Skepticism is the best way to approach religious claims.

[Caliban]

Do you think this statement is true?

If not, why?

If so, please elaborate.


This post is not intended to be antagonistic toward any religious perspective as there are religious people who advocate skepticism. Keep in mind, Theists are often skeptical of Atheists' claims.

For the purpose of this discussion, skepticism is an approach to knowledge. R.C Sproul once said that Christians have nothing to fear from skeptical inquiry because all Truth meets at the top.

 

[zippy2006]

To say that skepticism is the best way to approach religious claims is to imply that religious claims are particularly doubtful, and a skeptic ought to question that implication.

 

[Caliban]

To say that skepticism is the best way to approach religious claim implies that religious claims are particularly doubtful, and a skeptic ought to question that implication.

Yes, but skepticism has the same approach for all claims. Any extraordinary claim requires close scrutiny. Scientists used to be very skeptical of black holes, now we know they exist. Skepticism isn't anti religious.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Skepticism is the best way to approach all claims -- at least ones of import. That you had a burger for lunch is not such a claim. That you bought a Bugatti from money you save by not buying Starbucks is such a claim.

All scientific hypotheses are treated this way as a matter of course. Eventually, the idea is perhaps no longer considered worthy of consideration or else viable.

 

[Caliban]

Skepticism is the best way to approach all claims -- at least ones of import. That you had a burger for lunch is not such a claim. That you bought a Bugatti from money you save by not buying Starbucks is such a claim.

All scientific hypotheses are treated this way as a matter of course. Eventually, the idea is perhaps no longer considered worthy of consideration or else viable.

I worry that people who hold strong religious beliefs will not want to explore the tools of skepticism because they think it is anti-religious. These are tools everyone should have.

 

[Silmarien]

My vote is "no," at least if skepticism is to be understood as the stance that where there is doubt, the only justified response is to suspend judgment. My reasoning is Pascalian--religion is, to borrow from Tillich, a matter of ultimate concern. Questions like the immortality of the soul, what it means to live well, and so forth and so on are of utmost importance existentially, so to say that you're going to merely simply suspend belief until better evidence comes along is basically saying that these questions don't matter enough to commit one way or the other. I think you can say "yes, until further evidence" or "no, until further evidence," but skepticism is more along the lines of, "I don't care, until further evidence."

That said, I do think that rationalism is the best way to approach religious claims. But rationalism and skepticism are not exactly the same thing.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Do you think this statement is true?

If not, why?

If so, please elaborate.


This post is not intended to be antagonistic toward any religious perspective as there are religious people who advocate skepticism. Keep in mind, Theists are often skeptical of Atheists' claims.

For the purpose of this discussion, skepticism is an approach to knowledge. R.C Sproul once said that Christians have nothing to fear from skeptical inquiry because all Truth meets at the top.

Yes. If I was never skeptical, I would then wonder why I'm sitting here as a Christian and not, for example, a Muslim or a Hindu.

Besides, I don't think one can become a firm believer in anything unless they question it and themselves.

 

[Duke of Stratford]

I can't honestly vote yes or no either way.

People should never believe things for no reason, at least on the scale of religion. Generally speaking, both the religious and non-religious have reasons for what they believe, even if either side may find the other's reasoning unsatisfactory. Whatever one believes, I think one should check one's thoughts and be open to questions. Speaking as a Christian, I don't think the Bible says our faith should be utterly blind; Jesus' ministry was based on revealing God's glory. We are meant to trust and have faith, but that doesn't mean we believe for no reason.

I hesitate to call this flat-out skepticism because, from my understanding, critical thinking and skepticism are not one and the same. It's okay to be optimistic in your thinking. This could be a bit of a semantic thing; people have different understandings of what "skepticism" and "skeptic" mean in practice. And I certainly don't think that skepticism is the best tool for each person's critical thinking and analysis; some people are more predisposed to different schools of thought that best help them, and that's not a bad thing.

So, yeah. Can't concretely say yes or no to the question. I think there's grey area.

