How do you KNOW? Answering "uber-skeptics", part uno
Sometimes when we talk about our faith with non-believers, they may say something like, "ok, you may believe that there is a God, but how do you KNOW?" What they are most likely doing at this point is playing the uber-skeptic (I figure I can use the word "uber" since I teach German, right?... all the other kids are using it! ... though, I know, I'm not a kid anymore.) So let's explore this issue. Given the scope of this discussion, I probably won't be able to answer every single issue related to this. I must warn you, this issue of skepticism is a totally HUUUUUGE issue. It's very easy to retreat into skepticism because all you really have to say is, "how to you know? how do you know that? well, how do you know even that???" and on and on.
Remember what I just said: it's very easy to retreat into skepticism... but in my opinion, most of the time when people use it, it's just a sort of defense mechanism.
In our previous discussions, we've established that there is truth... independent of our perceptions. But what about our perceptions then? How much should we trust our perceptions? Should we be skeptical or gullible?
Let's put this on a spectrum ranging from -5 (uber-skeptical) to +5 (uber-gullible):
- (-5) You can choose to be veeeeeery uber-skeptical .
- (-3) You can be fairly skeptical and dismissive.
- (-1) You can be initially skeptical but willing to hear the evidence supporting the claim.
- (+1) You can take in new information but be willing to hear another side to the issue.
- (+3) You can be fairly accepting of new information.
- (+5) You can believe whatever anyone tells you, even if they said that the word "gullible" was taken out of the dictionary.
So here's my final conclusion: everyone has to decide how skeptical they are going to be. Is someone going uber-skeptical for the wrong reasons? Sometimes people do this as a defence-mechanism. Sometimes people do this as a form of rebellion. Sometimes the source of the new information has no credibility (meaning all trust you've had in that person or source is lost).
So here's what I'd like us to discuss in this blog: 1) Why do people use skepticism as a form of defence? 2) Why do people use it to rebel? 3) What causes us to not trust the source anymore? 4) When is it good or smart to be skeptical? 5) When is it bad or stupid?
I won't be able to post another blog for a couple days. This weekend is going to be very busy. So I'm giving a big topic to discuss for the next couple of days. (When I have time, I'll still comment :) )
Labels: Apologetics Tools
posted by Heather R. at 6/23/2006 11:39:00 AM
9 Comments:
hmm.... kudos to heather on a great topic.^.^
i can't post any reply right now as i am kinda short on time and was only checkin up to see whats been happenin.... but expect one within the next few days.
6/24/2006 11:01 AM
I'd like to rephrase #3 a bit to make my question a bit clearer. Have you become skeptical of someone before... like a teacher, a sibling, a friend, or someone we don't really know (basically anyone)? What has made you skeptical of them?
I'll give an example in my life. About a year ago, some Jehovah's Witnesses (a.k.a. "JW's") came to my house. I knew very little about JW's (only that they were known to be absolutely not Christians), so I invited them in to simply learn more about them and what they believe. They found out that I believe in the Trinity so they gave me a pamphlet called "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Well, this pamphlet was obviously against the Trinity, and they quoted numerous sources... some from the writings of Catholic/Jesuit scholars, some from Encyclopedias, some from non-Christians, etc. However, they did not give a list of references such as which books they quoted or even the page numbers the quotes were originally from. (If you want to learn the wrong way to cite information...this pamplet is a good example. It was really bad!) Thank goodness for the internet. I searched for the title of the pamphlet and some of the names they did mention. Let me tell you.... oooooh huiiiiii! The quotes they had were soooooo out of context and sooooo missed the point of the Christian writers! They only quoted sentences that would support their argument but did not represent those they quoted fairly. This is what's known as "stacking the deck". They gather all they can to strengthen their case, while hiding or keeping away anything that would weaken their case.... basically being very "one-sided".
So when people "stack the deck" and purposely use information to mislead others instead of being truthful, my trust in what they say is seriously weaker and I'm more skeptical of them. (Sorry this was long, but I thought you all might be interested in hearing a story! ;P )
6/25/2006 11:51 PM
Yo, WB! Are you still there? (I know you said you were a bit busy... but wanted to let you know you're missed.)
