However, when discussing skepticism in this context, I am referring to scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism, as defined by RationalWiki, is “the art of constantly questioning and doubting claims and assertions, and recognizing the fundamental importance of accumulating evidence.” Scientific skepticism is closely aligned with the core principles of science and the scientific attitude. Science relies on skepticism to drive inquiry and ensure the rigorous evaluation of claims based on available evidence.
Skepticism also shouldn’t be confused with cynicism. Cynicism is often referred to as pseudo-skepticism. Cynics are generally the type of people who buy into conspiracy theories. As Steven Novella writes in his book, “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe”: “We are not contrarians who reflexively oppose all mainstream opinions. The term ‘skeptic’ has also been hijacked by deniers who want to be viewed as genuine skeptics (asking the hard and uncomfortable questions) but are really just pursuing an agenda of denial for ideological reasons.” Often, climate change deniers will try to label themselves as “skeptics,” when in reality, they are simply denying an overwhelming scientific consensus, often “for ideological reasons.” In fact, the skeptic’s main job is to sniff out and expose pseudoscience for what it is. (If you’ve never heard of James “The Amazing” Randi, you should go look him up and watch some of his videos on YouTube.)
Often, skeptics (and atheists) are accused of being ‘closed-minded,’ but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The reason I have changed my mind on so many of my deeply held beliefs is precisely because I am open and committed to the truth. When I first set out on this journey to seek the truth, I made the conscious decision not to hold any idea, belief, or position too tightly. I committed myself to following the evidence wherever it led. When it came to my religious beliefs, it just so happened to lead me to atheism.
One criticism I have faced is being accused of being gullible. However, gullibility is the opposite of skepticism. Scientists, critical thinkers, and skeptics should be open-minded, but only in proportion to the evidence.
Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, not so open that your brains fall out.
—Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Being open-minded also means being open to the possibility that we may be wrong. Ironically, when I was a Christian and accused atheists of being closed-minded, I was the one being closed-minded as I wasn’t willing to consider the possibility that there might not be a God, despite claiming otherwise. A truly open-minded person, in proportion to the evidence, accepts the conclusion that a claim is false or a phenomenon does not exist and is willing to change their mind. This principle applies in both directions.
A skeptic should also be well aware of the various ways our brains can deceive us. Another criticism of science is the claim that scientists are often biased. One of the most prevalent biases is confirmation bias:
When I was working as an intern in the emergency room on a particularly busy night, a nurse noted how frantic the ER was. She then commented to the room, “It’s a zoo here tonight. Is there a full moon out?” The answer was no, no full moon. She responded with a shrug and went about her business. To her that was an uninteresting nonevent, but if there had, by chance, been a full moon, that would have powerfully confirmed her prior belief that the ER is busier under maximum lunar influences. This is why confirmation bias has such a strong effect. It gives us the confident illusion that we are following the evidence. In reality, our beliefs are manufacturing the evidence. In the end we may be extremely confident in a totally false belief.” —Steven Novella, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World That’s Increasingly Full of Fake
When I was a creationist, I would accuse ‘Darwinian Evolutionists’ of being biased in their assessment of the data, claiming that they reject the idea of a creator and therefore must accept that life arose through natural processes. However, I failed to recognize my own bias, commonly known as belief bias. Charles Darwin and proponents of his theory didn’t arrive at the conclusion of natural selection because they rejected God, but rather in proportion to the overwhelming evidence available. As I will discuss in an upcoming blog post, evolution by natural selection is one of the most extensively supported theories in science. We understand evolution better than we understand gravity, which, by the way, is also just a theory. As Richard Dawkins once said, ‘Evolution is just a theory? Well, so is gravity, and I don’t see you jumping out of buildings.’
Conclusion
To be absolutely clear, my atheism is a provisional position. I am open to changing my mind about my lack of belief in a deity if presented with sufficient reason, supported by evidence or sound argument. However, thus far, I have not encountered a compelling argument or evidence that would lead me to believe in a deity. Therefore, based on the current information available to me, I identify as an atheist.
On the other hand, my skepticism is not provisional. Skepticism is not a position; it is a way of thinking about the world. Scientific skepticism is the method I rely on to determine what is true and what is false about reality. While my skepticism led me to atheism, it is important to acknowledge that it can also lead me back to theism if sufficient evidence or compelling arguments are presented. I identify as an atheist, but I prefer to label myself as a skeptic because it aligns with my commitment to critical thinking and questioning. I firmly believe in the value of skepticism and will continue to embrace it in my approach to understanding the world.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, philosophical skepticism encompasses the notion that absolute knowledge about anything is unattainable. In philosophical terms, regarding the existence of gods and all things supernatural, I consider myself an agnostic. While I identify as an atheist due to my lack of belief in gods, I acknowledge my agnostic stance in recognizing the possibility of a god concept that I would believe in if I had access to knowledge that is currently unavailable to me.
Again, scientific skepticism, while sharing similarities with philosophical skepticism, is distinct in several ways. You may be familiar with the phrase “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, in the realm of scientific skepticism, this notion is not necessarily applicable. In “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe,” Steven Novella discusses logical fallacies, including the fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam, or the argument from ignorance. In this section of the book, he emphasizes that “while this statement may sound catchy, it is not entirely accurate. The absence of evidence can indeed be considered as evidence of absence, but it does not provide absolute proof of absence.”
He further explains, “You cannot definitively prove the non-existence of something, but the more extensive your search for it without success, the less likely it becomes to exist. Although we have not yet discovered any signals from extraterrestrial beings, considering the vastness of the universe and our limited exploration, it remains a possibility. Conversely, after decades of thorough investigations, we have found no evidence of a large creature like Nessie in Loch Ness. Therefore, I am not optimistic about the existence of such a creature lurking beneath the waves. In any case, when making a positive claim, it is essential to provide positive evidence specifically supporting that claim. The absence of alternative explanations simply means that we do not have an answer—it does not grant us the liberty to fabricate a specific explanation.”
Much like in “The Dragon in my Garage” analogy, it may be true that Nessie is a magical creature that appears when skeptics aren’t around and hides when skeptics are present. However, unfortunately, this is just another example of ad-hoc reasoning. It is simply an attempt to explain away the absence of supporting evidence, and any argument presented can be dismissed with an ad-hoc reason, solely to undermine the counterargument or falsification test.
Skepticism isn’t limited to examining supernatural claims; it can be applied to various aspects of our lives. In a world filled with deceptive practices, skepticism becomes crucial when evaluating claims, whether they involve alternative medicine or fake news stories. As an advocate for science and skepticism, I resonate with Matt Dillahunty’s statement of wanting to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible. It’s not only a personal desire but also a hope for a world where others embrace this principle. And I hope you share that sentiment as well.
Please, join me.
In the coming weeks, the plan is to do some deep dives into some topics that are often referred to as “woo”, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. My point is not necessarily to “debunk” these things, but rather, to look at these things with an open-mind and carefully evaluate them with a critical eye and a healthy dose of skepticism.
As James “The Amazing Randi” once said, “I am not a debunker, and don’t take that title lightly (Tom), because if I were a debunker, I would start these investigations with “this is not so and I’m going to prove it”, I can’t afford that attitude. So I’m an investigator, rather than a debunker.”
As always, stay tuned!
Image credit: https://www.sott.net/image/s21/432791/full/skepticism.png
Nathan The Skeptic 
