Children are typically much less skeptical than adults, yet they are sometimes capable of seeing directly to the truth of a matter in ways that confound adults. That’s why we have the phrase, “From the mouth of babes…” (Well, that and Psalm 8.)

My dad is the skeptical, logical type. My mom is much more intuitive, while also being more trusting. Yet on most of life’s important decisions where they have differed, I would say that my mom gets it right at least half of the time. Why is this? Perhaps because even skeptics sometimes simply believe what they want to believe under the guise of logical skepticism. Once again, it looks to me like skepticism is just as fallible as any other part of fallible man.

What we really need here is someone who is capable of overcoming man’s fallibilities in order to disseminate reliable knowledge. Perhaps this entity could use both man’s skepticism and his intuition, his reason and faith in the process. At the least, it might be wise to be open to this possibility.

A couple notes.

The only way to establish their credentials beyond reasonable doubt would be to ask them questions which they couldn’t answer correctly by any natural means. In this case, sceptical investigation is the best was forward.

I would say that there are a couple of different types of skepticism. In my view, there is nothing wrong with doubts when they lead one to find things out. It is the doubt that causes one to rule certain possibilities out of hand that I think are troubling. Too often, it seems to me, skepticism can result in the latter.

Biblical support for skepticism can be found in a number of examples. Prophets were tested on their ability to correctly predict the future. Signs and wonders were given to validate a message. Even the words of the apostles were tested against prior scripture.

But my main point is that skepticism uses man’s fallibility as a starting point. I can imagine a different way of looking at knowledge that starts with God’s capabilities instead of man’s fallibility. My use of the term revelation was meant to represent how God might communicate knowledge in a way that overcomes man’s fallibilities in this thought experiment. (Though I am familiar with general and special revelation as more formal categories .)

Thanks to you you and Dr. Marks for taking the time to do this!

Sal

I’m curious as to what you mean by ‘revelation’. There are at least three categories of events/experiences which are classed as revelation: personal revelation, group revelation, and written revelation (if you’re referring to another type then please correct me).

I myself (like most people) have had neither a personal revelation, nor a group revelation. Let us suppose that God does exist and that there are people with whom he communicates directly through revelation: how are we to recognise them? Do we have any reliable way of distinguishing a prophet from a lunatic? Unless you’re prepared to accept unquestioningly the claims of people like Bob Jones, John Smith, or L. Ron. Hubbard, we must use an evidence based approach to determine which of these people who claim revelation are genuine. The only way to establish their credentials beyond reasonable doubt would be to ask them questions which they couldn’t answer correctly by any natural means. In this case, sceptical investigation is the best was forward.

If you take revelation to refer to a claimed holy book or books, then how are we to establish it to be a genuine holy book? The claims of the New Testament are in contradiction with the claims of the Quran, yet both claim to be divinely inspired. The Bible is a particularly difficult book to prove, because it is an anthology rather than a single book with a single author; even if you could prove that one book was divine revelation, that wouldn’t mean that every book was. The only way to show that a book was divinely inspired would be to test it carefully, so again scepticism and an evidence based approach must come to the fore.

You say:
So, in a way, it seems no surprise to me that one who starts with skepticism will end up with it. On the other hand, one who is the least bit open to the existence of God need not be so skeptical, especially as it relates to revelation.

But Thomas Paine was a firm believer in God, and yet he dismissed all claims of revelation; he declared that a book could be forged or altered, and a self-proclaimed prophet could lie, so only the natural world could be relied upon. Paine saw the natural world as the only form of divine revelation, and it can be explored only through human reason.

I’m skeptical aobut scepticism’s reliablility in acquiring knowledge. I’ve always thought that revelation beats it hands down. Of course, I suppose it depends upon your starting point.

If you assume there is no God (because you are skeptical?) and must rely completely on knowledge via fallible human conventions, then it seems like skepticism is a very prudent approach. Given the history of human mistakes, it would be foolish to be otherwise.

On the other hand, if God exists, and, as the typical concept of God would suggest, He knows everything and has the ability to communicate what He knows in a way that can overcome fallible human conventions, surely knowledge gained through such revelation would be more reliable.

So, in a way, it seems no surprise to me that one who starts with skepticism will end up with it. On the other hand, one who is the least bit open to the existence of God need not be so skeptical, especially as it relates to revelation.

Yet the same Gospels used to determine Jesus’ family members do not say that Jesus permanently succumbed to death, but rather testify positively of temporary burial in Joseph of Arimithea’s tomb adjacent to the site of crucifixion and of resurrection into eternal life. Here the Jesus Family Tomb people look silly promoting the fatally flawed (pun intended) Gospel records as a trustworthy source for lesser details like family members.

Yet on another Jesus Family Tomb page, The Resurrection, someone writes that the resurrection may have occurred later from a second “permanent” tomb. The disciples actually did “steal” the body to prevent desecration, and moved it to Talpiot. There Jesus may or may not have been resurrected.

Again the Jesus Family Tomb tries to eat their cake and have it too by relying on the Gospels as sources of reliable information for family members, and yet ignoring obvious reports about the resurrection: that at sunrise the women found the Joseph of Arimithea tomb surprisingly empty, that neither Peter nor John (at least initially) knew what had happened to Jesus’ body at Joseph’s tomb, that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene at Joseph’s tomb, etc.

Best Regards

Nice website. There’s certainly a lot to be said for using a method on itself, as the Logical Positivists should have done with their Verification Principle.

To my mind, if there’s any reliable way of aquiring knowledge then it will be through scepticism and objective examination of the evidence, with as few appeals to emotion or faith as possible. If there is no reliable way of aquiring knowledge, then no method is better than any other and so I might as well adopt scepticism.

Doubt as to the validity of an evidence based approach seems akin to the total scepticism of Descartes: it’s an interesting thought experiment, but you wouldn’t want to apply it to real life. As Cleanthes says to Philo in Hume’s masterful “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”:

Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. And this consideration, Demea, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humourous sect of the sceptics.

Although I realise that the article you linked to was written in jest it did make some valid points; of course it isn’t intellectually healthy to read only the opinions of people who agree with you: I’ve read Pascal’s “Pensées” and Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy”, as well as more modern works, but I confess that I haven’t found any of them very convincing.

Bob

Just wondering. Have you ever been skeptical of skepticism?

It worked wonders for Scanton.