 

[Caliban]

My vote is "no," at least if skepticism is to be understood as the stance that where there is doubt, the only justified response is to suspend judgment. My reasoning is Pascalian--religion is, to borrow from Tillich, a matter of ultimate concern. Questions like the immortality of the soul, what it means to live well, and so forth and so on are of utmost importance existentially, so to say that you're going to merely simply suspend belief until better evidence comes along is basically saying that these questions don't matter enough to commit one way or the other. I think you can say "yes, until further evidence" or "no, until further evidence," but skepticism is more along the lines of, "I don't care, until further evidence."

That said, I do think that rationalism is the best way to approach religious claims. But rationalism and skepticism are not exactly the same thing.

I have always been under the impression that probably no person in history has actually taken Pascal's Wager, but rather believed for other reasons. I don't think we come to opinions that way. People believe because they are convinced--even if it is bad evidence. For example, I could not take Pascal's wager on a topic like, nuclear disarmament will lead to world peace--it would be uninformed and unnatural. Maybe that's a bad example--short notice-- but I can only believe in things I am convinced are true.

Do I have a blind spot in my thinking here?

 

[Caliban]

I hesitate to call this flat-out skepticism because, from my understanding, critical thinking and skepticism are not one and the same

That's interesting. Can you elaborate on why you concluded skepticism and critical thinking are different?

 

[eleos1954]

Do you think this statement is true?

If not, why?

If so, please elaborate.


This post is not intended to be antagonistic toward any religious perspective as there are religious people who advocate skepticism. Keep in mind, Theists are often skeptical of Atheists' claims.

For the purpose of this discussion, skepticism is an approach to knowledge. R.C Sproul once said that Christians have nothing to fear from skeptical inquiry because all Truth meets at the top.

There are different kinds of knowledge. Christians do not fear skeptics.

Being a sceptic does not mean one should be closed-minded ... so the way you worded your OP .... I would say no.

 

[Caliban]

There are different kinds of knowledge. Christians do not fear skeptics.

Being a sceptic does not mean one should be closed-minded ... so the way you worded your OP .... I would say no.

What different kinds of knowledge?

 

[Broken Fence]

Do you think this statement is true?

If not, why?

If so, please elaborate.


This post is not intended to be antagonistic toward any religious perspective as there are religious people who advocate skepticism. Keep in mind, Theists are often skeptical of Atheists' claims.

For the purpose of this discussion, skepticism is an approach to knowledge. R.C Sproul once said that Christians have nothing to fear from skeptical inquiry because all Truth meets at the top.

As a Christian judgment starts at the house of God. The last two thousand years has showed a world ruled by the church with malice over 50 million heretics killed. Be skeptical of the church. Your life might depend on it. By the way where do you think the antichrist will be popular, in the church. The Bible tells you to be skeptical.

 

[Caliban]

As a Christian judgment starts at the house of God. The last two thousand years has showed a world ruled by the church with malice over 50 million heretics killed. Be skeptical of the church. Your life might depend on it. By the way where do you think the antichrist will be popular, in the church. The Bible tells you to be skeptical.

I'm trying, but I don't understand your last post at all. What does that mean?

 

[Broken Fence]

I'm trying, but I don't understand your last post at all. What does that mean?

That means the dark ages was called that because people did not have the Bible. The church, Roman Catholic Church ruled still has great say in some nations. I would be very skeptical of the church. Most pastors are Mason's. The goverment already told clergy and pastor's when time comes just tell your flock to goto the fema camp. Like lambs to a beheading slaughter.

That is my two cents.

 

[Silmarien]

I have always been under the impression that probably no person in history has actually taken Pascal's Wager, but rather believed for other reasons. I don't think we come to opinions that way. People believe because they are convinced--even if it is bad evidence. For example, I could not take Pascal's wager on a topic like, nuclear disarmament will lead to world peace--it would be uninformed and unnatural. Maybe that's a bad example--short notice-- but I can only believe in things I am convinced are true.

Do I have a blind spot in my thinking here?

Haha, I have actually taken Pascal's Wager twice, though the first time, it was some sort of weird inverted wager against Christianity. (The second time was, admittedly, a lot more complicated. I'm a convinced theist, but there was a lot of Pascalian logic involved in getting from there to Christianity.)

