How Skepticism Can Be The Friend of Faith

[Jack of Kent]

[With an apology, copied over from my blog for your interest and any criticism]


I have never regarded "skepticism" as the necessary enemy of "faith".

Instead, I see the two as potential friends, for without skepticism how will the person of faith ever know the true extent of their faith?

Indeed, someone with genuine faith should value skepticism and be deeply concerned as to what can be established without resorting to faith.

For me, there are three relevant propositions here:

1. There are beliefs which do not require faith

These are the beliefs of the genuine skeptic and secularist, using critical reasoning and an evidence-base approach.

For example, there is a book called the Bible and it contains accounts of a person called Jesus.

2. There are beliefs which require faith to take you further than what can actually be established - to fill the gap

These are the commonest beliefs of many with faith, a sort of complementary faith. A critical and evidence-based approach will only take a believer so far, so faith is required to take them to their actual beliefs.

For example, the accounts of Jesus refer to the actual Son of God; or there "must be something there".

3. There are beliefs which contradict what can otherwise be established

These are the beliefs of those who will believe things to be true despite - and in the face of - any evidence or critical thinking. This is a sort of contrarian faith.

This is the most impressive form of faith and is rather beyond my own comprehension.

For example, the miracles described in the Bible and Saints' Lives are literally true, or there was indeed a decree that all the world be taxed, or Earth is only 6000 years old, or water retains a memory, and so on.

Curiously, such contrarian believers tend not to cherish skepticism as the means by which they can understand and measure that incredible leap they require their faith to undertake.


I would have thought, perhaps naively, that any person of faith would be keen and enthused to know what does not require faith; a few do, but most do not. And very few contrarian believers will engage with a skeptic.

Perhaps they do not take their faith that seriously?

[Pebble]

Perhaps the problem lies in the different grades of skepticism.

1. The purist: This group evaluates the evidence dispassionately but is happy to accept that nothing can be proven absolutely, thus will not react negatively to believers.

2. The dogmatic: Those who consider that that which is improbable on the basis of available evidence should be challenged.

3. The fundamentalist: Those who contend that all 'magical thinking' is bad, and the appropriate response when dealing with believers is derision.

Unfortunately when it comes to the spreading of beliefs, through schools and by advertising to those who may lack critical faculties, I would count myself as dogmatic.

[Jack of Kent]

Perhaps the problem lies in the different grades of skepticism.

1. The purist: This group evaluates the evidence dispassionately but is happy to accept that nothing can be proven absolutely, thus will not react negatively to believers.

2. The dogmatic: Those who consider that that which is improbable on the basis of available evidence should be challenged.

3. The fundamentalist: Those who contend that all 'magical thinking' is bad, and the appropriate response when dealing with believers is derision.

Unfortunately when it comes to the spreading of beliefs, through schools and by advertising to those who may lack critical faculties, I would count myself as dogmatic.

I agree with the three grades, though the names could be different (for me, purist - puritan - has much the same meaning as fundamentalist).

[Pebble]

I agree with the three grades, though the names could be different (for me, purist - puritan - has much the same meaning as fundamentalist).

The names could be seen as deliberately provocative, but was trying to look at it from a believers perspective. How about, academic, enthusiastic & intolerant?

[polomint38]

Perhaps the problem lies in the different grades of skepticism.

1. The purist: This group evaluates the evidence dispassionately but is happy to accept that nothing can be proven absolutely, thus will not react negatively to believers.

2. The dogmatic: Those who consider that that which is improbable on the basis of available evidence should be challenged.

3. The fundamentalist: Those who contend that all 'magical thinking' is bad, and the appropriate response when dealing with believers is derision.

Unfortunately when it comes to the spreading of beliefs, through schools and by advertising to those who may lack critical faculties, I would count myself as dogmatic.

I fall into all three camps, depending on how well I have slept the previous night.

Today probably purist, though normally dogmatix (although I look more like Obelix)

[Trinoc]

"Dogmatic skeptic" is surely a contradiction. Anyone who adheres to any sort of dogma is by definition not a skeptic.

[Jack of Kent]

The names could be seen as deliberately provocative, but was trying to look at it from a believers perspective. How about, academic, enthusiastic & intolerant?

On reflection:

1. Liberal skeptic (me usually, unless a matter of law or public policy is at stake)

2. Engaged skeptic (me when a matter of law or public policy is at stake)

3. Absolute skeptic (not me; usually someone who uses the vocabulary of skepticism to mask being a debunker; that straw man sitting over there...)

[Floppit]

3. There are beliefs which contradict what can otherwise be established

These are the beliefs of those who will believe things to be true despite - and in the face of - any evidence or critical thinking. This is a sort of contrarian faith.

This is the most impressive form of faith and is rather beyond my own comprehension.

Skepticism, perhaps, would be the friend of faith IF believers saw themselves in the way described above but they don't. They believe in ressurection because in their minds it is evidenced, in the bible, they believe in iracles because they see them in the real world (in special services etc). They don't believe in science because to them it is a deception.

Ok - enough huge generalisations, I haven't met every 'contrarian believer' and I'm only actually going on the handfull I have met. None the less, we are at odds because as much as we see deception in their teachings, they actively attempt to show deception in science.

I still think critical thinking should be taught in schools - but religious and non religious alike it probably will always have too much opposition, it risks challenging the social order.

[polomint38]

They don't believe in science because to them it is a deception.

Their PC, Microwave, Games Console. Television etc.. are these all deceptions
? sure they use all the nasty science things

[Trinoc]

Their PC, Microwave, Games Console. Television etc.. are these all deceptions
? sure they use all the nasty science things

You are making the mistake of expecting consistency. These people think differently ... concepts like consistency, evidence, method and mechanism are foreign to them.