Becoming a Skeptic -- Were You Always?

[_BishopRic]

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.

Yes, as with most of us. Funny, as I read that line, it made me think "I hear this phrase from about everybody I know that is about 50 years old!" I consider myself as guilty anybody here, and it made me think what is it about our 30s and 40s that we change so much? It's easy for me to look at my change of spiritual beliefs and peg most of my evolution to that, but I do wonder about those that haven't changed beliefs.

For me, and many other exmos I know, I came to question everything. From a religious persepective, I question the accuracy of all "scripture," and even God himself. Beyond religion, I question (one could say I am skeptical of) all politicians, sales companies, and certainly anybody who claims to be enlightened about anything more than another.

So I guess my disbelief in Mormonism has made me more skeptical of LIFE...as well as made me more open-minded, in my opinion.

[_wenglund]

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

Those are some wonderful thoughts, and I love the Joseph Smith quote as well.

To me, though, skepicism is like an arsenal of rocks. When skillfully tossed at conceptual structures, will tend to punch holes in rigid and flimsy cognative tapestries or chance folding richety epistemic infrastructures, thus causing the faulty to collapse, while leaving the sturdy and robust belief systems intact and still standing. On the other hand, the arsenal of skeptical rocks can also be stacked so high as to obscure one's view of some of the most enlightening vistas, and in the tossing end up deeply and perminently maring things of conceptual beauty.

This suggests to my mind the need for a judicious balance in the use of skepticism....which then begs the question of where and how to strike that judicious balance? As I see it, the answer to this question lies in finding the answer to my last question, measured in terms of one's ultimate objective (be it happiness, love, respect, meaningfulness, wholistic perfection, fulness of knowledge and wisdom and power, or combinations thereof, etc.).

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-

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.

I don't view open-mindedness and skepticism as necessarily opposites either. Depending upon the quality and quantity of skepticism (skepticism can at times be as low grade, if not lower, as the things about which there may be skepticism) and where it may be directed (inward and outward), and the varied reason for it being directed, may either open or close the mind, inadvertantly or otherwise.

I think this point may be born out through answering my "value" question. To me, one of the values to be derived from some measure of skepticism, is self-protection (protection from being duped or mislead and suffering as a result thereof). I view this as a good thing.

However, as with many things in life, good things (like self-protection), when taken too far or pressed out of proportion or implemented improperly, can become not good. For example, the wall of skepticism that one may wisely build around one's intellectual fortress to keep at bay the dreaded belief peddlers, salesman, and flimflammer, if built too high and impregnible, may also keep at bay cognitive caterers who have prepared quite nourishing, healthy, uplifting and fulfilling mental feasts. ;-)

Also, I don't view teachability as at odds with conviction--except perhaps in case of omniscence. In fact, as I understand the educational process (having taught professionally for a brief time as a Special Education teacher) without the foundation and building blocks of epistemic conviction, the would-be student lacks the necessary conceptual and instructional infrastucture to enable learning, and would thus lack the capacity to be taught. Can one learn to add and subtract absent some level of conviction about numbers and other very basic mathematical concepts and relations? My experience says not.

Again, I think it a matter of balance and proper application in the case of both conviction and skeptism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Again, I think it a matter of balance and proper application in the case of both conviction and skeptism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll buy that. Thanks for the discussion!

[_cacheman]

I think this point may be born out through answering my "value" question. To me, one of the values to be derived from some measure of skepticism, is self-protection (protection from being duped or mislead and suffering as a result thereof). I view this as a good thing.

However, as with many things in life, good things (like self-protection), when taken too far or pressed out of proportion or implemented improperly, can become not good. For example, the wall of skepticism that one may wisely build around one's intellectual fortress to keep at bay the dreaded belief peddlers, salesman, and flimflammer, if built too high and impregnible, may also keep at bay cognitive caterers who have prepared quite nourishing, healthy, uplifting and fulfilling mental feasts. ;-)

Interesting questions and thoughts. I think that similar to self-protection, skepticism may be derived from the conscious or unconscious desire for risk avoidance. But at the same time, if one avoids all risks (ie. relational, financial, intellectual, etc.), then one avoids potential gains. With that in mind, I think that the proper amount of skepticism would entail the ability to shelve the skepticism from time to time, and risk the consequences of being wrong, in pursuit of some potentially greater gain. Deciding exactly when, and how often to shelve the skepticism might require a trial and error approach over a lifetime.

