Skepticism - healthy or not?

[QED]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Unfortunately the subject is so sensitive and people have such emotional ties to it that I fear the way to honest and open research is utterly blocked despite the fact that there is a plentiful supply of interesting research material available. Like countless others, I would like to know the real story behind Christianity but I fear that I never will because of the huge amount of inertia in the subject.

I find this frustrating and disappointing. But after 2000 years of heavy investment it appears that Christians have painted themselves into a corner and are unable to move from it despite the phenomenal wealth of written material and forensic-style investigation techniques available. This leads me to three questions:

1) Is skepticism an unreasonable approach to Christianity?
2) Would a less rigid approach to the subject make Christianity more generally acceptable?
3) Is there a concerted effort going on to establish the real story behind Christianity?

[trencacloscas]

You can compare skepticism to a good medicine. It may taste bitter but it would purge your body from the illness and the superfluous.

As a source of knowledge, skepticism is the most valuable tool. It transforms the fancy ideas into verifiable data.

[QED]

There is a word that I am thinking of: preposterous.

It would be preposterous for someone to tell me that they have experienced something remarkable in which, as part of the experience, it was revealed to them that nobody would be able to verify what had happened. Notice that this is significantly different to someone just telling me that they have had a remarkable experience.

Why should these two cases be handled in the same way? The idea that some human is allowed to make such a claim and have it upheld simply because it seems right strikes me as just plain silly. Humans are just too inventive and imaginative. But anyone claiming to have received a divine revelation seems to be automatically handed out a pass.

I think that what is happening is that we have collectively invented a 'big picture' (one that provides explanations and comforts) and that a constant working-over of this concept has allowed people to recognize pieces of the puzzle as and when they are delivered by some apostle or prophet. The fact that each piece fits the puzzle is taken as an indication of its validity, and the entire scene comes together by consensus. But all this does not necessarily bear any relation to reality, it remains a 'hunch', much like every other primitive theory that has been put forward about the world.

Notice that the construct also has many built-in defences warning of doubting Thomases and false prophets. This is no more sophisticated than the childish favorite of "Pinch and a punch for the first of the month, and no returns." In other words the first people to plant their flag on the hilltop get to claim the territory as theirs. All it reflects is the fact that people have been inspired towards a particular idea and not that the idea itself is correct.

[Dilettante]

I agree, QED. Let's remember that faith is not knowledge, but at best a lucky guess (if it turns out to be true). I don't understand why skeptics have such a bad reputation with some believers. It's true that Jesus praised those who had faith, but he didn't disown Thomas after all...

[israeltour]

I agree, QED. Let's remember that faith is not knowledge, but at best a lucky guess (if it turns out to be true).

That's debatable. If I perceive God and you do not, then for me it would be knowledge, but for you a lucky guess.

I don't understand why skeptics have such a bad reputation with some believers.

Because skeptics generally deny what I perceive, deny that I'm perceiving it, or deny that it's anything more than my own wishful thinking. Then, they tell me how they think He should be, having never perceived Him themself. Even skeptics don't have every detail of the universe worked out in their minds, and I can accept that... but they don't afford me the same luxury. If I cannot answer a question to their satisfaction, they think they've made their point.

It's true that Jesus praised those who had faith, but he didn't disown Thomas after all...

No, He didn't, and in a similar vein, He hasn't disowned me.

[Dilettante]

israeltour wrote:

That's debatable. If I perceive God and you do not, then for me it would be knowledge, but for you a lucky guess.

What's your definition of "knowledge"? In my book, knowledge involves more than perceptions (perceptions and reality too often disagree). It involves truth, proof and conviction. If you can't prove something, is it knowledge? I don't think so. Even if your belief in God is true, if you cannot give good reasons for it, if you cannot support it rationally, you cannot call it knowledge according to my definition.

