Is Skepticism Healthy?

[Robert F. Smith]

Is it healthy to be skeptical?  To be cautious in the face of extraordinary claims?  Or should one be credulous and gullible, ready to shift with every change in the the winds of doctrine?  Always searching for some new thing, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

 

A friend suggested to me that there are those who are skeptical of the teachings of Mormon prophets as well as of the teachings of Pope Francis.  Is that a healthy approach to such claims?  We used to say, "I'm from Missouri.  Show me !"  Is skepticism the Socratic Method?  Does it undermine authority?

 

In his recent sermon to south Utah Saints, Elder M. Russell Ballard warned about "viewing podcasts and Internet sites that raise questions and doubt without being intellectually honest."  https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-the-saints-in-the-utah-south-area?lang=eng .

 

However, Collin Maessen said, "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make."  Or, as Gandhi-ji used to say, "We need to turn the searchlight inward."  Do we need to examine ourselves?

 

Was B. H. Roberts reckless to have said:

 

 . . . the Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest.  Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination.  It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism.  . . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way.  Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667.

 

[The Nehor]

Is it healthy to be skeptical?  To be cautious in the face of extraordinary claims?  Or should one be credulous and gullible, ready to shift with every change in the the winds of doctrine?  Always searching for some new thing, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

I think one should be credulous about some things and skeptical of others. When my sister told me she was worried about me last week I was credulous and believed her rather then skeptically doubting her motives. Does that make me gullible?

There is a need for caution in the case of extraordinary claims. I am not sure if it means you need extraordinary evidence. More like extraordinary trust. I trust an apostle when he tells me extraordinary things. I do not trust Julie Rowe. I trust friends who tell me privately and with reverence of great spiritual manifestations and do not trust the crazy old lady in my ward who told me God told her to tell me I need to marry her daughter.

[TheSkepticChristian]

However, Collin Maessen said, "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make."  Or, as Gandhi-ji used to say, "We need to turn the searchlight inward."  Do we need to examine ourselves?7.

 

Yes. 

 

Luke 6:42

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

 

We need to examine our own views first, or we will never get anywhere during a discussion. For example,  Heartlanders are very quick to be skeptical of Mesoamerica model, but they never examine their own view. 

Edited September 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

Good thoughts, Robert. Yes, I think skepticism must start with one's own views and assumptions. Skepticism is healthy and keeps us grounded. It can make one's particular spiritual path better and more fruitful, too. 

[KevinG]

I'm skeptical.  

[Glenn101]

  I'm am only skeptical of those whose views and opinions do not agree with mine.

[thesometimesaint]

The only person I always agree with is myself, and I'm entitled to change my mind.  

[CV75]

Is it healthy to be skeptical?  To be cautious in the face of extraordinary claims?  Or should one be credulous and gullible, ready to shift with every change in the the winds of doctrine?  Always searching for some new thing, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

 

A friend suggested to me that there are those who are skeptical of the teachings of Mormon prophets as well as of the teachings of Pope Francis.  Is that a healthy approach to such claims?  We used to say, "I'm from Missouri.  Show me !"  Is skepticism the Socratic Method?  Does it undermine authority?

 

In his recent sermon to south Utah Saints, Elder M. Russell Ballard warned about "viewing podcasts and Internet sites that raise questions and doubt without being intellectually honest."  https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-the-saints-in-the-utah-south-area?lang=eng .

 

However, Collin Maessen said, "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make."  Or, as Gandhi-ji used to say, "We need to turn the searchlight inward."  Do we need to examine ourselves?

 

Was B. H. Roberts reckless to have said:

 

 . . . the Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest.  Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination.  It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism.  . . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way.  Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667.

As always, it depends on the definition used and the context in which it is used.

 

In my opinion, the extraordinary claim is not the problem, but the excessive exercise of or reliance on either skepticism or trust, or the lack of discipline in hearing, assessing and settling the claim. I think a similar dynamic exists between the rational (e.g. scientific) and irrational (e.g. spiritual) processes we use in our skepticism and trust.

[stemelbow]

Is it healthy to be skeptical?  To be cautious in the face of extraordinary claims?  Or should one be credulous and gullible, ready to shift with every change in the the winds of doctrine?  Always searching for some new thing, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

 

A friend suggested to me that there are those who are skeptical of the teachings of Mormon prophets as well as of the teachings of Pope Francis.  Is that a healthy approach to such claims?  We used to say, "I'm from Missouri.  Show me !"  Is skepticism the Socratic Method?  Does it undermine authority?

