Has scepticism harmed your religious faith?

[Lilairen]

@Loopydude

Since the faithful cannot test their assertions in any demonstrable way to “materialists”, I fail to see how this argument isn’t a hopeless tautology. “Believe me, my faith is real.” Well, no, I won’t believe you. That would be putting faith in what you say. IOW, no argument for faith can be supported without faith as a first principle, a sort of pseudo-axiom, or an axiom that is only such for a segment of the population endowed with the ability to believe. For those without that ability, that faith is tenable is not self-evident. Hence, I see no defensible way to reconcile faith with sceptisism unless one is to allow that the world perhaps isn’t real. That argument, IMO, deserves no further consideration, but obviously I am in a minority in that regard.

I don’t know that any subjective experience can be ‘demonstrated to “materialists”’, as you put it, but that does not mean that those experiences do not exist for the folks that had them.

Every so often I play with the notion that the experiences that I am evaluating are not as I presume they are; that they are the products of the subconscious, say, or similarly unique to the inside of my head. With that as the presumption, I judge whether or not the tools of my religion are useful, and find that they still accomplish the effects that I am looking for.

Coming up with something that can be ‘demonstrated to “materialists”’ isn’t terribly interesting to me. I have a toolset that works for what I want to do, and I test its efficacy somewhat regularly; I can see no way in which one can justify that this is in any way equivalent to “the world is not real”. I am satisfied with my tools; the fact that other people do not find my tools satisfying is very nice for them, I’m sure. I see no more reason that they should care about the contents of my toolbox than I care about theirs.

[Loopydude]

Well, if the world outside of one’s subjective experiences of the “other” actually matter, then the other toolsets are not only interesting, they’re essential. In that regard, claiming they are no more essential than toolsets that are only relevant to spiritual experience is, in my mind, the equivalent of saying spiritual experience occupies an equal plane. This is undemonstrable. That the material world is real seems eminantly demonstrable, unless we are forced to conclude that our perception and interpretations of the material, informed as they are by the tools of skeptical inquiry, are simply a figment of our imagination. Either they are both real or they aren’t. The only way I can see one can claim “material” and “spiritual” reality are equally demonstrable is to allow that the material may not be real. I’ve seen enough of these arguments to recognize they aren’t wrong so much as useless, except to those who wish to justify the relevance of spiritual beliefs to themselves.

[Khadaji]

I would have to say that it has. In my youth, religion played a large part in my life. As I grew older and more skeptical, I have settled into believing is something, but not buying into any of the major religions.

[Lilairen]

@Loopydude

Well, if the world outside of one’s subjective experiences of the “other” actually matter, then the other toolsets are not only interesting, they’re essential. In that regard, claiming they are no more essential than toolsets that are only relevant to spiritual experience is, in my mind, the equivalent of saying spiritual experience occupies an equal plane. This is undemonstrable. That the material world is real seems eminantly demonstrable, unless we are forced to conclude that our perception and interpretations of the material, informed as they are by the tools of skeptical inquiry, are simply a figment of our imagination. Either they are both real or they aren’t. The only way I can see one can claim “material” and “spiritual” reality are equally demonstrable is to allow that the material may not be real. I’ve seen enough of these arguments to recognize they aren’t wrong so much as useless, except to those who wish to justify the relevance of spiritual beliefs to themselves.

I don’t distinguish between toolsets that are applicable to “spiritual” and “material”. I distinguish between toolsets that are useful in my life and those that aren’t. Skepticism as a tool is useful, for example, for testing whether or not other tools are fulfilling their purposes; it is not just useful as a tool for testing some arbitrarily defined subset of other tools.

I am not interested in demonstrating that my tools work beyond the natural result of living a life that uses them. I presume that other people are responsible adults and thus capable of working out what tools will be useful for their own lives and acquiring them.

[Loopydude]

@Lilairen

I am not interested in demonstrating that my tools work beyond the natural result of living a life that uses them.

Of course. You don’t seem sceptical about some of those toolsets, though. In fact, you seem to be saying quite the opposite, in regards to spiritual experiences. Whether they’re vagaries of neurology or apprehension of the numinous is irrelevant to you; what matters is your conviction that your belief allows you to live a good life.

[longat24]

It seems very unlikely to me that a creator would add an attribute, like the ability to question, in to any of it’s creatures, without wanting them to use it.

