The Modern Skeptic

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AEON

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
4,052
Location
California
Excerpt from G.K. Chesterson’s book “Orthodoxy”
But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.

Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

It’s hard to believe this was written in 1908 – it seems it could have easily been written today…It seems "The Modern Skeptic" evolved only slightly when he became "The Postmodern Skeptic."

Within Christian circles, I am still seen as a bit of a skeptic. Not because I "question everything" - because I do not easily accept an answer without doing some of my own research.

However, before I was a Christian this quote above was an accurate description of who I was: A Walking Contradiction.

Anyway, I just wanted to read some other impressions of this quote. Are you a recovering skeptic? Still have a healthy amount of skepticism? Skeptical about skepticism?
 
Well, I'm pretty damn skeptical, that's for sure.

I think it's just my personality, and may even be genetic! My sister and brother are both the same way and my dad was a big debater as well.

Nonetheless, I believe in God, I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God is love. So perhaps I'm not really a true skeptic.

What I tend not to trust is anyone who claims to have all the answers, anyone who is claims access to the Absolute and to the Final Word. I don't trust people who are unwilling to at least allow for the possiblity that they might be wrong. As a result extremely conservative believers and hard core atheists are the most frustrating for me to deal with.

I'd like to think I have a "healthy" amount of skepticism, but then wouldn't we all like to think that?

I'm a big fan of Chesterton by the way.
 
maycocksean said:


What I tend not to trust is anyone who claims to have all the answers, anyone who is claims access to the Absolute and to the Final Word. I don't trust people who are unwilling to at least allow for the possiblity that they might be wrong

Same here

I like to think I'm not yet skeptical about certain ideals, just in the ability of most people to live up to those ideals-including myself of course

Luckily every once in a while people still do, and that's one reason to keep on going
 
verte76 said:
I was quite the skeptic before my conversion to Catholicism.

You know I'd love to hear how you came to faith. I was born and raised in Christianity and while I think I'm in the process of adopting it and truly making it my own, I can't imagine what's like to make such a great leap as you've made.

I believe it must take a huge amount of courage, because for most of us, we don't change because it's just more "comfortable" to stick with what we've always known. I'm always impressed with those who are able to leave their comfort zone.
 
I'm the reverse of verte. I started out Christian and became skeptic and have become increasingly skeptical about all sorts of things--not even particularly about Christianity. But I'm not going to say that wasn't the start of my questions. I think for a long time my quest was to become a true believer in something. Never found it, stopped looking.

But I doubt that very many people are total skeptics. I think most people have a core belief or two they guard carefully. I've got mine. I think it helps to ground you.

I'm skeptical when people don't like questions they can't find an easy answer to, when all the facts of anyone's argument lean only to one side, when the official line doesn't jibe with the facts I'm seeing. I'm skeptical when I can see an agenda on any side.
I'm skeptical when I don't see consistent reasoning. I'm skeptical of symbol over substance. I'm skeptical when people talk one way and behave another. I'm skeptical when people get defensive about an idea and I am VERY skeptical when people are praised beyond all reason when they agree with somebody's particular point of view or demonized when they don't. I'm skeptical when someone cannot give me a logical answer to explain a viewpoint they have or only offer anecdotal evidence. And I am flat out skeptical when people ignore inconvenient facts.

We get lied to and manipulated by a whole slew of people. A little bit of healthy skepticism never hurt anybody. I haven't found many things that have satisfied the skeptic in me. I'm open to change, but I'm a tough nut to crack. Scratch a cynic, find a disillusioned idealist.

Interesting thread, AEON.
 
I'd rather be in a room full of skeptics trying to find an answer to a problem than be around one cynic who can't be convinced of anything other than the fact that everyone around them is full of shit.
 
Very interesting topic AEON. When I read the posted article, my first thought was not to religion, but to politics. It seems we are overly blessed with skeptics, who can find a criticism for just about anything, but run well short on ideas or solutions. Persistent political skeptics strike me as the sorts who like to hear themselves talk.

