Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

[Flail]

Jester proposed this on another thread and I found it to be a compelling challenge we should all take into consideration. Many in this forum profess to be skeptics, some more so than others, myself included. It has now been pointed out that skeptics are often the last to question their own position on a matter, perhaps to their detriment. It was suggested that we should all challenge our own positions on all matters and be skeptical of our particular positions and beliefs regardless of how strongly we hold them. This, to me seems not only logical, but a reasonable approach to relating to and communicating with one another on any topic no matter how divisive and emotional. Not only should skeptics check their positions, but non-skeptics should at least become skeptical of their own beliefs whenever possible IMO.

Question for debate:

Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

[TRANSPONDER]

Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

People should always apply healthy skepticism (what used to be called self-examination) to their own positions.

That said, it is impossible to be skeptical of skepticism because skepticism is not a position a person can hold.

A person can be skeptical of other beliefs while holding to their own beliefs. However, skepticism itself is a response to other positions, not a position itself.

It's a nice point, but I'd argue that the skepticism that the skeptic holds is not a belief position in itself, but is rather a belief in the validity of the systems that employ sketicism; that is, logic/reason and evidence/science. questionining is the process of those methods.

However, Theism and the like can be skeptical of skepticism, which is to say, denies the validity of those methods, and instead adheres to faith in revelation, either personal, through authority figures or as written in Holy Books.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Flail in post #1]
But christians and muhammadans are being hold and required to be absolutely nonsceptical about their doctrine.

It is part of their belief system that theyr duty is to belief that scepticism on their own religion is bad,bad,bad.

So they are not sceptics to spiritual adversarys, but they think it is duty to KNOW that them are wrong, or else the believer might join the unbeliever in hell.

For whatever it is worth, this is a uniquely atheist position. I have never encountered an adult Christian (or a Muslim for that matter) who would agree with anything in this post.

I'm not sure of that.I would argue that, doctrinally, Christians must believe that anyone who doubts (is skeptical of) their doctrines (holding others as theist or rejecting all as an atheist) are going to catch it hot, possibly in a literal sense for their disbelief (skepticism) otherwise their doctrines have nothing to offer as a price for abrogation of their right to have doubts and questions as skepticism of the doctrine.

Pope Benedict XVI in his Introduction to Christianity wrote, "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief;"

So the largest body of Christians in the world rejects the claim that doubt will cause someone to "catch it hot." They actually say that doubt (skepticism) is to some degree unavoidable.

Can you give an example of any significant group of Christian who disagree?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Flail in post #1]
But christians and muhammadans are being hold and required to be absolutely nonsceptical about their doctrine.

It is part of their belief system that theyr duty is to belief that scepticism on their own religion is bad,bad,bad.

So they are not sceptics to spiritual adversarys, but they think it is duty to KNOW that them are wrong, or else the believer might join the unbeliever in hell.

For whatever it is worth, this is a uniquely atheist position. I have never encountered an adult Christian (or a Muslim for that matter) who would agree with anything in this post.

I'm not sure of that.I would argue that, doctrinally, Christians must believe that anyone who doubts (is skeptical of) their doctrines (holding others as theist or rejecting all as an atheist) are going to catch it hot, possibly in a literal sense for their disbelief (skepticism) otherwise their doctrines have nothing to offer as a price for abrogation of their right to have doubts and questions as skepticism of the doctrine.

Pope Benedict XVI in his Introduction to Christianity wrote, "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief;"

So the largest body of Christians in the world rejects the claim that doubt will cause someone to "catch it hot." They actually say that doubt (skepticism) is to some degree unavoidable.

Can you give an example of any significant group of Christian who disagree?

Can you give an example of any group of Christians who claim doctrinally that allowing doubt and question to detach them from Faith are not somehow going to 'catch it hot' as I put it, even if this is just losing out on eternal life, or just having to go through a process of (UR) re -education to qualify for whatever the sect has on offer in its' brochure? And would you not agree that, if there is no such penalty, the denomination had nothing to offer other than Feelgood?

Popes, preachers and praying pundits all recognising faults, doubts and sins in no way means that these (of not redressed with repentance, prayers and a dollar in the ti, will be called upon to answer for it.

[bjs1]

Can you give an example of any group of Christians who claim doctrinally that allowing doubt and question to detach them from Faith are not somehow going to 'catch it hot' as I put it, even if this is just losing out on eternal life, or just having to go through a process of (UR) re -education to qualify for whatever the sect has on offer in its' brochure? And would you not agree that, if there is no such penalty, the denomination had nothing to offer other than Feelgood?

