What Has Happened to Skepticism?

[1137]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

 

[Quintessence]

Congratulations! You've discovered the difference between true skepticism (which is basically the application of critical thinking to all life experiences) and "skepticism" (which is basically knee-jerk reactionism against anything that doesn't fit into one's default worldview or paradigm).

 

[1137]

Congratulations! You've discovered the difference between true skepticism (which is basically the application of critical thinking to all life experiences) and "skepticism" (which is basically knee-jerk reactionism against anything that doesn't fit into one's default worldview or paradigm).

Definitely. At the time of our discussion my friend had a "skeptic" guest speaking to his class. The guy gave all the most predictable answers you could expect from a hardcore materialist, laughing off ideas like the possibility of gods. Then when he was hanging around after my friend told me he knew how to get rid of him, and started talking about magic. The guy gave this massive eye roll, sighed, and walked out without a word. My friend just looks and says "see, you start talking about even slightly non material things as if they're possible and modern skeptics will have none of it." Very eye opening.

 

[Quintessence]

It'd be interesting to tease out why that particular demographic settled on a term like "skeptic" to identify themselves. Technically, one could use the same label to describe a Christian who is a "skeptic" of biological evolution and does the eye roll and walk away thing when that topic is discussed as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet - it's another case of reactionism against what fits into one's worldview rather than critically assessing it. But to be fair, we all do this to some extent or another when we have new experiences or encounter new information.

It's also worth noting that in context, "skeptic" is often taken to mean a person who doubts widely-accepted opinions. That god(s) exist is the widely-accepted opinion in all cultures worldwide, thus in that sense, it's appropriate to call someone who questions or doubts this a "skeptic." The term has multiple meanings, as words generally do.

 

[Scott C.]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

Perhaps there's a progressive trend in human beings. We don't know what we believe. Then we consider possibilities. We're skeptical of all, but with an open mind. We evaluate and weigh the evidence. We become convinced of a certain point of view. We become fully vested in that point of view so that it becomes part of who we are. We then become skeptics of any view that contradicts our own.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It'd be interesting to tease out why that particular demographic settled on a term like "skeptic" to identify themselves. Technically, one could use the same label to describe a Christian who is a "skeptic" of biological evolution and does the eye roll and walk away thing when that topic is discussed as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet - it's another case of reactionism against what fits into one's worldview rather than critically assessing it. But to be fair, we all do this to some extent or another when we have new experiences or encounter new information.

It's also worth noting that in context, "skeptic" is often taken to mean a person who doubts widely-accepted opinions. That god(s) exist is the widely-accepted opinion in all cultures worldwide, thus in that sense, it's appropriate to call someone who questions or doubts this a "skeptic." The term has multiple meanings, as words generally do.

Originally (at least with the Greeks), skepticism was a position that questioned human ability to know or understand everything about the cosmos (which of course was much smaller at that time). Ontologically, is the nature of the universe such that humans can understand everything about it? How would we know that we know everything about it? Is it possible that there are aspects that we cannot know, or cannot know fully? That leads to the epistemological questioning of how we actually "know" what we think we know about the cosmos--and there are various skeptical approaches to that issue.

I learned about modern skepticism largely from scientists who were logical positivists or heavily influenced by logical positivism (think Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, etc.), which is a form of materialism and empiricism (in the philosophical sense). Their skepticism is largely rooted in the "if we can't measure it on a reliable and regular basis, it doesn't exist" form...which is something that as a true skeptic you can't conclude about the nature of the universe.

 

[Augustus]

"skepticism" (which is basically knee-jerk reactionism against anything that doesn't fit into one's default worldview or paradigm).

Usually coupled with the complete inability to comprehend that they are operating from within a particular ideological framework, preferring to believe that they are operating 'objectively' within 'reality', free of the silly irrationalities of the hoi polloi.

It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical.

Just like people who consider themselves 'rationalists'. If somebody actually was rational, then they would have to accept that they (like all of us) are profoundly irrational.

 

[viole]

Definitely. At the time of our discussion my friend had a "skeptic" guest speaking to his class. The guy gave all the most predictable answers you could expect from a hardcore materialist, laughing off ideas like the possibility of gods. Then when he was hanging around after my friend told me he knew how to get rid of him, and started talking about magic. The guy gave this massive eye roll, sighed, and walked out without a word. My friend just looks and says "see, you start talking about even slightly non material things as if they're possible and modern skeptics will have none of it." Very eye opening.