Maycocksean raises an interesting point regarding knowledge of the Absolute or Final Word. I have shared my own experiences as quite the skeptic regarding matters of faith before converting to Christianity. Today, even though I consider Scripture to be authoritative, I do not consider it to be all encompassing. I believe God gave us all we need to follow Him – not the complete works of God.
 
U2DMfan said:
I'd rather be in a room full of skeptics trying to find an answer to a problem than be around one cynic who can't be convinced of anything other than the fact that everyone around them is full of shit.

Great quote, and it raises an interesting point about the fine line between skepticism and cynicism.
 
We need more skeptics, honestly, and what Chesterson describes isn't skepticism or secularism. He is ultimately describing "nihilism," which was an issue of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Self-proclaimed "nihilists" were problematic in imperial Russia at the time, as they also were terrorists.

"Nihilism" also makes a philosophical reappearance in postmodernism, so, in a roundabout way, that's where you got the idea of the "postmodern skeptic."

Frankly, there aren't that many postmodernists to really be all that concerned over. I do think, in the post-9/11 world, that postmodernism has started falling by the wayside in politics in favor of modernism, which is much more certain of itself, unconcerned about tradition, and envisions a future that it feels it can mold on its own.

Of course, a modernist world isn't particularly any more "moral" than a postmodernist world. In Chesterton's era, nihilists were modernists, and that's probably why they engaged in terrorism in their day. But with modernism, we also got some lovely gifts in fascism and Nazism. I think in today's world, that also ends up being the philosophical basis for "the war on terror," whose basis is also without precedent, and whose PNAC/neo-con backers are highly modernist in scope.

As such, a healthy dose of skepticism, coupled with a healthy dose of certainty is a good thing. Hardline skepticism (nihilism) and hardline certainty (stubbornness) are both disastrous, historically speaking.

Melon
 
maycocksean said:


You know I'd love to hear how you came to faith. I was born and raised in Christianity and while I think I'm in the process of adopting it and truly making it my own, I can't imagine what's like to make such a great leap as you've made.

I believe it must take a huge amount of courage, because for most of us, we don't change because it's just more "comfortable" to stick with what we've always known. I'm always impressed with those who are able to leave their comfort zone.

It was scary. It happened when I was in the middle of a terrible depression. One night I was watching the news with my mother and I had this impulse to pick up a volume of St. Augustine that was on a nearby shelf. Strange things kept happening, and finally I called the diocesian educational office, who sent me to the nearest parish church, and I started catechism. It was definitely the most important thing that's happened to me in my life.
 
verte76 said:


It was scary. It happened when I was in the middle of a terrible depression. One night I was watching the news with my mother and I had this impulse to pick up a volume of St. Augustine that was on a nearby shelf. Strange things kept happening, and finally I called the diocesian educational office, who sent me to the nearest parish church, and I started catechism. It was definitely the most important thing that's happened to me in my life.

Thanks for sharing this verte! I hope the Lord has seen you through your depression.

I have known several people that came to Christ after reading Augustine. I had an English Lit professor in college that converted from Judaism to Christianity after reading Augustine's "City of God."
 
melon said:

As such, a healthy dose of skepticism, coupled with a healthy dose of certainty is a good thing. Hardline skepticism (nihilism) and hardline certainty (stubbornness) are both disastrous, historically speaking.

Melon

Well said, Melon
 
Skepticism is too often confused with negativism or, as Melon pointed out, nihilism. The skeptic is not the eternal critic nor even the eternal cynic, although I don't give the word cynic as negative a connotation as other people.

Skepticism isn't an end result. Skepticism is a way of perception--everything being run through a filter.

The ultimate goal of the skeptic is not dismissal (although dismissal may be an end result) but question. What is underneath the veneer of truth being presented? What is the logic, the implication, the motivation, the practicality? The skeptic does not accept the truth as presented without running it through some rigorous testing, including his own belief system.

