Skepticism promotes questioning and doubting with rational examination in an attempt to learn. It denies that the world can be objectively known in any absolute sense. It further denies the true knowability of God. (CARM.org)
Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. (Wikipedia.com)
G.E. Moore, an English philosopher, was famous for his simplistic “here is a hand” argument for a commonsensical refutation of skepticism. Before lectures of his ‘Proof of an External World’, he would raise each hand, remarking “here is a hand, here is another hand, skepticism refuted”.
An interesting, related anecdote passed along from my professor involved a specific lecture where Moore reportedly referenced a door in the back of the hall as another obviously real entity (equivalent to his hands). It was only at the end of the lecture that a participant commented that the door in question was actually only part of a larger mural and therefore wasn’t real. Thus, despite the apparent certainty and immediacy of our senses, there remains the possibility (however small) that we’re not getting things quite right. (erraticwisdom.com)
1 Tim 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
It’s easy to be a skeptic because it is much easier to not believe something as to believe it. Skepticism has no non-arbitrary stopping point. That is, full blooded skepticism will naturally morph into cynicism. Many skeptics construe their skepticism as an act of courage, as though being willing to question everything shows a brave streak that others do not have. To a point, there is courage.
However, if it is brave to question everything it is braver still to believe [something].
someone who is willing to finally make up their mind that something is true and real and is ready to change their life to reflect that conclusion also exhibits courage and bravery, and this courage and bravery is of a different character than the courage of questioning. The latter, as I have argued, can go on and on forever, while the former must eventually choose a hill to stand on, and on that hill, possibly ‘die.’
If a person does not want to accept something, pure skepticism allows them an infinite number of escapes.
I had an atheist tell me that even if Jesus really did rise from the dead, this could be explained as an alien abduction. Note, he didn’t actually believe this. His point was simply that he could come up with a naturalistic explanation and any naturalistic explanation is preferred over a supernaturalistic one. [Thus, a skeptic can come question any ‘supposed’ fact; the questioning doesn’t need to have alternate answers proven; the question itself is the only proof that is need; one question things ad nauseum and thus never come to a conclusion on anything, except that they really can’t know anything for sure. They live their life doubting things; this is both psychologically and spiritually damaging.]
Consider Stephen Hawking’s recent determination that ‘something can come from nothing.’ (i.e., the universe could have just ‘popped’ into existence, uncaused.)
Well, obviously if someone is prepared to believe such a thing, than believing anything about anything and nothing about everything is welcome. For example- you think you are reading this post… in fact, the universe just popped into existence a micr0second ago, replete with the appearance of age and the illusion that you have been living out a life this whole time. In fact, it just ‘popped’ into experience, fully formed with its mature nature and your recollections- uncaused.
This isn’t bravery or courage when one has descended to that level of thinking. If anything, it is the opposite- it is pure cowardice. The really brave thing would be to admit that by all appearances, the universe had a discrete beginning and it’s madness to think that it came into existence without a cause. Everything else we know with beginnings have causes- why the exception for the universe?
(sntjohnny.com, Anthony Horvath)
The skeptic is always trying to find a way out of believing something…especially when that ‘something’ challenges his lifestyle, way of life, what he considers important, what his goals are, etc.. Believing in God, and/or the Bible, will do just that. There are Christian ‘skeptics’ too; they are very skeptical of anything in the Bible that might promote them having to change their little perfect world that they live in (i.e., standards, call of God, mission of the church, ecclesiology, etc.).
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Common arguments for moral skepticism generally fall under three forms:
- The argument from disagreement – People disagree all the time on what morality is, and the disagreement is a sign that people just determine what they believe to be moral.
-
The demand for morality to be justly established – Who has the right to determine what “morality” is? Why should anyone accept another person’s view of morality?
-
The “ought from an is” argument – this argument basically says that even if moral rules were agreed upon, you couldn’t make the jump to “everyone ought to act this way”.
(fensel.net; they are not Christian)
Matt 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
In philosophical skepticism, pyrrhonism is a position that refrains from making truth claims. A philosophical skeptic does not claim that truth is impossible (which would be a truth claim), instead it recommends “suspending belief”. (Wikipedia.com)
Philosophical skepticism is notoriously difficult to refute; holding that ultimately we can’t know anything. Ancient Greeks such as Pyrrho of Ellis took skepticism to a rigorous level, doubting whether we can know anything, including whether or not we are doubting. Radical skepticism presents questions such as “It might be that we are a brain in a vat, being fed sensory data by an alien via a complex machine.” Or “it could be that we are hallucinating” or “It could be we are being deceived by an evil demon.” We can’t just say that this is absurd, for the mental game here is to logically refute it, which is notoriously difficult. All the skeptic has to do is say “It could be an illusion” and leaves us with the problem of positively refuting it beyond all doubt. As silly as this may seem at first glance, otherwise intelligent people have based their lives on the basis that no one can be sure of any meaning.
(humblesmith.wordpress.com, Tomistic Bent)
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
I am sitting in the back of a coffee shop listening to my friend Jeff rattle off a list of reasons why he thinks Christianity is absurd. As I listen, I realize I am not really hearing him. I am too busy thinking up rebuttals. Then I realize something has to change. Let’s face it: When he’s done talking, I will argue my point and feel good about myself. Then he will argue his point and feel good about himself. Soon it will turn into an intellectual ping-pong match that leaves both of us thinking we won. Nothing changes.
The nature of Christian apologetics usually lends itself to this back-and-forth style of arguing. The problem is most people don’t like arguments. Those who enjoy arguing are like me—not really listening, just getting ready with the next point. Regardless of whether you like to argue, one thing is certain: Arguments don’t bring people to faith.
(John Wilkinson)