Another thing that causes me to be skeptical is when new information doesn't quite fit with the information I already have learned. This doesn't mean I just blow it off (the new information), but I have to think about it and decide if it makes more sense than my "previous" information.
6/27/2006 11:59 AM
Regarding #5, I think it's bad to be skeptical for the purpose of arguing someone into a corner instead of having a good and productive discussion.
It's easy to be simply-skeptical. It's more challenging to come up with a better solution, suggestion, or conclusion.
6/27/2006 12:03 PM
he he, i am still here!!!!!
i tink that all around i'm pretty much a -1 in my skeptibility. I know what i believe, and i stand firm in knwoing that God is truth and that i believe in him. i'm not going to ever let anyone change that. however, i'm still open to other peoples ideas, and i liek learning about how they follow christ for themselves. not everyoen has the same walk with god, or chooses to worship in teh same way, hence there are so many religions and beliefs out there. I don't follow them, but i do like learning about them.
1. i think skepticism is used as a form of defiance because thats a person's natural way of reacting. people do not like to feel liek they are being pressured to follow somehting other than what they already believe. anyone who is set in their beliefs will automatically become skeptical of anything that even remotely defies their beliefs or tries to get them to believe somethign else, if that makes sense. skepticism is, in a sense, a persons way of protecting themselves from something they don't know and aren't yet open to.
this kind of answers number 2, as well.
for number three, i think the main source of skepticism and loss of trust is when people find out about things. example, i saw this lady on tv (wife swap) that calimed to be the highest of highest of christians, and was so sickly strict about everythign that she did, that it almost turned me away from god. I know what true christianity is like, and her display clearly wasn't it. but, what caused the most skepticism from me to her was that she was claiming to be so of the bible, and when she got home from her trip she automatically started yelling at her family tellign people about how horrible everything was. not once did she hug them, say she missed them, show she loved them, or even SIAD i love you to any of her family. i'm now skeptical about her christianity becasue love is one of the main signs that you are a true christian, and she neglected to show it.
as for 4 and 5, there are plenty of times when it's good to be skeptical. satan himself is very deceptive, and skepticism is a way for christians to realize that something isn't right,a nd can often times lead us straight to god.
6/27/2006 3:16 PM
WB WB! (Welcome Back Wonder Bucket!)
This is good stuff. I'll comment on what you both wrote a bit later (perhaps tomorrow when I have a chance).
I thought of another thing this evening related to #4...
Sometimes (only sometimes... like once in a blue-moon) it's good to "play the skeptic" or keep asking "why do you believe that" in order to help the other person realize what their basic/core assumptions are. It's good to know these things in order to evaluate whether a belief-system has a good or a shaky foundation.
6/27/2006 10:56 PM
ooooh, very nice. i like that 'playing the skeptic' thing. i've done that before but that never occured to me as beign a good time to play a skeptic.
skeptic is such a weird word to type...
skeptic...
skepticism....
lol
ok.
n you know what else i found out? if you clickie on my name it actually WILL take you to my blog he he fun^.^
6/28/2006 10:33 AM
Ha! Buuuuuut WB, don't forget I said *once in a blue moon*!! I saw your blog too! I had to add a couple of comments, of course!
GF, now just for a sec, I'd like to play "devil's advocate". Why are you at a -3 to -5 when it comes to other religions? What makes you so skeptical of other religions. (I agree with you and I'm skeptical too, but before I tell you why *I'm* skeptical of other religions, I'd like to hear your answer... just so you don't steal mine, he he! ;P )
WB, I think you hit the nail on the head with the "loss of trust" thing. ABSOLUTELY! I'd say the #1 reason people become skeptical is because of loss of trust or something related to that.
Also when people aren't even *trying* to follow the teachings of Christ, then we start to wonder if they really are Christian on the inside. So we can see how even our actions will affect our non-verbal testimony.
There's a difference between falling, getting up (asking for forgiveness), and genuinely trying again to follow Christ, versus falling and simply playing in the mud.
I write a lot. Sorry!!!
6/28/2006 9:30 PM
lol well writing a lot makes things more intersting to read..^.^
n i saw your comments n commented back.^.^
6/28/2006 11:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home