Would you keep a straight face if someone told you that it accepts the possibility of fairies ravaging her garden? Or that invisible angels are responsible for the planets in the solar system to follow an elliptical orbit? Or that Xenu is really the ruler of the galaxy?

I could go on forever

So, why should we take seriously gods, magic, telepathy, esp, universal consciousness, homeopathy, horoscopes, poltergeists, etc. when they have the exact evidence of my examples, i.e. zero?

Bring on the evidence, and we can start taking all those things seriously. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

I'm right with you on your thoughts. Open-minded skepticism is a healthy and desirable approach and one that I follow. But in very recent times the word 'Skeptic' has been hijacked by a group that is a collection of no-holds-bar defenders of atheist-materialism. They are not truly interested in open-minded inquiry but in attacking (in a hidden emotional way) anything that smacks of greater intelligence or the paranormal. I think for many of these pseudo-skeptics the mentality is that they like western science to be held as the pinnacle of knowledge and are emotionally angered when people accept things that perhaps show transcendental spiritual thinkers may actually be steps ahead of them. They like the mid 20th century position of science pooh-poohing these silly things and still want to stay there. For me, I see through them.

 

[1137]

Would you keep a straight face if someone told you that it accepts the possibility of fairies ravaging her garden? Or that invisible angels are responsible for the planets in the solar system to follow an elliptical orbit? Or that Xenu is really the ruler of the galaxy?

I could go on forever

So, why should we take seriously gods, magic, telepathy, esp, universal consciousness, homeopathy, horoscopes, poltergeists, etc. when they have the exact evidence of my examples, i.e. zero?

Bring on the evidence, and we can start taking all those things seriously. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

Ah, the unwavering faith of empiricism. How skeptical.

 

[George-ananda]

It'd be interesting to tease out why that particular demographic settled on a term like "skeptic" to identify themselves.

I think it is because 'skepticism' is a valid approach and sounds respectable. The rub though is to employ skepticism properly, you can not put up an unassailable emotional wall and still call that 'skepticism'.

 

[viole]

Ah, the unwavering faith of empiricism. How skeptical.

So, you are not skeptical about invisible angels moving the planets in their orbit?

Why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

I think it is because 'skepticism' is a valid approach and sounds respectable. The rub though is to employ skepticism properly, you can not put up an unassailable emotional wall and still call that 'skepticism'.

I agree. Atheism and materialism are also vigorously attacked these days along with things like theism, and I think calling oneself a skeptic makes you seem removed from that group, bringing an air of superiority.

 

[1137]

So, you are not skeptical about invisible angels moving the planets in their orbit?

Why not?

Ciao

- viole

I'm open to the idea that there's something metaphysical to the movements of the planets, sure.

 

[viole]

I'm open to the idea that there's something metaphysical to the movements of the planets, sure.

I was talking of invisible angels. Do you think they are a live option?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Seeing how there are supposedly "skeptics" about evolution and climate change, it is clear that the word has indeed been abused.

Much of it, I think, is that science education has been failing for decades. We often end up having little recourse but to use authority claims.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

So, why should we take seriously gods, magic, telepathy, esp, universal consciousness, homeopathy, horoscopes, poltergeists, etc. when they have the exact evidence of my examples, i.e. zero? Bring on the evidence, and we can start taking all those things seriously. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I am afraid.

For some of these there is considerable evidence, which you could easily find. But that assumes that you actually want to find it and will accept it when it conflicts with your own fundamentalist views.

As one can see all over this forum, when the "skeptic"/atheist is presented with evidence, their first recourse is to refuse to accept it and their second is to change the subject.

I could go on forever

So I've noticed.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, you are not skeptical about invisible angels moving the planets in their orbit?

Gravity angles, also called gravitons.

Another question would be, can quarks have flavors?

 

[atanu]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

I think that it is easy to be deluded that the objects of mind-senses are objectively real, forgetting the subject itself.

Attention towards the nature of the subject is drawn only by mighty good luck, but often triggered by painful ego shattering events. Often, only after the ego gets badly shaken that one starts to query the illusory nature of mind-sense objects and introverts towards the source of "I".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Definitely. At the time of our discussion my friend had a "skeptic" guest speaking to his class. The guy gave all the most predictable answers you could expect from a hardcore materialist, laughing off ideas like the possibility of gods. Then when he was hanging around after my friend told me he knew how to get rid of him, and started talking about magic. The guy gave this massive eye roll, sighed, and walked out without a word. My friend just looks and says "see, you start talking about even slightly non material things as if they're possible and modern skeptics will have none of it." Very eye opening.

Why do you attribute this to closed-minded ignorance and not to having looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on it?