I would posit that as much has been accomplished by skeptics as nonskeptics. Healthy skepticism frees you to see the world through your own eyes instead of through somebody else's.
 
verte76 said:
One night I was watching the news with my mother and I had this impulse to pick up a volume of St. Augustine that was on a nearby shelf.
:hmm: Was it the Confessions, by chance? That really would be wild, what with the "Take the book and read" epiphany he has in it.
 
Skepticism may be confused with cynicism or nihilism, but how often do you see a person honestly describe themselves as a cynic or nihilist? It seems that one can adopt the label “skeptic” to avoid the negative image carried by the terms “cynic” or “nihilist”. When asking a question, you can either be seeking an answer or providing condemnation in another form.
 
nbcrusader said:
Skepticism may be confused with cynicism or nihilism, but how often do you see a person honestly describe themselves as a cynic or nihilist? It seems that one can adopt the label “skeptic” to avoid the negative image carried by the terms “cynic” or “nihilist”. When asking a question, you can either be seeking an answer or providing condemnation in another form.

Likewise, how often do you see a person honestly describing themselves as a religious fanatic?

It goes both ways, which goes back to the point I last made.

Melon
 
melon said:


Likewise, how often do you see a person honestly describing themselves as a religious fanatic?

It goes both ways, which goes back to the point I last made.

Melon

:confused:

I'm not sure what you mean by "it goes both ways"

Are we discussing an issue from two sides?
 
nbcrusader said:
:confused:

I'm not sure what you mean by "it goes both ways"

Are we discussing an issue from two sides?

As such, a healthy dose of skepticism, coupled with a healthy dose of certainty is a good thing. Hardline skepticism (nihilism) and hardline certainty (stubbornness) are both disastrous, historically speaking.

Excuse me for making an assumption in plural subject pronouns.

Melon
 
yolland said:

:hmm: Was it the Confessions, by chance? That really would be wild, what with the "Take the book and read" epiphany he has in it.

It was a volume with Confessions, City of God and On Christian Doctrine.
 
Not quite the same thing as "skepticism," but since we were blending definitions anyhow...
What Is the Latest Thing to Be Discouraged About? The Rise of Pessimism

By ADAM COHEN
The New York Times (editorial), August 28, 2006


The early stages of the Iraq war may have been a watershed in American optimism. The happy talk was so extreme it is now difficult to believe it was sincere: “we will be greeted as liberators”; “mission accomplished”; the insurgency is “in the last throes.” Most wildly optimistic of all was the goal: a military action transforming the Middle East into pro-American democracies.

The gap between predictions and reality has left Americans deeply discouraged. So has much of what has happened, or not happened, at the same time. Those who believed New Orleans would rebound quickly after Hurricane Katrina have seen their hopes dashed. Those counting on solutions to health care, energy dependence or global warming have seen no progress. It is no wonder the nation is in a gloomy mood; 71% of respondents in a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll said the country is on the wrong track.

These are ideal times for the release of Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a U.C.L.A. political theorist. Mr. Dienstag aims to rescue pessimism from the philosophical sidelines, where it has been shunted by optimists of all ideologies. The book is seductive, because pessimists are generally more engaging and entertaining than optimists, and because, as the author notes, “the world keeps delivering bad news.” It is almost tempting to throw up one’s hands and sign on with Schopenhauer.

Pessimism, however, is the most un-American of philosophies. This nation was built on the values of reason and progress, not to mention the “pursuit of happiness.” Pessimism as philosophy is skeptical of the idea of progress. Pursuing happiness is a fool’s errand. Pessimism is not, as is commonly thought, about being depressed or misanthropic, and it does not hold that humanity is headed for disaster. It simply doubts the most basic liberal principle: that applying human reasoning to the world’s problems will have a positive effect.

