Becoming a Skeptic -- Were You Always?

[_Moniker]

I never really believed in god. The whole concept never made much sense when I thought about it, but then as a small child I didn't think it about it that much. I didn't grow up in an active household: while my parents had some kind of god belief they didn't really stress it, and while my mother made my brothers and I go to Sunday School and Primary (and later MIA/Scouts/etc), they didn't attend unless one of their children was doing something (a talk, a performance, getting baptized, etc.) So visible belief was not required, thus I didn't give a lot of thought to pondering the existence of a deity. I gave much more thought to the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and faeries. I had hard evidence of those (at least in my mind)---I saw faeries.

I love hearing about your faeries, Blixa! :) I actually have always had a mind that sort of drifts off to the numinous -- which made me feel rather insane before I learned about neurotheology -- I'm glad I'm not alone in that. My mother told me when I was quite young the Easter Bunny wasn't real. I ran to my best friends house and then told her. Her mother stomped over to my house and fussed at my mother! Santa was ruined for me in Japan when I asked the Japanese kids about Santa coming. They had never heard of him!! What about Santa whipping about in his sleigh all over the world?? It was BS!!! Well, needless to say that was a bummer!!!

Everything about church turned me off. As I've detailed ad nauseum in my autobiographical posts on this board and my board blog, I had a visceral reaction against what struck me as its unrelenting ugliness and mediocrity. I was an early reader, and had easily read a good chunk of the "canon" in grade school. While my early aesthetic standards were naïvely traditionalist, they did provide a point of absolute contrast with what was on offer at church. As I got a bit older, the severe anti-feminism of late 60's and early 70's Mormonism, as well as priesthood ban on blacks, were enough to make me decide which side I was on.

I wonder if growing up and watching so much nature worship made it difficult for me to transition to the closed in building modes of worship. I find rather uncomfortable sitting in a row with people all about, it's actually quite stifling for me. More so than the atmosphere is knowing I'm in the midst of people that have beliefs in which I don't hold and at any moment someone may actually ask me about my views. There is an old country chapel that is nestled in the woods that I used to go to frequently. It's has old pine floors, old hand carved pews, it is so still there -- and for some reason always oddly chilly... THAT is my favorite Church. It's sparse... no stained glass, just the floors, the pews, the simple pulpit, and the chill air. It's the most lovely Church I've ever been in. Something about it just is tranquil and simple -- it appeals to me. Carpeted floors, ornamentations, etc... remind me of hotel lobbies... I can see why others may think they're beautiful -- and I can appreciate some of them... yet, they don't impress tranquility unto me.

I was probably in Jr. High school when I gave some more thought to the issue of Is There A God? I never "felt" like there was "somebody" there, and from my public school knowledge of science and history, abetted by own vociferous outside reading, it seemed like there was no explanatory necessity for belief. In fact, I remember in second grade how a My Weekly Reader article on DNA and genetics prompted me to consider the idea that "god" was a way of explaining things before people knew how they worked. Anyway, my Jr. High school brain was more focused on ethical issues and the Vietnam War (hey, anyone remember when the american media actually covered wars with journalism and photographs?) provided the rock on which any lingering idea of god finally broke for good. While the existence of god still made no rational sense to me, I didn't even care anymore because if He did exist, I wanted nothing to do with an entity so capricious and cruel.

I never really even understood that "God" of Christianity was cruel until I lately learned some about the Old Testament. The God of my youth was just I created in my mind -- I liked Him. :) I actually was able to completely dismiss the lingering notion of God when I started reading Greek tragedy! For some reason I went through about 2 years in Jr. High being fascinated with the Roman and Greek culture... as I read about their Gods something just sort of snapped open for me in my mind and it was an "aha" moment -- yet, I couldn't quite articulate what I understood with reasoning. Yet, it was just the simple understanding that God is merely fantastical fiction, and sometimes cruel fiction.

Basically the whole thing never seemed remotely believable to me. I lasted a few more years in church, but mostly because of the general socal pressure of teenage fitting in. A different religion, one with a richer culture and more progressive social ideals might have kept me in longer, as a kind of not-really-believing-in-god-but-thinking-the-institution-did-some-good type that I think many church goers, across all denominations, are.

I've been a life-long academic and most of my close friends and those I socialize with are writers, journalists, artists, musicians, people who work in intellectual and creative fields. I rarely run into anyone who is a believer, the whole thing has been a complete non-issue the greater part of my life.

I run into people that are believers all the time. I don't mind that they believe -- it just is uncomfortable, for me, when they talk to me about their beliefs. I smile and nod. It's not a pleasant experience, for me, for some reason. I wish that wasn't so, it actually makes me feel bad that there is a certain topic that I'm so hesitant to discuss with people, yet, I don't see that changing anytime soon, for me.

Thanks for your reply!