So, yes, there can be an unhealthy level of skepticism, just as there can be an unhealthy level of credulity. The line is drawn based on personal experience, and the line is unique and ever evolving for each individual. That's how I see it anyway.

cacheman

[_wenglund]

I think this point may be born out through answering my "value" question. To me, one of the values to be derived from some measure of skepticism, is self-protection (protection from being duped or mislead and suffering as a result thereof). I view this as a good thing.

However, as with many things in life, good things (like self-protection), when taken too far or pressed out of proportion or implemented improperly, can become not good. For example, the wall of skepticism that one may wisely build around one's intellectual fortress to keep at bay the dreaded belief peddlers, salesman, and flimflammer, if built too high and impregnible, may also keep at bay cognitive caterers who have prepared quite nourishing, healthy, uplifting and fulfilling mental feasts. ;-)

Interesting questions and thoughts. I think that similar to self-protection, skepticism may be derived from the conscious or unconscious desire for risk avoidance. But at the same time, if one avoids all risks (ie. relational, financial, intellectual, etc.), then one avoids potential gains. With that in mind, I think that the proper amount of skepticism would entail the ability to shelve the skepticism from time to time, and risk the consequences of being wrong, in pursuit of some potentially greater gain. Deciding exactly when, and how often to shelve the skepticism might require a trial and error approach over a lifetime.

So, yes, there can be an unhealthy level of skepticism, just as there can be an unhealthy level of credulity. The line is drawn based on personal experience, and the line is unique and ever evolving for each individual. That's how I see it anyway.

cacheman

That was profound. What a great analogy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DrW]

Cacheman said:

Interesting questions and thoughts. I think that similar to self-protection, skepticism may be derived from the conscious or unconscious desire for risk avoidance. But at the same time, if one avoids all risks (ie. relational, financial, intellectual, etc.), then one avoids potential gains. With that in mind, I think that the proper amount of skepticism would entail the ability to shelve the skepticism from time to time, and risk the consequences of being wrong, in pursuit of some potentially greater gain. Deciding exactly when, and how often to shelve the skepticism might require a trial and error approach over a lifetime.

So, yes, there can be an unhealthy level of skepticism, just as there can be an unhealthy level of credulity. The line is drawn based on personal experience, and the line is unique and ever evolving for each individual. That's how I see it anyway.

cacheman

I agree C-Man. Since we are, with all of our similarities, very different individually--made that way by design. Some times this creates challenges we would rather avoid... However, simplistically i see skepticism on one end of the 'pole' with gullibility at the other end.

Each end weighted with 'stupidity'. But on the skep-end i also see 'wisdom' that is absent on the 'gull-end. There i see naiveity that tends to blend with stupid & gullible creating potential personal disasters that might lead to extreme future skepticism, leading to a rather fruitless existance. Can pedagogy ride a white horse to rescue this victim of circumstances? To save the victim from himself, possibly. To undo tangled knots of nature and nurture, hardly. BUT such ability-limited folks can be helped to survive. Unfortunately, society is reluctant to budget enough to help them achieve what they may be capable of...
(Please excuse my colloquial terms. It's late :-)
OTOH, healthy wise-skepticism tends to rational analysis that, coupled with good hand-mind co-ordination, generally leads to goal-scoring. Can pedagogy be of assistance here? Certainly, the instructor has more to work with. My experience, as a Special Ed teacher of hundreds, over a decade, bases my opinions. But my experience reinforces the need of good, patient, charitable teachers. Who can, and do, work wonders.

by the way, that SE school, built in 1969, with 30+ vocational subjects, plus basic academics, is now closed. That arouses my skepticism of social-politics and the wimpy Church leaders, and snivelling tax-payers, whose docility and indifference, facilitate such irresponsible dismantling of social-goods to allocate funds to more jails and bigger sport facilities!! GRRRR#$@^%#!!

Wade, maybe you have hatched a new 'Topic'?? Warm regards, Roger

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think cacheman pegged this one.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think cacheman pegged this one.

Me too. cacheman goes back to the old ZLMB board. I've always respected his view on things and taken them to heart, although I was saddened when I heard that he had resigned his membership in the church. He's the kind of guy I'd like to be in the same ward with. There used to be a couple of fellows I could have some good "cultural hall" conversations with, but one went on to become a BYU bishop and is gone for five years or so, and the other moved out of the ward. Hey cacheman, if you're ever down Utah County way this summer (I assume you're up in Cache County), let me know you're in the area and we could meet each other in person.

Regards,
MG

[_Moniker]

I always appreciate cacheman's posts, as well. Yet, he's in my area. :)

Thanks to all of the responses! I really enjoyed reading them, and especially comments as they related to healthy and unhealthy skepticism.