Do sceptics enjoy being sceptics?

[tonyrey]

If one uses one of the more common (if loose) definitions of skeptic, i.e., one who demands proof of supernatural claims, one can still be a skeptic and a theist. Two of the best known modern skeptics in this area were believers, Martin Gardner (a deist) and Harry Houdini (a practicing Jew who believed in God and the afterlife.)

There are many degrees of scepticism because many individuals are not constant in their beliefs or disbeliefs. Some are poised on the brink and eventually settle for one side or the other. It is impossible to sit on the fence indefinitely because sooner or later they have to make decisions which reveal what they really believe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If so why?

That would by my opinion from what I have seen in these forums. But I think they should study Pascal’s Wager. Let’s face it, some people just get a kick out of throwing dirt in other people’s faces. I’m glad to talk to anyone who wants an honest dialogue but such people are rare.

 

[tonyrey]

That would by my opinion from what I have seen in these forums. But I think they should study Pascal’s Wager. Let’s face it, some people just get a kick out of throwing dirt in other people’s faces. I’m glad to talk to anyone who wants an honest dialogue but such people are rare.

That is the inevitable price of participating on a forum where a person’s most cherished (dis)beliefs are threatened!

 

[jimmy]

The skeptics are narcissists like movie stars and celebrities in the entertainment business.

They seek adulation, praise, applause.

Being skeptical about most positions will usually find many people who agree with the skeptic’s opinion. Posting skeptical remarks on the internet like on this website is an easy way to find like minded individuals to form a kind of club.

You can tell the skeptics don’t really believe in what they’re saying because they don’t present a plausible philosophical system. The heart of skepticism is denial of any truth.

what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

What you said is a bit ridiculous. People are skeptical because they have a problem with the claims. They don’t accept your philosophical premises and conclusions and that makes them narcisistic, dishonest, vain and etc?

 

[Taestron]

what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

What you said is a bit ridiculous. People are skeptical because they have a problem with the claims. They don’t accept your philosophical premises and conclusions and that makes them narcisistic, dishonest, vain and etc?

But perhaps you may be aware of the people whom empther is speaking? There are those who use the anonymity of the internet to post pithy skeptical comments which serves no function but to draw attention to the poster. I think everybody on this thread would recognize there are skeptical comments which advance the discussion and skeptical comments which are merely contrary. I would also suggest that the flavor of the OP had more these second types in mind.

 

[tonyrey]

But perhaps you may be aware of the people whom empther is speaking? There are those who use the anonymity of the internet to post pithy skeptical comments which serves no function but to draw attention to the poster. I think everybody on this thread would recognize there are skeptical comments which advance the discussion and skeptical comments which are merely contrary. I would also suggest that the flavor of the OP had more these second types in mind.

I had all sceptics in mind but the nasty ones are certainly included!

 

[Crescentinus]

That’s the point. There’s no one thing you could ever pin them down on and say “you were wrong about this.” It’s all one big never-ending cycle of nihilism and doubt.

That is why overskepticism can lead to cynicism, paranoia and in the worst cases, insanity.

 

[mafh]

I’m really surprised by this thread because it implies that skepticism is somehow a negative trait. Surely skepticism is a part of rational thought, and is something that every intelligent person should employ when appropriate. I mean, the opposite of skepticism is credulity (or gullibility). Surely every thinking Catholic on these forums is skeptical about anti-Catholic rhetoric, or the truth claims of other religions (such as the Mormons, the Muslims, etc). Probably most people in the world are skeptical about outlandish claims such as conspiracy theories, alien abductions, and UFOs. Skepticism is important – it keeps us from wasting our time and resources on things that turn out to be untrue. When the truth claims involve things like diet and health, I think skepticism also keeps us safe.

Of course, you can take anything too far, and that includes skepticism.

I suppose I am a skeptic about many things, but I really don’t consider it a badge of honor or anything like that. Rather, I think skepticism should be something everyone uses in their basic mental toolkit – like arithmetic or being able to read.