[_John Larsen]

I trust that even those who consider themselves as always having been skeptical are highly selective in their skepticism (both in terms of what they are skeptical about and the degree to which they are skeptical). Otherwise, they would be hunkered down in a cave somewhere waiting for the sky to fall. ;-)

I still would like to get people's thoughts on whether they think there may be unhealthy levels of skepticism or not, and if so how does one distiguish the unhealthy levels from the healthy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When one is skeptical about things that are demonstrably true and that can adversely effect the person for not believing, it becomes unheathly. For example, skepticism of condoms or malaria would be harmful.

There is no unhealthy level of skepticism in any sort of metaphysics or those selling things and especially the combination of the two.

[_Moniker]

I've always been a skeptic, just have always had a hard time believing in supernatural things, even when I was totally fooling myself and trying to be spiritual. But there is a twist, I differ in my take on evolution from my main man Seth, I disbelieved evolution, or shall we say, even after I had for the most part left the church and I accepted evolution (and the two are entirely contradictory) I just couldn't *believe* it until many years later. I'll admit, I had read Behe's book. Also, I had a college bio teacher who was militantly pro-evolution, highly lettered, but argued his points with false analogies and never with any good reasoning. So, I've always been kind of a skeptic, but, that somehow somewhat legitimately transfered unfortunately towards evolution. I think in my lack of belief in evolution I was probably a semi-proper skeptic. But, I can criticise myself for not being able to step back and dig deeper into pro-evolution arguments. I have to say, while Dawkins's book on evolution was good, not my fav, but he mentioned his own skepticism toward evolution in the beginning largely because of the awful way it is often presented. And I was glad to hear that.

I can't say I truly had a *testimony* of evolution until I read the book "Evolution: The remarkable history of a scientific theory" by Edward Larson. OMG, anyone who can read and comprehend that book, and still resist evolutionary theory is basically a shell of a human being.

Ha! Gad, oh my goodness.... It's easy to dismiss the supernatural, for me. It's other things I fret about. I'm the same way with topics like evolution. When I first started reading about evolution I just needed to understand the theory so I could create a simple powerpoint. I realized I just did not understand much of it and there was sooo much information. So, I read more and more books trying to fill in the gaps. I am so hesitant to latch onto certain things with the nagging suspicion I'm wrong! I am incredibly uncomfortable stating with certainty anything until I try to completely UNDERSTAND it. I have no doubts in evolutionary theory, now. I need to read that book -- yet, I hope I can comprehend it!!

[_Moniker]

I think Wade's question re "healthy & unhealthy skepticism" to be very "healthy", and quite probably the balance one requires to make good choices and wise decisions. It follows naturally to me to be skeptical until 'study' leads me to decide 'whatever', and do-it, or don't. I mostly "do" which tended to make my life one with more good stuff than bad.

I have attempted to study more to avoid poor choices in my life, as I've reached my 30's. The unfortunate thing, for me, is that sometimes contradictory choices can both appear reasonable and then to make a decision means I must step out of my paralyzing fear of making a mistake. I fear, sometimes, that my skepticism makes it difficult for me to take leaps. Sometimes leaps are necessary, I've found out lately.

IMSCO, "God" is a mythical label attached primitively to the powers of the Universe. IF I were choosing a "God" it would be the SUN. To that 'object' we really do owe our existance--I think???

Warm regards, Roger PS: Don't forget to vote April 5th! Even women have the right/rite... Why not, eh?

I'm cool with sun worship -- it giveth life! :) I always vote!

[_BishopRic]

I trust that even those who consider themselves as always having been skeptical are highly selective in their skepticism (both in terms of what they are skeptical about and the degree to which they are skeptical). Otherwise, they would be hunkered down in a cave somewhere waiting for the sky to fall. ;-)

I still would like to get people's thoughts on whether they think there may be unhealthy levels of skepticism or not, and if so how does one distiguish the unhealthy levels from the healthy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I remember a professor I had at Cal that suggested to us to respond to "belief" questions with "I neither believe nor disbelieve, but am interested in learning about it...." I was TBM at the time, so sort of scoffed at the lack of conviction it implied, but have since evolved to take his approach mostly. He was insistent that this allows one to take out the emotion and ego of the issue, and with that attitude, can be more open to unbiased learning. Of course, there must be skepticism about everything in life -- but should be applied with consistency to all sides.

[_wenglund]

I trust that even those who consider themselves as always having been skeptical are highly selective in their skepticism (both in terms of what they are skeptical about and the degree to which they are skeptical). Otherwise, they would be hunkered down in a cave somewhere waiting for the sky to fall. ;-)

I still would like to get people's thoughts on whether they think there may be unhealthy levels of skepticism or not, and if so how does one distiguish the unhealthy levels from the healthy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When one is skeptical about things that are demonstrably true and that can adversely effect the person for not believing, it becomes unheathly. For example, skepticism of condoms or malaria would be harmful.

There is no unhealthy level of skepticism in any sort of metaphysics or those selling things and especially the combination of the two.