You have shifted positions. You start with skepticism, doubt and questions, but then shifted to detaching from the faith. Any fundamental change in a worldview (such as detaching from a faith) will have consequence; good, bad, or both.

However, skepticism is not detaching. If they were the same that would mean saying, “I have doubts about string theory” is the same as saying, “All science is false.”

Clearly skepticism is not the same as detaching from the faith, any more than being skeptical of a scientific idea is the same as detaching from all science. Real skepticism is questions the validity of ideas and why we believe what we believe. It does not guarantee any specific result.

I have provided clear evidence of a group that accepts skepticism, and while many Christians groups do not have a formal statement on the matter this is the normal position Christians take. I ask again if you can name one Christian group who disagrees.

Popes, preachers and praying pundits all recognising faults, doubts and sins in no way means that these (of not redressed with repentance, prayers and a dollar in the ti, will be called upon to answer for it.

Christianity does call for repentance from sin, which generally involves prayer. The bit about “dollar in the [tithe?]” is projection.

I know of no significant group of Christians which calls doubt a sin.

[TRANSPONDER]

Can you give an example of any group of Christians who claim doctrinally that allowing doubt and question to detach them from Faith are not somehow going to 'catch it hot' as I put it, even if this is just losing out on eternal life, or just having to go through a process of (UR) re -education to qualify for whatever the sect has on offer in its' brochure? And would you not agree that, if there is no such penalty, the denomination had nothing to offer other than Feelgood?

You have shifted positions. You start with skepticism, doubt and questions, but then shifted to detaching from the faith. Any fundamental change in a worldview (such as detaching from a faith) will have consequence; good, bad, or both.

It is the same position. But you may have shifted yours.Are not these 'consequences' equivalent to my 'catching it hot' through doubt and question that I referred to and you appeared to question?

However, skepticism is not detaching. If they were the same that would mean saying, “I have doubts about string theory” is the same as saying, “All science is false.”

(I posted) Clearly skepticism is not the same as detaching from the faith, any more than being skeptical of a scientific idea is the same as detaching from all science. Real skepticism is questions the validity of ideas and why we believe what we believe. It does not guarantee any specific result.

(and yours) I have provided clear evidence of a group that accepts skepticism, and while many Christians groups do not have a formal statement on the matter this is the normal position Christians take. I ask again if you can name one Christian group who disagrees.

You are fiddling the argument. Again I refer to my statement about 'catching it hot. Succinctly, doubt and question is ok if it is withing Faith but if it leads to wrong or non - faith then there will be 'consequences; as you said. Divine punishment or not? If not then Christianity has no stick and no carrot.

Popes, preachers and praying pundits all recognising faults, doubts and sins in no way means that these (of not redressed with repentance, prayers and a dollar in the ti, will be called upon to answer for it.

Christianity does call for repentance from sin, which generally involves prayer. The bit about “dollar in the [tithe?]” is projection.

I know of no significant group of Christians which calls doubt a sin.

Atheists do not pass the collection plate around as weekly atheist church meetings (just bring a bird and a bottle). But the point is that why would anyone need to repent of legitimate doubt and question that leads to a #'wrong' view of the dogma by this or that church, let alone losing Faith. If there were no 'consequences' (catching it hot in the sense of some divine retribution) why would anyone worry about prayer and repentance? I think you have some mental rethinking of your apparently shifted position here.

[bjs1]

You have shifted positions. You start with skepticism, doubt and questions, but then shifted to detaching from the faith. Any fundamental change in a worldview (such as detaching from a faith) will have consequence; good, bad, or both.

It is the same position.

This appears to say that skepticism or doubt is the same thing as detaching from faith.

This would mean that a worldview (such as faith) must be completely and blindly accepted, or detached from and wholeheartedly reject. There can be no middle ground. We cannot consider an idea with healthy skepticism without abandoning it entirely.

I want to assume that this is not really the position you are taking, because it is blatantly absurd. The idea that we cannot doubt a position without ultimately abandoning that position irrational. However, I can find no other meaning to these words.

Please explain further. Do you think a person can be skeptical of a position without detaching from it? If so, what is your meaning in post 15?

If not, what position do you actually hold? This would seem to make every worldview undeniable because we could never evaluate our worldview without abandoning it entirely. We could not even rightly call ourselves skeptics because would have lost the ability to be skeptical of our own skepticism.

[TRANSPONDER]

You have shifted positions. You start with skepticism, doubt and questions, but then shifted to detaching from the faith. Any fundamental change in a worldview (such as detaching from a faith) will have consequence; good, bad, or both.

