Can A Christian Be A Skeptic?

[LifeToTheFullest!]

But there is absolutely no evidence on how evidence of evolution is possible.

May I direct your attention to: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

 

[USincognito]

For those of you who voted no, if you could, would you explain why you think not?

 

[USincognito]

For those of you who voted no, if you could, would you explain why you think not?

No one willing to explain why?

This year's Amaz!ng Meeting was as disconcerting as last years in some respects, but I walked out after a few of the speakers bashed religion. The good news is that when I spoke with others - many felt the same way I did. They realized that skepticism is a process, not an orthodoxy and alienating 85% of the population is not a good way to forward the "skeptical movement."

I still feel like I'm banging my head against the same "evolutionism =/= atheism" wall when I try to explain "skepticism =/= atheism" to - unfortunately, far to many of my fellow atheist skeptics.

MLynn is a Christian who is a member on the JREF site and here at CF. In the next few days, I need to PM her and let her know about my personal indignance with this attitude.

 

[Sanguine]

No one willing to explain why?

This year's Amaz!ng Meeting was as disconcerting as last years in some respects, but I walked out after a few of the speakers bashed religion. The good news is that when I spoke with others - many felt the same way I did. They realized that skepticism is a process, not an orthodoxy and alienating 85% of the population is not a good way to forward the "skeptical movement."

I still feel like I'm banging my head against the same "evolutionism =/= atheism" wall when I try to explain "skepticism =/= atheism" to - unfortunately, far to many of my fellow atheist skeptics.

MLynn is a Christian who is a member on the JREF site and here at CF. In the next few days, I need to PM her and let her know about my personal indignance with this attitude.

Well I put only on certain issues, is that close enough?

I chose it because being religious and a skeptic seems to me to be a rather pure example of cognitive dissonance. Sure there are many Christians who won't simply swallow some shysters' story sight unseen. But when looking at the big picture being a religious skeptic seems like intellectual compartmentalisation. Are you allowed to decide what you are and are not skeptical about? Use differential standards of evidence?

This of course creates a problem for me (and other like me), because overwhelmingly I'm in agreement with religious skeptics. But for the reasons stated above I cannot help but feel their skepticism is somewhat incomplete.

 

[Janus]

In reply to the OP:

Errmmm, don't you think these two quotes of yours are in total contradiction of one another?

I argue that if there are 29 issues myself and a religious person are both skeptical of, and the 30th is religion, then that person is just as much a skeptic as I am.

Considering yourself a skeptic means applying the process to everything, even things you want to be true. (...)
To be a "true" skeptic, you can't just reject or accept based on your wants or biases.

If you're skeptical about one more issue than the other guy, you're more of a skeptic than he is. A true skeptic, as you said, is someone who applies skepticism to every belief and situation he encounters. A theist, by definition, can't be called a true skeptic.

In fact, I would argue that there are few theists who only restrain from exercising skepticism about a single issue. Even the most liberal Christian, for instance, will have faith...

- In the existence of God.
- That the Bible is at least partly inspired by God.
- That Jesus lived and was the son of God.
- That Jesus died and came back to life, as well as performed a number of miracles, such as multiple healings and exorcisms.
- That the Israeli were and perhaps still are God's chosen people.
- That there's a spiritual plane of existence somewhere called Heaven, and another one called Hell.

...and a few other dozen beliefs that they refuse to be skeptical of. So while I certainly agree that some skeptics are excessive in their immediate dismissal of anything theists propose, I'd say that "true" skeptics are justified in being wary of a religious person's claims when the topic being discussed is related to religion or to the supernatural. And frankly, if someone isn't skeptical of that category, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect their gullibility extends to other areas as well.


Also, I do think it's impossible to be a true, complete, and thorough skeptic if you're not an atheist (or agnostic). Even though it's true that skepticism isn't atheism, atheism follows from the application of skepticism to the question of God's existence.
I suppose a Deist could honestly think there's empirical evidence to support God's existence, in which case he could be a true skeptic as well.

I think that not only is there a basis, it's a sound doctrine. How many times have you seen, heard or been a part of a theological discussion when "chapter and verse please?" comes up? That's skepticism in action.

Ha! I wish! That'd mean 90% of CF's population is composed of (selective) skeptics. I suppose you could call it skepticism by its broadest definition, but as it's ultimately based on their faith that the Bible is God's Holy Word, it's effectively a disguised form of credulity.

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

And Doubting Thomas is an honored and respected figure throughout all of Christianity, right?

The fact is that, to Christians, the most important thing is belief in God and Jesus. More than good deeds, more than forgiveness, more than love, and certainly more than intellectual honesty, faith is the attribute that is most highly regarded in the Christian dogma.
I don't think it's right, or even intelligent, to think Christians are incapable of applying skepticism; I'm lupasca's #1 fan. But sadly, their religion's is intimately tied to anti-skepticism.

 

[gluadys]

In fact, I would argue that there are few theists who only restrain from exercising skepticism about a single issue. Even the most liberal Christian, for instance, will have faith...