I'm not specifically talking about the Wager, though, but just the idea that there are questions that are too important to not make a decision on them. If I recall correct, Pascal has this lovely image of a ship passing harbor after harbor, waiting for just the right evidence that one of the harbors is the correct one, but ultimately going nowhere at all. His major target here is that sort of agnostic disinterest, not atheism, which at least is a different harbor, so to speak.

It's an idea common to a lot of existentialist and proto-existentialist thinkers--life is to be lived, decisions are to be made, not to be put off indefinitely. Skepticism works great for science, but I don't think we should treat every question in life as if it were scientific.

 

[Duke of Stratford]

That's interesting. Can you elaborate on why you concluded skepticism and critical thinking are different?

I took a course on philosophy a few years ago, and we had a lot of discussion on philosophical skepticism. If I recall, we operated under the idea that skepticism was about how nothing can be definitively proven true (or false). Practically speaking, I think of skepticism as always questioning, as not holding anything as absolute truth because it cannot be definitively proven one way or another.

In that course, we also discussed David Hume's idea that no one can be a pure skeptic. We have to believe in something, and I think that's true.

Critical thinking, in my view of it, isn't necessarily rooted in the idea of doubt; rather, it's more focused on being analytical. It explores the how and the why and the details of things, drawing from evidence but not necessarily defined by doubting. I study literature, and critical analysis is a major part of it. But I can employ critical thinking skills when examining a text without necessarily doubting the point/theme/idea I'm analyzing. Instead of trying to prove of disprove, I think of critical thinking as an examination of the thing.

So, while critical thinking and skepticism can overlap, they aren't one and the same. You can be a critical thinker without being skeptical, and you can be a skeptic without employing critical thinking.

Does that help?

 

[eleos1954]

What different kinds of knowledge?

probably other kinds in addition to ...

Types of knowledge

Relative Knowledge
A Posteriori Knowledge
A Priori Knowledge
Dispersed Knowledge
Domain (Expert) Knowledge
Divine knowledge
Empirical Knowledge
Encoded Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
Metaknowledge
Imperative (or Procedural) Knowledge
Descriptive Knowledge
Situated Knowledge
Known Unknowns Knowledge
Unknown Unknown Knowledge

 

[Caliban]

the dark ages was called that because people did not have the Bible

We refer to the Middle Ages as the dark ages because after the fall of the Roman Empire, technology, infrastructure, and republican representation were gone. Education failed and people grew incapable of even maintaining Roman roads. It had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, the Enlightenment and free inquiry allowed people to transcend the dark ages which were lead by hierarchical nobility and the Priesthood.

 

[Caliban]

I took a course on philosophy a few years ago, and we had a lot of discussion on philosophical skepticism. If I recall, we operated under the idea that skepticism was about how nothing can be definitively proven true (or false). Practically speaking, I think of skepticism as always questioning, as not holding anything as absolute truth because it cannot be definitively proven one way or another.

In that course, we also discussed David Hume's idea that no one can be a pure skeptic. We have to believe in something, and I think that's true.

Critical thinking, in my view of it, isn't necessarily rooted in the idea of doubt; rather, it's more focused on being analytical. It explores the how and the why and the details of things, drawing from evidence but not necessarily defined by doubting. I study literature, and critical analysis is a major part of it. But I can employ critical thinking skills when examining a text without necessarily doubting the point/theme/idea I'm analyzing. Instead of trying to prove of disprove, I think of critical thinking as an examination of the thing.

So, while critical thinking and skepticism can overlap, they aren't one and the same. You can be a critical thinker without being skeptical, and you can be a skeptic without employing critical thinking.

Does that help?

Yes, that's how I understand it also. Building on Hume...we have to presume something, like you said. The fact that we are not dreaming or brains in a vat is an assumption we must make to engage in any meaningful exploration of our world. Modern skeptical thinkers often say that we should make as few presuppositions as possible. That we are experiencing reality and are not in the matrix is my presupposition.