If you are interested in skeptical arguments against various supernatural and occult claims, the Skeptic’s Dictionary is a good site, but one which I recommend with reservations:

skepdic.com/

Just be forewarned: The site has a lot of good information, but the author is inclined to be uncharitable. Most of the topics are about outlandish truth claims from the occult, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, ESP, and similar topics. But, he also covers some sensitive religious topics, such as prayer, and may not do so in a sensitive way.

 

[exoflare]

Of course, you can take anything too far, and that includes skepticism.

I think that’s basically what we’re getting at.

 

[jimmy]

But perhaps you may be aware of the people whom empther is speaking? There are those who use the anonymity of the internet to post pithy skeptical comments which serves no function but to draw attention to the poster. I think everybody on this thread would recognize there are skeptical comments which advance the discussion and skeptical comments which are merely contrary. I would also suggest that the flavor of the OP had more these second types in mind.

Sure, there are extremists who are just out to be a thorn in everyones side. But skepticism isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Should we believe everything we are told? I would say that skepticism would have done the Jim Jones followers some good.

 

[Bradski]

A good point.

We’re all sceptics to some degree. If you’re not then you’d believe everything you were told. It’s a natural defence against being fooled.

If you know someone who hasn’t a sceptical bone in his or her body then please let me know. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is up for sale and I can do a good deal on it for those with a little spare cash.

 

[Qoeleth]

Scepticism has developed a bad reputation, because it is often mistaken for ‘scientific rationalism.’ Actually, scientific rationalism is the opposite of scepticism.

This is an example of a modern day employment of Scepticism, in its classical sense.

You want to watch a particular TV show. Your TV breaks, and you cannot watch it. Instead of responding “this is bad”, you say, “Maybe it I would enjoy watching the show, or maybe not. Maybe it is better to do something else. There is no way of knowing. And how do I know that such ‘enjoyment’ is objectively good or bad, anyway? Equally, it could build character to go without ‘enjoyment.’ Nothing can be determined.” Hence, peace of mind emerges. Classical Scepticism recognises sense perceptions (i.e. " I perceive that I am not watching the show"), but, endeavours, as far as possible, to add no non-evident conclusions to it (e.g. “this is bad”).

The goal of Scepticism is peace of mind. I think it is a useful approach to everyday life- suspending judgment, and holding in mind that an opposite point of view is always plausible. “Judge not”, as Jesus said. And indifference was one of Ignatius of Loyola’s principles of discernment.

 

[ProLepanto]

The unyielding skeptic, is so for the same reason the pacifist is, lethargy. If one rejects they very concepts which reveal our inherent debts (ergo responsibilities) then they can float through life without the guilt for their lack of labor.

Now, I wouldn’t say they truly “enjoy” being sceptics anymore than the masochist enjoys being a masochist. Instead there is a certain degree of ease in not affirming one’s being and the world around them, it’s rather like willing oneself to be an object rather than a being.

 

[ProLepanto]

@Qoeleth

Jesus did not say “Judge Not”, He said “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

This is imperative, because it means: ‘do not be a hypocrite’, NOT: ‘avoid assertions of distinction’ (which your gerrymandered quote amounts to).

 

[Taestron]

The unyielding skeptic, is so for the same reason the pacifist is, lethargy. If one rejects they very concepts which reveal our inherent debts (ergo responsibilities) then they can float through life without the guilt for their lack of labor.

Now, I wouldn’t say they truly “enjoy” being sceptics anymore than the masochist enjoys being a masochist. Instead there is a certain degree of ease in not affirming one’s being and the world around them, it’s rather like willing oneself to be an object rather than a being.

Hi ProLepanto, Welcome to the forums. As a pacifist myself, I am both amused and a little angered by your assertion that it is from lethargy. I would love to hear your reasoning behind this statement. My pacifism stems from my belief that compared to my citizenship of heaven, no other citizenship can claim that level of authority over me. But this is off topic.