So as far as religion goes, it would seem that there are some things that you have to accept without proof, or for that matter the ability to prove it. (example: there is a creator) Then there are things like the interpretation of scripture, which have changed dramatically over the years, and would seem not only a wise thing, but a required thing to be skeptical about.

So to react to the OP: Skepticism makes my faith of some articles of my religion stronger, while at the same time allowing me to really question others. Without skepticism and questioning, I think we would find ourselves “stuck”.

[gytalf2000]

I was raised in the Church of Christ, which is very fundamentalist in outlook. Fortunately, from a very early age, I read very widely (paleontology, history, geography,mythology, comparative religions, etc.), so I had a different perspective from a lot of my fellow brethren who limited their reading to just books that supported the “The Bible is inerrant” point of view. I questioned just about everything intellectually, while behaving like a good little fundamentalist is supposed to as far as all the “Don’t’s” are concerned.
By the time I was in my early teens, I no longer really had much faith, even though I continued to attend church services (and still do to this day). I do like to sing, and I love to hear the a capella singing in my congregation. I do not place much stock in the “The Bible is the literal Word of God” point of view, but plenty of people who hold this view are pretty decent folks, so I do not try to debate the issues with them – I just let it go.

[Lilairen]

@Loopydude

Of course. You don’t seem sceptical about some of those toolsets, though. In fact, you seem to be saying quite the opposite, in regards to spiritual experiences. Whether they’re vagaries of neurology or apprehension of the numinous is irrelevant to you; what matters is your conviction that your belief allows you to live a good life.

I don’t have a “conviction”; I’m doubtful that it’s especially relevant to orthopraxic religion in the first place. I keep testing the damn practices, and they keep working, so I keep using 'em. So long as the practices are demonstrated to work, I use them; should they cease to work, I will stop using them. I’ve done so in the past, after all.

[CurtC]

@FordPrefect

I am not a sceptic, but I am a skeptic.

What does that mean? Aren’t those just the British vs. American spellings of the same word?

[FordPrefect]

@CurtC

What does that mean? Aren’t those just the British vs. American spellings of the same word?

Pretty much, but in my head Skeptic has more of an challenge against theism bent than sceptic. Probably nothing more than seeing the k spelling in usage by atheists and the c spelling by Scott Adams who takes a rather dim view towards sceptics.

[Loopydude]

@Lilairen

I don’t have a “conviction”; I’m doubtful that it’s especially relevant to orthopraxic religion in the first place.

So you’re saying you need persistant evidence of efficacy? That seems to barely resemble faith; just an uncritical approach to experience so long as it gets the desired result. Does orthopraxis not also demand conviction, as well as proper action, as it’s commonly understood? All this strikes me as the typical intellectual lazyness of new-age spirituality.

[TheSquirrelfish]

@mswas

I find the illogic of atheists to be mildly amusing sometimes, and slightly irritating other times. Every argument against the existence of god I have EVER seen put forth required the arguers to accept an extraordinarily narrow definition of god, in order for it to be disproved. This comes back to the problem of defining god to begin with. God is made up of all the definitions. Definitions by their very nature are limitations, whereas God is without limit. Even calling God God is a bit of a stretch IMO, but it’s the most useful way to do it IMO. I find that in American secular society we create extremely narrow definitions for religion, and what can be conceivably called religion. These are almost always based upon using Christianity and Judaism as a model. “Is the thing being discussed reminiscent of Judeo-Christianity enough to be considered a religion?”. To me that’s a very narrow minded way of looking at things. Dogmatic atheism is in NO WAY more logical or skeptical than any other dogma. As God to me is not limited to some old bearded man living in the clouds, or any of those other manifestations, it would be very difficult for anyone to disprove the existence of God, in fact it is not possible, for my argument would be simply that the usage of words at all, is the use of aspects of god in order to disprove the existance of god.

Erek

Well, I was pretty much raised without religion. My mother is a deist, we celebrated holidays, and read from religious books for a historical and cultural background. She wanted to expose me to religion so that I could choose. I decided I was an atheist because while I have felt awe I haven’t ever felt anything awesome that could be attributed to a superior being.
I feel skepticism means being able to understand and consider arguments for faith and religion. This has led me to believe that religion can be a great community builder(particularly the LDS & more active/intrusive churches) and that faith can provide hope to people who need it, but hasn’t convinced me of the existence of anything.

