Skepticism about Skeptical Faith?

Google Image
Somewhere in my formal education, I learned the importance of critical thinking. I believe it was in high school, taught by priests, but I know I already had an idea about it in elementary school, taught by nuns.

I never felt coerced to believe anything, and I recall challenging the nuns and priests throughout my years in school – including the priests who taught me in the seminary. Many of them weren’t happy about it, but there were never any dire consequences.

Am I saying that I wasn’t influenced by my teachers and the faith that I inherited from my parents? Of course I was. But everybody has to try to make objective judgments about what they’ve been taught, heard and seen. Usually, that’s done incrementally during one’s life. 

“Critical thinking” is usually thought of as a quality of science and scientists, not religious people. But I don’t quite see it that way. Scientists are also products of their backgrounds and upbringing and the influences of their teachers. They see reality through their eyes as I see it through mine. No one is excused from critical thinking.

Objective Analysis

I like the simple definition offered by Wikipedia: “Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.” It’s related to skepticism, which Wikipedia describes as “any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.” “Putative,” by the way, means what is generally accepted to be the truth.

Many people believe that religion is the “putative knowledge” and skepticism is doubting religious views. And that has some validity, I believe. Religion, too, should be met with skepticism. Isn’t that why God made us intelligent beings? I think God likes the bumper sticker, “Question Everything.”

Obviously, I don’t accept the common notion that skepticism is a negative thing. That’s why I call this blog “Skeptical Faith.” Some would quarrel with this title because they may see the blog as promoting religion. And I acknowledge that the point of the blog is to get people to look at religion more objectively, trying to minimize the biases and cultural baggage of today’s society.

Tania Lombrozo
Google Image
But others would quarrel with it because they believe skepticism, which they view as a negative thing, has no place alongside belief. To me, they reject the notion of faith, which requires trust in God and the renunciation of the false promise of certainty.

In a recent commentary on the National Public Radio web site, Tania Lombrozo, a psychology professor at the University of California, who writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, takes on the subject of skepticism.

Too often, she writes, skepticism “expresses approval when the target of skepticism is a claim we reject, and disapproval when the target is a claim we hold dear.” If we’re Republican, we may be skeptical only of positions held by Democrats. If Democrat, skeptical only of Republican positions.

“Sometimes, though, skepticism is taken to be a healthy attitude towards belief — a characteristic that we might praise regardless of its target,” writes Lombrozo. “Skepticism is supposed to reflect a willingness to question and doubt — a key characteristic of scientific thinking. It encourages us to look at the evidence critically; it allows for the possibility that we are wrong.”

Indeed, science cannot function properly without skepticism, but neither can religion, because without it, it’s hard to internalize what you believe.

“…Taken too far,” however, “skepticism misses its mark,” she continues. “It's important to avoid the error of believing something we ought not to believe, but it's also important to avoid the error of failing to believe that which we should.”

Humility

Lombrozo believes skepticism should be accompanied by humility, and always implies a search for truth.

Regarding humility, one of the hazards of belief is smugness – the attitude that my faith has bestowed the truth on me but not on unbelievers. And smugness poses the danger of being judgmental.

As for the search for truth, I believe the greater danger today is not the blind acceptance of religion but the lack of skepticism about the modern substitutes for religion. Skepticism requires the willingness to accept truth where we see it – including the most obvious places like the Church.

People seriously searching for God can’t leave God out of the equation, of course. We need to pray for faith and be God-like. But religious belief is rational. There are good reasons for it, and it’s our job to find them. While doing so, we can be skeptics and believers. There is such a thing as “skeptical faith.” 






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more