I like this film and much of what I see from the Skeptics Society. I’ve even been to some lectures sponsored by the group. However, I am often not a fan of Shermer on the subject of religion. I disagree with him on the correct skeptical position with regard to god. He believes the skeptics position to be agnosticism. I don’t see enough evidence to give any credence at all to that hypothesis. Consider these two.
God Fire-Breathing Dragon ======================== ============================= Much literature about Much literature about dragons god(s) Makes a good film Makes a good film character. character No evidence of any god No evidence of fire-breathing ever having existed. dragons ever having existed.
So, exactly why do we give credence to one hypothesis but not the other? I give equal weight to all hypotheses for which there is not a shred of evidence. Hence, I am an atheist. Shermer calls himself a skeptic and has created the Skeptics Society. Yet, for some reason, he gives some level of credence to the god hypothesis, at least enough for doubt. Anyway, this film was quite good in my opinion and has no mention of atheism versus agnosticism, so does not bug me.