The question that I have always used to define whether I am faithful/religious/worshipful is: If a being approached me and could prove to me without a doubt(…) would I respect them any more than I would a human with the same abilities?
(…) has been “created the human species, directed the course of human civilization, instigated my particular existence, was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent”

With the exception of omnispresent, omniscient, and omnipotent all those things could have been done by aliens – which wouldn’t cause me to worship them. (in a hurry but you can see where this argument can go)

[Lilairen]

@Loopydude

So you’re saying you need persistant evidence of efficacy? That seems to barely resemble faith; just an uncritical approach to experience so long as it gets the desired result. Does orthopraxis not also demand conviction, as well as proper action, as it’s commonly understood? All this strikes me as the typical intellectual lazyness of new-age spirituality.

“Faith” is also used as a synonym for religion, y’know.

Most orthopraxic religions of my acquaintance have a wide range of beliefs within their mainstream (and a wider range when one includes the fringies), none of which are precluded by the religion. “Conviction” strikes me as being optional; included within the range of things that are acceptable, but certainly not mandatory. Sometimes people will have arguments about “you must believe this” or “you can’t believe that” in my religion; most of the people doing this are setting up positions that I am not sure can be supported from the research (which is a critical factor in reconstructionist religions) or which have alternates that can be supported equally well.

I tend to think that setting up religious litmus tests on belief rather than practice is doomed to failure based on simple unverifiability. Actions can be observed; thoughts cannot be (at least not without a telepath, and those are hard to come by), nor can one trust reporting – especially in cases where there is pressure to display a certain set of beliefs. (Which tends to happen, IMO, in any group of humans, no matter what its basis for being a group.)

I don’t think any claim of ultimate knowledge or truth is sound; this is a definition of scepticism. I don’t find ultimate knowledge terribly interesting in any case; I want to know, practically speaking, what is likely to work for me and for that which I have responsibility for.

I put my faith in what works, not in half-baked claims to universal function that don’t actually function in reality; I put my faith in things consistent with my observed experience; I put my faith in beauty, if you want that use for the word. “That doesn’t work for everyone”, “That isn’t my experience”, “I don’t find that beautiful” – those responses are interesting data on occasion, but since I never claimed to ultimate knowledge in the first place, they aren’t actually challenges to anything in my religion.

If you want more rambling, I’m going to have to fall back on quoting Terry Pratchett. Be warned.

[Loopydude]

It’s difficult not to put people in boxes, and I understand that can cause problems, e.g. not doing a particular adherent justice. I guess from my perspective it becomes difficult when having such conversations to even know what “faith” or “God” mean anymore. This fluidity of meaning, which I’m sure is highly desirable and liberating on the one hand, makes it a bit of a challenge (at least for me) to comprehend the language being used.

[Unregistered_Bull]

Yes. Since about 5th grade, when notions like creationism began to seem very illogical and improbable compared to scientific fact / theory. I have wavered back and forth between atheist and agnostic since then. On a few occasions of severe depression and tradgedy, I have tried to become a “true believer”, but logic always seems to override it. I think that having a God to pray to, that having faith can be quite comforting and reassuring. I don’t have that comfort or reassurance.

[David_Simmons]

@FordPrefect

@Voyager

As time went on and I learned more I believed even less. The latest shock was learning that the great Davidic kingdom did not exist

Really? May I have a cite please.

There was an empire of David and of Solomon but it wasn’t great as empires of the time went.

David’s realm was not large as empires go, covering at its peak an area of about 30000 sq. miles - about the size of the state of Maine. It was feeble and weak compared to the Egyptian and Hittite Empires that preceded it, or the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Empires that were to succeed it. Indeed it existed at all only because of the accident of history that placed David in the midst of a short and rare period when there were no great empires in Asia.

Nevertheless, David’s empire remained a perid of glory for Israel, when compared to the centuries before and after, and was looked back upon with pride and nostalgia by all the later generations that followed David.

Asimov’s Guide To The Old Testament, Isaac Asimov

[fontor]

I’ve just spent a good while reading these posts, and I’d like to thank everyone for a thoughtful and encouraging discussion.