Now as far as “unyielding” skeptics go; I am not sure I encountered anyone of this description. If by this you mean someone who refuses to see the other side the argument due to a perceived lack of epistemological certainty, perhaps you have a point. But I will say this, having the tenacity to hold on to a belief despite difficulties is a very enjoyable trait. One that takes hard work, but nonetheless if you are able to defend your belief from attack, happiness does ensue.

 

[Qoeleth]

@Qoeleth

Jesus did not say “Judge Not”, He said “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

This is imperative, because it means: ‘do not be a hypocrite’, NOT: ‘avoid assertions of distinction’ (which your gerrymandered quote amounts to).

Possibly. But Jesus instruction seems to be “avoid assertions and distinctions” about other people- in other words to retain a Sceptical stance (i.e. a stance which refrains from judgment) of our fellow men.

Similarly, in the Book of Job, “The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed by the Lord.” This seems to me Sceptical (at least as much as it is Stoic)- deliberately suspending judgment on the “giving” and “the taking away.” Who is to say that it is better to gain than to lose? Nothing can be determined.

 

[robertericleech]

G.K. Chesterton said that doubters shouldn’t be discouraged from doubting, they should be encouraged to doubt, keep doubting, and doubt some more. ‘Eventually they may come to doubt themselves.’

 

[ProLepanto]

Hi ProLepanto, Welcome to the forums. As a pacifist myself, I am both amused and a little angered by your assertion that it is from lethargy. I would love to hear your reasoning behind this statement. My pacifism stems from my belief that compared to my citizenship of heaven, no other citizenship can claim that level of authority over me. But this is off topic.

Now as far as “unyielding” skeptics go; I am not sure I encountered anyone of this description. If by this you mean someone who refuses to see the other side the argument due to a perceived lack of epistemological certainty, perhaps you have a point. But I will say this, having the tenacity to hold on to a belief despite difficulties is a very enjoyable trait. One that takes hard work, but nonetheless if you are able to defend your belief from attack, happiness does ensue.

In regards to pacifism, you are right that this is a bit off topic if for no other reason than it is way too important and too vast of a topic to under-address (I will draft a separate thread). But in regards to having “citizenship of heaven” supersede ones corporal duties, such a thought is patently Manichean, ergo heresy.

As a Christian you must maintain that you are Body and Soul, not merely a soul that inhabits a body. Addressing the corporal discomforts of the world as evil and only the metaphysical as good, is blatant Catharism. Dualism swings either of two very destructive ways when the disconnect between the metaphysical and physical is fully implemented. Either it spurs violence against ones self and forces its adherents to demonize physical acts, eventually including the act of procreation itself (as the Cathar Heresy did circa 1100 AD in France), or it releases its followers to live an utterly unrestrained life as the systematic orgies of the Manicheans demonstrates.

And I guarantee you have met an “unyielding skeptic”, they are also called relativists.

 

[ProLepanto]

Possibly. But Jesus instruction seems to be “avoid assertions and distinctions” about other people- in other words to retain a Sceptical stance (i.e. a stance which refrains from judgment) of our fellow men.

Similarly, in the Book of Job, “The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed by the Lord.” This seems to me Sceptical (at least as much as it is Stoic)- deliberately suspending judgment on the “giving” and “the taking away.” Who is to say that it is better to gain than to lose? Nothing can be determined.

I truly can’t emphasize strongly enough how utterly deceitful it is to purport that Christ was against asserting distinction (knowingly done or not).

***Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. ***

 

[BigFig1]

I like the question on this thread. I am curious about how Atheists/skeptics/whatever name you give them attempt to explain miracles? I’m talking about the actual miracles, like the miracles that have happened in Lourdes, France. They have been scientifically reviewed and examined, and have been declared actual miracles. Another great miracle is the bleeding statue of Jesus in Bolivia. That has also been examined many times over, and even been MRI scanned. The results from the scan showed that there was nothing inside of the statue. The DVD science tests faith go very in depth into this. I recommend it to Catholics and atheists. One more to mention the Shroud of Turin is also unexplained in many of it details. I am curious how atheists that are scientists, think they have an explanation for everything and why it happens, cant explain miracles that are documented and examined by other scientists.