“In the end I think that what you ultimately do believe has to come into play in some fashion when identifying someoen as a skeptic”

Yes, in some fashion. But it is why you believe that matters. I wrote:

“A skeptic is a person committed to a method, not a person who accepts or rejects some laundry list of claims.”

Do you agree with that or not?

If you don’t, then it seems to me you are committing “skeptics” to dogmatism, which is to bastardize skepticism.

Hey, is this thing on?

Yes, he is saying that purely unfalsifiable claims are not within the “scope” of science. But he is not saying that they are off limits. Just grab the pliers and get to work.

To quote, “I am most definitely not seeking to tell people what to write about and what to stay away from. Not only would that be futile, but it is contrary to the spirit of open inquiry that I hold as one of my highest ideals.”

Now, you disagree with his assertion that science cannot address unfalsifiable claims. You say, “…science can and does address unfalsifiable claims and readily discounts them with ease.” I challenge you to support that statement.

As a final note to this point, I agree that some specific groups may chose to ghettoize atheism, and I think it can be hypocritical of them to do so. But I do not think Pigliucci’s article, interpreted correctly, supports this idea.
————-
“So I’m only pointing out that with Unbeguiled’s standard of skepticism that allows theists in the club, even truthers and antivaxxers could be considered ‘real skeptics’.”

You’re being too glib with your use of the word “theist.” Just because UnB said some theists could be skeptics does not mean all theists could be skeptics. I defined what I meant by a theist who could be skeptically consistent, then you come back at me with this: “Sure, you can point out that most theists who identify as scientific are likely the wish-washy sort, but not all science-accepting theists are wishy-washy—see Francis Collins, for instance.” I would not count Francis Collins as a consistent skeptic. One can be a practicing scientist and a science-accepting theist but not be a “scientific skeptic,” by which I mean someone who applies the skeptical spanner to all aspects of his or her life.

Answering the question of whether or not a person’s beliefs fit into the definition of skepticism requires two things: 1. That we have some working definition of what skepticism actually means, 2. That we know very specifically what the beliefs in question are. Applying the boilerplate label “theism” doesn’t cut it in regards to criterion 2. (Side note: Pigliucci’s blog post was making a stab at criterion 1, but that’s the domain of the argument above.)

Some theists, under closer examination, might have a consistently skeptical view. Okay, cool with me. Most don’t. I think there’s an open question as to how theistic a person can be and still be considered a skeptic. And I tentatively agree that one cannot be a Christian and be a skeptic. Anyone who fits your analogy with truthers/antivaxxers is right out, so we can stop bringing them up.

And I think addressing your thought experiment might require a trifucation, so I’ll leave that alone for now.

And I have to disagree with your last point, Flavin. Unbeguiled pointed out that someone can be a skeptic and be wrong about an issue in regards to theism—and in those cases both recognize the other as a committed scientifically minded person who has simply made an error. With that understanding, even a truther or antivaxxer could be considered a skeptic, provided they are in general committed to the scientific method and understand what it is—they are just wrong about one particular issue. So I’m only pointing out that with Unbeguiled’s standard of skepticism that allows theists in the club, even truthers and antivaxxers could be considered “real skeptics”.

Sure, you can point out that most theists who identify as scientific are likely the wish-washy sort, but not all science-accepting theists are wishy-washy—see Francis Collins, for instance. In fact, I’d argue that anyone who identifies specifically as a Christian is committed to so many problematic factual historical and empirical claims as a result that you very well could see them as those who “actively contradict facts and evidence in support of an ideology” in the same way the antivaxxers and truthers usually do.

But as a thought experiment, suppose James Randi (or your equivalent skeptical idol, Carl Sagan could just as easily do) believed everything he currently believes, was a fixture in the skeptical movement and immensely important to its development, and so on, but happened to believe in one silly thing: namely, that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. I doubt you’d then say he’s not a skeptic. You’d probably say he’s wrong about that one issue, but for the most part he’s a skeptic. That’s my only point. And I think we can all agree that if he tried to argue that the scope of skepticism should not extend to conspiracy theories, we’d laugh him out of the room. If only the same were true of religion!

Where I think your argument has more merit is in regards to something you mentioned in your comment response. “Many skeptical organizations are well-known for distancing themselves from atheism or else insisting that one need not be an atheist to be a skeptic. The New England Skeptical Society is a well-known example, and so is the James Randi Educational Forum.” I think you didn’t treat this topic fully enough in the original post, but it is an idea with which I agree.

After making reference to the creationist who invokes the “God made the Earth look old” argument, you continue, “The problem, of course, is that this could extend to any realm of inquiry traditionally seen as within the scope of skeptical inquiry. If believers in cryptofauna like bigfoot and Nessie protected their claims from inquiry by saying, such as they do, that we would not expect to see evidence of their existence even if we looked, clearly we cannot scientifically address such a claim. Nevertheless, no skeptical organization is thus busy rewriting its mission statement to exclude cryptozoological investigations from its scope of inquiry; atheism, on the other hand, is singled out for just this reason.”

I think, taking the example of the NESS, they regularly address and demolish unfalsifiable ideas. One that has become a running gag on their podcast is “psychic bigfoot.” They have mocked this idea and obviously consider it worthy of ridicule—rightly so—but what marks psychic bigfoot as so different from god, an idea they have defined as beyond their scope?

So… yeah. I guess you are right about that. Don’t let it go to your head because now I’ve got to fucking slam you.
————————–
UnB says, “In a situation where I disagree with another skeptic, I conclude that though the person is a committed skeptic, she has simply made an error in evaluating the evidence or in critical thinking.”

You respond, “I agree that a theist can tentatively be called a skeptic provided he demonstrates scientific capacities in most other important skeptical areas. But in that sense, so can someone who buys into 9/11 conspiracies, or who practices alternative medicine and rallies against vaccines.”

So so very false analogy. While I think your main point—that one’s position on theism does matter to ones skeptical identity and that simply because a group is about “skepticism” it must not restrict itself from religious claims—has been supported, I cannot allow you to slip in this whopper without calling you out.

There is a difference between being a certain kind of theist (read, “choosing to not accept the religious null hypothesis in the absence of contradictory evidence for some wishy-washy faith”) and being a truther or an antivaxxer (read, “actively contradicting facts and evidence in support of an ideology”). At best this argument is lazy, and at worst you’re equivocating by shifting the definition of “theist” from one side of the science-accepting spectrum to the other.

Is committment to the scientific method enough to be a skeptic? Many people understand the scientific method and claim to be committed to it yet are creationists or purveyors of medical woo. In the end I think that what you ultimately do believe has to come into play in some fashion when identifying someoen as a skeptic, otherwise there’s the possibility that a few “skeptics” will believe a wide assortment of ridiculous things, and we’d have to conclude that they are committed skeptics but just made an error in evaluating the evidence, realizing that they think the same of me. I’m more comfortable saying a skeptic is someone who is committed to the scientific method and who accepts a large portion of the generalized skeptical views concerning a laundry list of topics from religion to alternative medicine.

But imagine if the host of TAM7 had been, instead a theist, a supporter of alternative medicine or an antivaccinationist. I highly doubt anyone would then be insisting as thoroughly that these views are acceptable for a skeptic. It just seems to me that the outdated idea that we must respect religion has extended into skeptical inquiry—and thus it should be immediately stamped out.