I too have found that scepticism (even the healthy kind) has the effect of shrinking the pool of beliefs. I had always found it useful to think in terms of core beliefs (that were non-negotiable) and peripheral beliefs (that could be updated or deleted). Critical thinking certainly shrank the periphery, but what I didn’t expect was for everything to start looking peripheral!

Faith says: “If you have faith, you will see miracles, and get the evidence you’re looking for.” The problem is that faith seems to be defined as “uncritical acceptance.” Or, “choosing to interpret phenomena in a way that supports the story.” Many people I speak to seem unable to understand how a non-faithful reading of an event is possible, and we say that their faith is strong. But to me it seems like their blind spots are huge and willful, and I wouldn’t really want to have that kind of faith. (Though they seem happy, so I leave 'em to it.)

So with this kind of faith, the line becomes, “If you choose to interpret things in a faithful way, you’ll get faith.” Or, “You’ll believe it when you believe it.” Well, of course you will. You’d believe anything that way, whether it’s religion or homeopathy! No human system of belief is so impoverished that you couldn’t inject faith into it, and start seeing some results. But this is so much spiritual placebo effect.

And describing faith as “uncritical acceptance” highlights to me how opposite s[c|k]epticism and faith are. How does a sceptic quiet the cognitive dissonance? I suppose by suspending judgement, though this is difficult long-term.

I guess what keeps me going is a combination of inertia (sad but true), humility (I know I can’t see things perfectly, so I’d better suspend judgement on some things), and good ol’ Pascal’s wager (What if you really do get the goodies when you die?). Like I say, some of these are not going to be sustainable, but my scepticism has done one thing: helped me to be tolerant of ambiguity.

Thanks to all for putting some of these issues into perspective.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@fontor

Faith says: “If you have faith, you will see miracles, and get the evidence you’re looking for.” The problem is that faith seems to be defined as “uncritical acceptance.” Or, “choosing to interpret phenomena in a way that supports the story.” Many people I speak to seem unable to understand how a non-faithful reading of an event is possible, and we say that their faith is strong. But to me it seems like their blind spots are huge and willful, and I wouldn’t really want to have that kind of faith. (Though they seem happy, so I leave 'em to it.)

I’m glad you said this; this is a very very good point.

I think there are many things in life where a faithful or a non-faithful reading is possible (with no way of definitively settling which is correct), yet many people are only capable of seeing—or automatically jump to—one reading or the other. And maybe those who can see things from both perspectives yet choose to go with the faithful reading could be said to have a different kind of faith than those who don’t even get the possibility of the non-faithful reading (kind of like people who are afraid but do what they have to do in spite of their fear have a different kind of courage from those who aren’t scared in the first place).

[fontor]

@Thudlow Boink

And maybe those who can see things from both perspectives yet choose to go with the faithful reading could be said to have a different kind of faith than those who don’t even get the possibility of the non-faithful reading…

Interesting about ‘faithful readings’ vs ‘unfaithful readings’. When I read your post, I thought momentarily:

“Do I hafta do readings at all? I just want to see things as they are!” You know what I mean? Like I just wanna believe all the true things!

But maybe that’s the problem. I believe that there is truth, but we don’t have direct access to it. Sorta like history. We don’t know what really happened in history, but we can tell a few things from witnesses and events. But we know that something happened, even though we don’t have direct access to it. Maybe truth is like that – can’t always perceive it directly, but we can draw some inferences. So maybe a well-informed reading of an event is the best we can do at this stage, faithful or not.

Along with that other great principle: whatever inferences you draw, don’t be a dick about them. Is that a religious principle? It oughta be. The eleventh commandmant: Don’t be a dick.

Pity it’s not in the scriptures. Probably have to phrase it differently.

[Othersider]

@longat24

It seems very unlikely to me that a creator would add an attribute, like the ability to question, in to any of it’s creatures, without wanting them to use it.

I’ve never met a person that I considered well-educated on the subject of theology that didn’t say it’s not natural to question. Most, if I remember correctly, also encourage it. I think there’s at least one verse to that effect in the bible, though a cite escapes me.

@longat24

Skepticism makes my faith of some articles of my religion stronger, while at the same time allowing me to really question others. Without skepticism and questioning, I think we would find ourselves “stuck”.

This sounds a little like me.