- In the existence of God.
- That the Bible is at least partly inspired by God.
- That Jesus lived and was the son of God.
- That Jesus died and came back to life, as well as performed a number of miracles, such as multiple healings and exorcisms.
- That the Israeli were and perhaps still are God's chosen people.
- That there's a spiritual plane of existence somewhere called Heaven, and another one called Hell.

To me skepticism is not a matter of questioning this issue or that, but of having a questioning attitude and especially, of being honest about what you know and don't know.

If you were to ask me whether I have any empirical or logical reason to believe in the existence of God, I will readily answer "No, I have not one iota of evidence, not one scrap of logic. For all I know, God does not exist." The same goes for any of the other propositions you have named.

To me, that is being skeptical. Objectively, in the realm of knowledge, I am a complete agnostic. It is only subjectively, in the realm of personal faith, that I believe. The Christian philosopher, Kierkegaard, said, this is the only sense one can give to faith. It is a matter of holding together personal subjective certainty with objective uncertainty, and never letting go of the awareness of objective uncertainty, even as one chooses to act on subjective certainty.

The fact is that, to Christians, the most important thing is belief in God and Jesus. More than good deeds, more than forgiveness, more than love, and certainly more than intellectual honesty, faith is the attribute that is most highly regarded in the Christian dogma.

This is, unfortunately, true. And it is because most Christians are falsely taught that faith is propositional. IOW, faith means giving intellectual assent to propositions such as "God exists" "The bible is the word of God" "Christ died to atone for our sins."

Now whether or not those statements are true--believing that they are true is not what faith really is. What faith really is has nothing to do with intellectual assent to propositional statements. It is rather the attitude of a person trusting another person in the way a child trusts a parent. The child is not concerned about truth propositions. The child is concerned that the parent loves her and will act for her benefit. A child who fully trusts a parent will believe in the parent's love, even when the parent is angry with her and punishes her for some infraction. A child who fully trusts a parent will not be afraid when picked up and spun around in the air, because she trusts that she will not be dropped. A child who fully trusts a parent will try to live up to a parent's expectations even when they are demanding and difficult to fulfil. A child who fully trusts a parent will have trust in herself, because her parents believe in her.

That is, ideally, the relationship between the believer and God. That is what faith is supposed to be. A loving, personal, trusting relationship. And that does not depend on believing that proposition A or B or C is true.

What it depends on is the personal subjective experience of the individual.

 

[the iconoclast]

In the final balance, I just don't see how anyone can make the case that because someone believes in God or experiences Gifts of the Holy Spirit,

Hey hey @USincognito

 

[JackRT]

Even the most liberal Christian, for instance, will have faith...

- In the existence of God.
- That the Bible is at least partly inspired by God.
- That Jesus lived and was the son of God.
- That Jesus died and came back to life, as well as performed a number of miracles, such as multiple healings and exorcisms.
- That the Israeli were and perhaps still are God's chosen people.
- That there's a spiritual plane of existence somewhere called Heaven, and another one called Hell.

There may be a few who do.

 

[USincognito]

Not sure how this old school thread got a like, but I wanted to bump it to see if any newer folks had any input.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The late great Martin Gardner practically defined 'skeptic' in the 20th century. Although not a Christian he was a theist: "I am a philosophical theist. I believe in a personal God, and I believe in an afterlife, and I believe in prayer, but I don't believe in any established religion. This is called philosophical theism. ... Philosophical theism is entirely emotional. As Kant said, he destroyed pure reason to make room for faith."

We're not going to kick Martin out of the skeptic club. So I can certainly imagine Christians with similar beliefs being skeptics without any need for an asterisk on their status.

Issues like gods and afterlives don't have much in the way of real evidence either way. From the skeptical perspective, there is no rational evidence-based reason to believe in them. I think Gardner was very conscious of the fact that he had non-rational non-reasons to believe in them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was 22 years old when this thread was started.
I am 36 years old today.

Digital archeology is fun. Does anyone ever try to find some of those old 1990's homepages that still exist, the ones that were just mismatched font colors and tons of gifs?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

I was 22 years old when this thread was started.
I am 36 years old today.

Digital archeology is fun. Does anyone ever try to find some of those old 1990's homepages that still exist, the ones that were just mismatched font colors and tons of gifs?

-CryptoLutheran

You are making me feel ancient. Man! It would be nice to be a young 36 again. That was 39 years ago.

 

[USincognito]

When I wrote the OP I was still over 6' tall. Now I'm 5'8" and hunching over even more.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I was still a Christian when this thread started.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Digital archeology is fun. Does anyone ever try to find some of those old 1990's homepages that still exist, the ones that were just mismatched font colors and tons of gifs?

Here are some of the oldest pages around, all early 90s

Vortex Technology
Home

And this one from '98 is just hilarious

Internet Explorer is EVIL!

 

[sfs]

My reaction: I miss gluadys.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here are some of the oldest pages around, all early 90s

Vortex Technology
Home

And this one from '98 is just hilarious

Internet Explorer is EVIL!

Decided to see what I could find, found these:

Bob Dole's 1996 US presidential campaign site Dole Kemp '96
CNN's official OJ Simpsons Trial page CNN - O.J. Simpson Trial
Anyone remember Space Jam? Space Jam

-CryptoLutheran