July 04, 2010
Skepticism and Religion
Paul Kurtz
Paul Kurtz talks about how skepticism is continuous with the methods of science, and why skepticism and science should apply to religion. He explains why he rejects the traditional is/ought distinction in the philosophy of science, and why he rejects the NOMA theory. He posits that skepticism can be warranted in investigating claims of religion, including the claim that God exists. Regarding “untestable” religious claims, he suggests that if a supernatural or paranormal claim is untestable, it ought not be believed. He shares some reasons why he is generally skeptical of religion after looking into its various claims, including reasons resulting from historical criticism, psychology, and philosophy. He explains why he thinks a closed-minded atheist who rejects religion without investigation is similar to a religious believer who accepts religious claims on faith. He discusses the great skeptics Martin Gardner and Anthony Flew and their belief in God, and why they believed despite the lack of evidence. He discusses deism, and why skepticism is warranted in the face of no evidence either way. He describes pragmatic reasons one may avoid pronouncing skepticism of God. And he reveals why he often prefers other terms than “atheism” to describe his religious skepticism.
Recommended Reading
Links of Interest
- Subscribe via iTunes
- Connect with For Good Reason on Facebook
& Twitter
- Support the James Randi Educational Foundation
- © Copyright 2010 For Good Reason
- Produced in association with the JREF
- info@forgoodreason.org
Listener Reactions
Sorry, but Paul Kurtz has lost it. He is so angry at Atheists that he has become a dogmatic person. Who are these “fundamental atheists who reject religion without investigation”? Name them, Paul. Give us evidence that this is not just a straw-man argument.
“He explains why he thinks a closed-minded atheist who rejects religion without investigation is similar to a religious believer who accepts religious claims on faith.”
Since most openly reject Santa Clause, the stork, zombies, and vampires, etc., does that make doubters “closed minded” or on even footing with believers who accept those claims without proof that they’re valid? How much effort and time researching and studying is necessary to reject outrageous and unprovable claims anyway? Does a person seriously need to read everything written about zombies in order to reject that they exist? If they reject the need to research, is it fair to label that person as “closed minded” and parallel to zombie believers? Ridiculous!
Paul Kurtz expressed scientific views with remarkble clarity and futuristic outlook.
Young generation should follow his thought