The biggest difference between optimists and pessimists, Mr. Dienstag argues, is in how they view time. Optimists see the passing of time as a canvas on which to paint a better world. Pessimists see it as a burden. Time ticks off the physical decline of one’s body toward the inevitability of death, and it separates people from their loved ones. “All the tragedies which we can imagine,” said Simone Weil, the French philosopher who starved herself to death at age 34, “return in the end to the one and only tragedy: the passage of time.”

As politicians, pessimists do not believe in undertaking great initiatives to ameliorate unhappiness, since they are skeptical they will work. They are inclined to accept the world’s evil and misery as inevitable. Mr. Dienstag tries to argue that pessimists can be politically engaged, and in modest ways they can be. Camus joined the French Resistance. But pessimism’s overall spirit, as Camus noted, “is not to be cured, but to live with one’s ailments.”

President Clinton was often mocked for his declarations that he still believed “in a place called Hope.” But he understood that instilling hope is a critical part of leadership. Other than a few special interest programs—like cutting taxes on the wealthy and giving various incentives to business—it is hard to think of areas in which the Bush administration has raised the nation’s hopes and met them. This president has, instead, tried to focus the American people on the fear of terrorism, for which there is no cure, only bad choices or something worse.

Part of Mr. Bush’s legacy may well be that he robbed America of its optimism—a force that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, used to rally the country when it was deeply challenged. The next generation of leaders will have to resell discouraged Americans on the very idea of optimism, and convince them again that their goal should not be to live with their ailments, but to cure them.
The funny thing about this piece is that it basically amounts to a pessimistic appraisal of pessimism--Cohen doesn't even hint at what an (non-"wildly") "optimistic" political agenda for the future, one which "applies reasoning to the world's problems," might look like. Of course, if one is to get people to "rally" around such an agenda, then presumably you need some sort of consensus first as to what the underlying causes of those problems are, and in some ways I think that's more what's lacking right now than faith in the possibility of solutions per se. Perhaps it's significant that Reagan and Roosevelt didn't have the mushrooming of partisan analysis and criticism courtesy of the Internet to contend with. Or perhaps it's simply that the USSR was in some sense a less complicated enemy than terrorism...or that it was easier to build a "New Deal coalition" against the backdrop of war and the Great Depression than it would be today.
 
^ or is optimism the anomoly, especially American-style optimism?

i'm reminded by a great Sopranos quote from Svetlana, the one-legged Russian:

[q]"That's the trouble with you Americans. You expect nothing bad ever to happen, when the rest of the world expects only bad to happen, and they are not disappointed.” [/q]
 
If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle. That's the thing.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the right side of life,
[whistling]:whistle:
 
AEON said:


It’s hard to believe this was written in 1908 – it seems it could have easily been written today…It seems "The Modern Skeptic" evolved only slightly when he became "The Postmodern Skeptic."

Within Christian circles, I am still seen as a bit of a skeptic. Not because I "question everything" - because I do not easily accept an answer without doing some of my own research.

However, before I was a Christian this quote above was an accurate description of who I was: A Walking Contradiction.

Anyway, I just wanted to read some other impressions of this quote. Are you a recovering skeptic? Still have a healthy amount of skepticism? Skeptical about skepticism?
I find no contradictions in skepticism, I find contradictions in dogmatism and pessimism which are two things that I avoid like the plague. Treating skepticism as a dogma and one where pessimism and even nihilism results is predicated on the belief that the skeptic is dissapointed in the absence of the supernatural; which is a fallacy because it takes an innate need and love for God to be a given, which it is not.

I have never had a crisis of concience over my own atheism, I have changed the way I have thought on a good many issues and developing a sense of reason and skepticism was gained through growing up and learning.
 
Skeptical? I tend to believe that there is a scientific answer to everything, no matter how improbable. Spirituality is an individual relationship with ideas or things that you find meaning in, be it a book or nature. My spouse believes in all kinds of things that I can't give any credence to- he thinks his open-mindedness makes him a better person, I think my logic and reason is equally helpful in life.
 
Back
Top Bottom