Because skeptics generally deny what I perceive, deny that I'm perceiving it, or deny that it's anything more than my own wishful thinking. Then, they tell me how they think He should be, having never perceived Him themself. Even skeptics don't have every detail of the universe worked out in their minds, and I can accept that... but they don't afford me the same luxury. If I cannot answer a question to their satisfaction, they think they've made their point.

There are many kinds of skeptics. Some may try to tell you what to think, but I would say most are just asking people to question their own beliefs, which is a healthy thing to do from time to time. Skeptics don't necessarily know everything. There's nothing wrong in saying "I don't know". Other skeptics may be convinced that an all-powerful, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is logically impossible. To them, trying to persuade you of their point of view is actually a sign of respect for you. But of course you may have only encountered disrespectful skeptics so far. In this forum, however, you can find some very respectful and intelligent skeptics.
If the skeptic's point is that God is unknowable, and you can't answer his/her questions about God, I do think they have made their point.

[israeltour]

israeltour wrote:

That's debatable. If I perceive God and you do not, then for me it would be knowledge, but for you a lucky guess.

What's your definition of "knowledge"? In my book, knowledge involves more than perceptions (perceptions and reality too often disagree). It involves truth, proof and conviction. If you can't prove something, is it knowledge? I don't think so.

On the surface, I agree. To clarify where we part, you need to add to your definition that something must be proveable to a 3rd party. For me on the other hand, the fact that I cannot prove to you what has been proven to me doesn't disqualify something as knowledge.

Even if your belief in God is true, if you cannot give good reasons for it, if you cannot support it rationally, you cannot call it knowledge according to my definition.

Again, we agree on the surface. After all, I believe I have good reasons, and I believe I am being rational. If faith were nothing but a guess, then it would be irrational. Experience and prayer, tesing the spirits, etc. have all shown me He is real. You either need to consider me irrational, accept my experience as evidence and knowledge, or clarify your definition more.

Because skeptics generally deny what I perceive, deny that I'm perceiving it, or deny that it's anything more than my own wishful thinking. Then, they tell me how they think He should be, having never perceived Him themself. Even skeptics don't have every detail of the universe worked out in their minds, and I can accept that... but they don't afford me the same luxury. If I cannot answer a question to their satisfaction, they think they've made their point.

There are many kinds of skeptics. Some may try to tell you what to think, but I would say most are just asking people to question their own beliefs, which is a healthy thing to do from time to time. Skeptics don't necessarily know everything. There's nothing wrong in saying "I don't know". Other skeptics may be convinced that an all-powerful, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is logically impossible. To them, trying to persuade you of their point of view is actually a sign of respect for you.

This is appreciated, and I hope I've shown respect back. I'll also acknowledge that intentions can get lost in the written word.

But of course you may have only encountered disrespectful skeptics so far. In this forum, however, you can find some very respectful and intelligent skeptics.

Most of them I would say are intelligent and respectful. My description is more a characterization of how a skeptic's good intentions often come off, though accidentally I believe. The result is bad feelings where its unnecessary. On the other side, some Christians who humbly submit to Jesus end up coming off like exclusionists. It goes both ways.

If the skeptic's point is that God is unknowable, and you can't answer his/her questions about God, I do think they have made their point.

If that's their point, that I can agree, depending on their definition of "unknowable". I feel I know God intimately, but I admit that it is only in the way my 3 year old son knows me. My son cannot possibly comprehend me in my totality. He doesn't realize what I think, or how it is I can do anything he asks, or pick up anything in the house, etc. Yet, he knows me intimately. Suppose a 6 year old child realizes that my son doesn't "know" me as well as he thinks, that I need an iPod to remember his birthday for example. What does it change? I'm still His daddy, and my son will understand the rest one day.

[QED]

If the skeptic's point is that God is unknowable, and you can't answer his/her questions about God, I do think they have made their point.