If what you are suggesting is that the more something is demonstrably true the more unhealthy it is to be skeptical, and vice-versa, then I can see some sense in that rule-of-thumb, particularly the more adverse the affect when disbelieving.

However, to me, the sense of your rule-of-thumb rests on the skepticism coming on the back end of the investigative/analytical process, rather than on the front end. By this I mean that, even within the hard sciences, when one formulates an hypothesis, the hypothesis innitially has yet to be in anyway demonstrated as true, nor as yet been determined whether there is any adverse affect for disbelieving it or not. As such, according to your rule-of-thumb, that would suggest that there should be no unhealthy level of skepticism at that point, and when taken to the extreme may greatly impede the chances of demonstrating whether the hypothesis is true or not, and thus science would have little chance for advancement.

Whereas, once the investigative/analytical process has played itself out (via the scientific method), and the truth or falsity demonstrated, then there may be no unhealthy level of skepticism. Right?

I also think your rule-of-thumb makes sense if, on the backside of the investigative/analytical process, the skepticism is multi-lateral (where there is no unhealthy level of skepticism that may be exerted towards either unbelief or belief). After all, failure to demonstrate the truth of a thing can be as much a failing of the persons and methodologies doing the investigating/analyzing as it is the thing itself. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I appreciate the responses thus far to my question, and I have found them all to be enlightening in their own ways. I particularly liked what Ricks's professor had to suggest on the matter.

However, I think there may be more to this issue than what my question can ascertain. So, let me ask it another way: "What value may be derived from skepticism, and is that value greater than what value may be derived from open-mindedness/humility (teachability)?"

Since skepticism is a means to an end, rather than an end, itself (or at least that is how I view it), I find it advantageous to condition my level of skepticism on how well it enables me to meet my end objective. And, I believe the question I just asked helps provide a means for making that determination. Agreed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_mentalgymnast]

However, I think there may be more to this issue than what my question can ascertain. So, let me ask it another way: "What value may be derived from skepticism, and is that value greater than what value may be derived from open-mindedness/humility (teachability)?"

That's an interesting question. I would go back to a quote from Joseph Smith: "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."

This has been my experience, even though I think it is a life long process to reach "the goal" of obtaining/realizing truth. And even then we only see through a glass darkly as the apostle Paul said. Skepticism isn't innate for everyone. Some are and some aren't. I think this is one reason the church doesn't come out with an advanced gospel doctrine class for the skeptics/questioners. Those who are not skeptical in nature shouldn't have to be subjected to advanced theories/mysteries/issues/doctrine if it is not in their nature to come at things from a skeptical vantage point.

Of course, OTOH, it is true that a skeptic is born every minute in the sense that there are many who were not skeptical in nature to begin with who later became such as they are exposed to "contraries". So some are skeptical by nature and others become such because of circumstances that require further analysis and choice because of hard things that they are exposed to or come in contact with innocently. For me, I can't say one way or the other whether I'd rather be my pre-1993 self or not. I can say, however, that I have a very different perspective on things now than I did then...for better or for worse. Time will tell.

Open mindedness vs. skepticism? I don't know that one has greater "value" than the other. I do think that skepticism is a precursor to open mindedness. I see myself as being much more open minded now than I was pre-1993. So in that respect skepticism is of value if one thinks that being open minded is a trait worth seeking for. Jesus said that we have to become as little children to obtain heaven. What does that mean? I'd think open mindedness has something to do with it. Skepticism is often the path to arrive at that point...or not, in far too many cases.

I really like that quote from the prophet. Skepticism seems to be encouraged.

Regards,
MG

[_BishopRic]

I appreciate the responses thus far to my question, and I have found them all to be enlightening in their own ways. I particularly liked what Ricks's professor had to suggest on the matter.

However, I think there may be more to this issue than what my question can ascertain. So, let me ask it another way: "What value may be derived from skepticism, and is that value greater than what value may be derived from open-mindedness/humility (teachability)?"

Since skepticism is a means to an end, rather than an end, itself (or at least that is how I view it), I find it advantageous to condition my level of skepticism on how well it enables me to meet my end objective. And, I believe the question I just asked helps provide a means for making that determination. Agreed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know if I would view open-mindedness and skepticism as opposites. For example, I look at the brilliant people I've known in my life, and it seems they have the traits of each. They were open-minded to new ideas, but did not swallow the sales-pitches without considerable study. I think it is this that my professor was trying to teach us -- that teachability is linked to lack of conviction, rather than the opposite.

[_Moniker]

I don't know if I would view open-mindedness and skepticism as opposites. For example, I look at the brilliant people I've known in my life, and it seems they have the traits of each. They were open-minded to new ideas, but did not swallow the sales-pitches without considerable study. I think it is this that my professor was trying to teach us -- that teachability is linked to lack of conviction, rather than the opposite.

Precisely!