It is the same position.

This appears to say that skepticism or doubt is the same thing as detaching from faith.

This would mean that a worldview (such as faith) must be completely and blindly accepted, or detached from and wholeheartedly reject. There can be no middle ground. We cannot consider an idea with healthy skepticism without abandoning it entirely.

I want to assume that this is not really the position you are taking, because it is blatantly absurd. The idea that we cannot doubt a position without ultimately abandoning that position irrational. However, I can find no other meaning to these words.

Please explain further. Do you think a person can be skeptical of a position without detaching from it? If so, what is your meaning in post 15?

If not, what position do you actually hold? This would seem to make every worldview undeniable because we could never evaluate our worldview without abandoning it entirely. We could not even rightly call ourselves skeptics because would have lost the ability to be skeptical of our own skepticism.

No,no. I referred to doubt and skepticism within the ambit of the Faith. Or I should say doctrine. If the doubt and questioning leads one to reject the doctrine, then there are various methods of heaving the doubter out the door, and if it leads away from Godfaith, then there is some punishment coming from hide the carrot of being denied heaven to the big stick of hellthreat. Is this so or not?

Indeed, from what I have seen, blind faith and unquestioning obedience is what the religious love. But some questions and doubt must be addressed, and thus dealt with. But it has to go the way they want. Anything that undermines the Dogma, never mind the faith and one can expect to 'catch it hot', on earth if not in heaven.

Skeptical or skepticism is a broad term. It can even be missapplied (as in the open minded vid explains) to those who are totally accepting of religious claims but are very sceptical of the skeptical domain of science and human logic.

I've always asked questions, and have never accepted anything just because it was Dogma. From what I have seen, religion will accept question, but one is expected to accept the answers and put doubt aside. If the doubts and questions persist the Authorities will start to lean on the skeptic.

Science as I say is based on skepticism and if that leads to a complete rethink, that's brilliant. I am a doubter and skeptic about the orthodox view of the gospels, who wrote them, what they are and how true they might be. And some atheists have got a bit shirty when I validated my point against the Orthodox view. Human nature. Even atheists are tempted to develop a theory and fight for it and not like those who doubt and question it.

[fredonly]

Jester proposed this on another thread and I found it to be a compelling challenge we should all take into consideration. Many in this forum profess to be skeptics, some more so than others, myself included. It has now been pointed out that skeptics are often the last to question their own position on a matter, perhaps to their detriment. It was suggested that we should all challenge our own positions on all matters and be skeptical of our particular positions and beliefs regardless of how strongly we hold them. This, to me seems not only logical, but a reasonable approach to relating to and communicating with one another on any topic no matter how divisive and emotional. Not only should skeptics check their positions, but non-skeptics should at least become skeptical of their own beliefs whenever possible IMO.

Question for debate:

Should skeptics be skeptical of their skepticism?

Maybe this isn't what you meant, but being skeptical of skepticism sounds like suggesting we should give weight to dogmatism. I disagree with THAT, but agree that we should generally be open-minded to the possibility we're wrong - particularly with respect to the analyses we do. But neither should we fall into the trap of extreme philosophical skepticism, where we refuse to accept anything that can't be proven with analytic truths. For example, it's reasonable to reject solipsism, in spite of the fact that neither its truth nor falsehood can be shown to have greater support. In practice, we do all have some core set of beliefs and there's nothing wrong with maintaining them as a starting point, but we should be open to argument and evidence that refutes any of those beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This nails the point that being skeptical of anything is the way to make progress, but being skeptical of skepticism are two things (just as doubt and question within the Dogma and accepting the answers, is ok, but doubting and questioning so as to depart the Dogma is absolutely not), questions of science, and philisophy and logic is how progress is made, but sketicism that takes the form of rejecting science and logic because it doesn't agree with the preferences one has is not the right way to do it, even without embracing the science, logic and philosophy as Holy Writ when it is fiddled and misrepresented to suit the Faith.

I crave everyone's indulgence, in posting this again (no, not Baldric denying everything ) but 'open minded' is a well worn vid but essential reading for anyone who claims to use logical reasoning rather than faithbased denial.

[fredonly]

We should reflect on what we mean by "skepticism". It means having an epistemological hurdle: not merely accepting as true, everything we're told. It means requiring good reasons to accept a proposition as true. Of course, we're fallible, and we make epistemic judgements on incomplete information - so we ought to remain open to revising our established beliefs - but that isn't "being skeptical of skepticism", it's just remaining open to reevaluating our beliefs - reapplying our epistemic process to a fuller set of data, and accepting our fallibility.