If that's their point, that I can agree, depending on their definition of "unknowable". I feel I know God intimately, but I admit that it is only in the way my 3 year old son knows me. My son cannot possibly comprehend me in my totality. He doesn't realize what I think, or how it is I can do anything he asks, or pick up anything in the house, etc. Yet, he knows me intimately. Suppose a 6 year old child realizes that my son doesn't "know" me as well as he thinks, that I need an iPod to remember his birthday for example. What does it change? I'm still His daddy, and my son will understand the rest one day.

That's a wonderful way to explain your point, however it runs into a real-world problem: the quality of knowledge attainable. It's perfectly plausible that the knowledge you have is flawed. This could easily permit an improper interpretation of that which you sense. All experience of reality is an interpretation and it only takes one misconception to color an entire set of data the wrong way.

You mention that "the fact that I cannot prove to you what has been proven to me doesn't disqualify something as knowledge". I would argue that this has to be considered irrational as people use knowledge to justify their actions and such private knowledge would be indistinguishable from any other arbitrary flight of fancy.

[Cephus]

That's debatable. If I perceive God and you do not, then for me it would be knowledge, but for you a lucky guess.

But is it knowledge or is it just the acceptance of something you THINK you experienced?

Because skeptics generally deny what I perceive, deny that I'm perceiving it, or deny that it's anything more than my own wishful thinking. Then, they tell me how they think He should be, having never perceived Him themself. Even skeptics don't have every detail of the universe worked out in their minds, and I can accept that... but they don't afford me the same luxury. If I cannot answer a question to their satisfaction, they think they've made their point.

Then maybe you need to examine your beliefs and your claims of experience closer. If someone made exactly the same claims to you about another deity, would you take them seriously? After all, Christians aren't the only ones who claim to 'experience' their god.

Here's something to consider: how do you know that God is God? How do you know that what you experience as God isn't really the 'devil' of another pantheon, sent to lead you astray from the one true god? How could you logically tell the difference?

[israeltour]

That's debatable. If I perceive God and you do not, then for me it would be knowledge, but for you a lucky guess.

But is it knowledge or is it just the acceptance of something you THINK you experienced?

Because skeptics generally deny what I perceive, deny that I'm perceiving it, or deny that it's anything more than my own wishful thinking. Then, they tell me how they think He should be, having never perceived Him themself. Even skeptics don't have every detail of the universe worked out in their minds, and I can accept that... but they don't afford me the same luxury. If I cannot answer a question to their satisfaction, they think they've made their point.

Then maybe you need to examine your beliefs and your claims of experience closer. If someone made exactly the same claims to you about another deity, would you take them seriously? After all, Christians aren't the only ones who claim to 'experience' their god.

Here's something to consider: how do you know that God is God? How do you know that what you experience as God isn't really the 'devil' of another pantheon, sent to lead you astray from the one true god? How could you logically tell the difference?

I have no harder a time with that than you.

[israeltour]

If the skeptic's point is that God is unknowable, and you can't answer his/her questions about God, I do think they have made their point.

If that's their point, that I can agree, depending on their definition of "unknowable". I feel I know God intimately, but I admit that it is only in the way my 3 year old son knows me. My son cannot possibly comprehend me in my totality. He doesn't realize what I think, or how it is I can do anything he asks, or pick up anything in the house, etc. Yet, he knows me intimately. Suppose a 6 year old child realizes that my son doesn't "know" me as well as he thinks, that I need an iPod to remember his birthday for example. What does it change? I'm still His daddy, and my son will understand the rest one day.

That's a wonderful way to explain your point, however it runs into a real-world problem: the quality of knowledge attainable. It's perfectly plausible that the knowledge you have is flawed. This could easily permit an improper interpretation of that which you sense. All experience of reality is an interpretation and it only takes one misconception to color an entire set of data the wrong way.

You mention that "the fact that I cannot prove to you what has been proven to me doesn't disqualify something as knowledge". I would argue that this has to be considered irrational as people use knowledge to justify their actions and such private knowledge would be indistinguishable from any other arbitrary flight of fancy.

Given the track record of my "knowledge", it would be irrational for me to ignore it.