Illustration from Edwin D. Babbitt’s The Principles of Light and Color (1878)
A fellow Twitter user who goes by the handle JustMe @APeasantLife (Charles) challenged me to clarify some of our ongoing posts on Modern Skepticism that Jim and I have been exchanging.
One question he had is that we don’t seem to be very clear on how we define Skepticism, and I want to revisit that briefly and summarize it and bring it down to a more basic definition: an attitude of doubt.
Now, Charles correctly points out, what are the limits of doubt? Should we really question everything? He rightly asks, “How does one choose that which should be questioned?”
Well, that’s a great question. I think one of the ways I try and determine what should be questioned is by observing what I call “truth claims.” Truth claims are presented as fact with the assumption that they are based on evidence.
If I see something presented as a fact, a truth, and it doesn’t sound right to me, I do a fact check. I do this frequently with news. I evaluate the source, and then I compare it with other valued sources to compare the facts of a news story. I often find very different results when I look further into a story. I often go further by checking the source out via tools such as Media Bias Fact Check, Politifact and Snopes. (I personally think Media Bias Fact Check does a pretty good job, but there are other fact-checking sources that are probably quite good.)
Here’s an easy example:
Melania Trump to Personally Murder Beloved Tree? Not Exactly
In this example, in December of 2017 a historic magnolia tree on the White House grounds was going to have to be removed. The different ways in which this story was presented were hilarious. Many headlines made it sound like Melania Trump had gone completely bonkers and was ordering around staff like a diva demanding Andrew Jackson’s 200 year old magnolia be chopped down for no apparent reason. Of course, the truth of the story was much more logical and justified.
Of course, I see the same type of thing when I see a viral video. I approach these stories with skepticism because they are so often selectively edited, often to promote as certain pet political viewpoint. Many viral videos, when you see the entire video, or at the very least the back story, are not what they appear to be and I simply am not going to jump on the outrage brigade.
I’ll give an example of this here. I wrote about a video and story that went viral and became known as the Napping While Black incident at Yale University. This was in the midst of multiple videos being shared that appeared to show white women incessantly calling the cops on black people doing nothing illegal. When I did a bit of fact-checking on the incident, I discovered there was indeed more to the story and that Sarah had become the subject of a rather unprecedented mobbing that had driven her to the brink of suicide. Here is what I found:
Sarah Braasch, Portrayed as Racist Cop Caller at Yale, Debuts YouTube Channel
Let’s say I read about a popular hashtag on Twitter. Last year I became quite curious as to why people were discussing Qanon. Well, I decided to research it and got to the bottom of it as best I could. It would likely be classified as a conspiracy theory, I suppose. By the way, this is probably one of the most read stories on my blog.
Qanon: The Storm is Coming, The Great Awakening & Follow the White Rabbit
Clearly, there are certain truth claims that don’t need to be fact-checked. I am not going to investigate, for example, whether the earth is flat or not, although I did actually go and read the history of the theory. It just wasn’t something that deserved serious attention.
Another great way to use skepticism is when you see “Miracle Cures.” Not only is skepticism good before you lay out your hard-earned cash, but some of these products may actually lead to physical harm, and if that harm comes to innocent children, then the consequences could be horrific. Here’s my best example:
Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is Not a Treatment for Autism and Children are Being Harmed by it Use
Now, I do sense that Charles isn’t fond of atheism. As I said before, I don’t believe a skeptic is automatically an atheist.
Charles asserts there are unknowns. I agree with that statement. We are constantly making new discoveries, revising beliefs, retesting theories, etc. But when we discuss religion, are we discussing truth claims or are we discussing faith claims? Is faith a reliable way of knowing?
Now Charles turns the tables on me in an interesting way. I think, if I am not misrepresenting him, that an atheist can be just as dogmatic as a religious person. Charles says atheism itself can become a religion. He asserts “the more active atheists look down their long noses on the religious rabble.” I am not going to disagree with Charles here. I have seen it happen. That’s why I say all skeptics are not atheists. They just are waiting for evidence of the truth of religion.
And, Charles, if you evaluate various belief systems, I do find that some have consequences that can be devastating, so belief without evidence can have real world consequences that are not so good. For example:
Tanzanian Witch Murders and more: Belief Has Real World Consequences
Of course, as I spoke about in another post about the Outsider Test For Faith, that brings a skeptic to ask which religion is the true religion? Which God are we talking about? I think these are reasonable questions to ask.
So can you be a skeptic without questioning religion? I would say yes. Charles says, “Most skeptics I know (hopefully I am as I see myself as well) intelligent, well-informed, acceptable to agreeing with that which the preponderance of the evidence says is so, and careful to apply skepticism to that which makes sense intuitively and/or logically.”
Charles believes religion is necessary. He is not alone in his belief. He states, “On the other hand, it seems apparent that man needs religion (evidenced by the proliferation of religion and commonalities amongst all religions) or something like religion that is an acceptable substitute.”
So, Charles is skeptical that humans will be okay without religion. Yes, he is applying skepticism to the idea that we can be good humans without religion as our moral compass. Charles says, “The religions that fail have no hell, no punishment, no final retribution. Fear drives the most successful religions. Fear is not necessarily a bad thing, or so says my amygdala.”
This is a question I cannot answer other than to say that I suppose we need a study as to whether atheists turn into degenerates or immoral people once they reject religion as true. I cannot provide Charles with proof this is not true. So… his skepticism here is legitimate.
I would like to point out the recent work of Clay Routledge in this area. He would likely agree with Charles that we have an inherent need for religion or some substitute. His book is called Supernatural: Death, Meaning, and the Power of the Invisible World.
Courtesy Amazon: Routledge takes readers through a wide range of fascinating research from psychology that paints a picture of humans as innate supernatural thinkers. Exploring research from the emerging field of experimental existential psychology, he makes the case that all humans have the same underlying existential needs, with similar coping strategies across times, cultures, and degrees of religiousness. Surprisingly, cultural institutions such as sports, environmentalism, secular humanism, and science also showcase supernatural attributes and qualities. Indeed, studies show that supernatural thinking assuages stress and anxiety and improves mood and psychological well-being.
But for a counter perspective, I offer MIchael Shermer’s latest book: Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia.
From Amazon.
A scientific exploration into humanity’s obsession with the afterlife and quest for immortality from the bestselling author and skeptic Michael Shermer
In his most ambitious work yet, Shermer sets out to discover what drives humans’ belief in life after death, focusing on recent scientific attempts to achieve immortality along with utopian attempts to create heaven on earth.
For millennia, religions have concocted numerous manifestations of heaven and the afterlife, and though no one has ever returned from such a place to report what it is really like–or that it even exists–today science and technology are being used to try to make it happen in our lifetime. From radical life extension to cryonic suspension to mind uploading, Shermer considers how realistic these attempts are from a proper skeptical perspective.
Heavens on Earth concludes with an uplifting paean to purpose and progress and how we can live well in the here-and-now, whether or not there is a hereafter.
Thank you Charles for engaging with us. I enjoyed considering your thoughts on this and any response you have to this post.