 

In his recent sermon to south Utah Saints, Elder M. Russell Ballard warned about "viewing podcasts and Internet sites that raise questions and doubt without being intellectually honest."  https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-the-saints-in-the-utah-south-area?lang=eng .

 

However, Collin Maessen said, "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make."  Or, as Gandhi-ji used to say, "We need to turn the searchlight inward."  Do we need to examine ourselves?

 

Was B. H. Roberts reckless to have said:

 . . . the Book of Mormon must submit to every test, literary criticism with the rest.  Indeed, it must submit to every analysis and examination.  It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism.  . . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way.  Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667.

It innately feels healthy to me to be both skeptical and credible and gullible. both types are healthy people, in the long run, and we're all a combination of the two, some seem to favor one over the other. My take is certainly I ought to be far more skeptical of my own views than views expressed by others. And I think B. H. Roberts is spot on. Its been tested and will continue to be tested in such ways by many. If it fails, in every particular, then we lose. Or we need to adjust our thinking.

[HappyJackWagon]

When it comes to assessing weighty matters such as eternal salvation, miraculous truth claims (either in or out of the church), large investments of time, money, or emotional output etc, I think it is wise to be aware of the risks associated with gullibility and skepticism. Of course most of us fall somewhere on the spectrum between absolute gullibility and skepticism and it comes down to trust. We probably all have examples of times we misplaced our trust in others or things. It's part of life, but we should be cautious to limit the damage we could inflict upon ourselves by not doing our due diligence in studying things out on our own, independent of outside authorities and claims.

[CV75]

Is it healthy to be skeptical?  To be cautious in the face of extraordinary claims?  Or should one be credulous and gullible, ready to shift with every change in the the winds of doctrine?  Always searching for some new thing, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

In either case, I think it essential for one's mental and spiritual health to be “truly humble and …seeking diligently to learn wisdom and to find truth.” (D&C 97:1) The further along we go in discovering the plan of salvation, the more essential it is to manage both skepticism and trust with charity and a pure heart.

[Storm Rider]

I think that I am a skeptic naturally; I question authority and society's golden calves naturally.  I believe at the beginning of my young adult life I had a broader range of skepticism.  As I aged and reflected and learned I began to find truths that were earned after much searching, learning, and confirmation.  I came to conclusions of some truths while remaining open to finding additional truths.  

 

I find some people that are skeptical to an extreme; they appear unable to believe anything is true.  They never move beyond the position of the ignorant individual who knows no truth.  Worse, they feel they have accomplished something of grand import by not being able to find truth - or at least claiming to find no truth.  They also seem to fear knowing a truth somehow jeopardizes the truths found by others; that if they know a truth they somehow have diminished the value of all truths learned by others.  

 

Skepticism should lead to truths hard won.  Taken to extremes it is the realm of the fearful who pride themselves on their ignorance of all truth.   

[Teancum]

Yes skepticism is healthy though it can be painful and many will not be willing to go where it may take you.

[TheSkepticChristian]

  I'm am only skeptical of those whose views and opinions do not agree with mine.

 

So you are not a real skeptic 

 

"Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen 

[Dgal]

Yes, it can be very healthy, because it encourages us to think deeper, dig deeper, look deeper.

[3DOP]

Nobody believes everything ever proposed.

 

Skepticism is not merely healthy. It is inevitable.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Nobody believes everything ever proposed.

 

Skepticism is not merely healthy. It is inevitable.

 

but most people are not really skeptical 

 

 "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen 

[Dgal]

but most people are not really skeptical 

 

 "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen 

I'm skeptical about Collin Maessen's view on skepticism. What makes him an expert?

[3DOP]

but most people are not really skeptical 

 

 "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen 

 

I don't think C. Maessen's view has been established as the definitive understanding of what it means to be skeptical for the purpose of this conversation. I will let Robert, who started the thread, say if he accepts Maessen's position on what the word means.

 

Skepticism can be pointed in many directions. We all believe what somebody else has said, or doubt what somebody else has said. Nobody is completely original. I don't see why the sayings that I have accepted as more likely to be true must be more susceptible to doubt than those which I have considered more likely to be false. That is not an intellectual exercise that makes any sense to me. I deny Maessen's starting point, and I am "skeptical" about whether Maessen or you, or anybody else starts the way he suggests.

Edited September 30, 2015 by 3DOP

[TheSkepticChristian]

I deny Maessen's starting point, and I am "skeptical" about whether Maessen or you, or anybody else starts the way he suggests.

 

The people that don't analyze their own views are usually not skeptical at all because they easily fall for propaganda or pseudoscience. 

[thesometimesaint]

but most people are not really skeptical 

 

 "Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen 

 

Be skeptical of your own skepticism.

Edited September 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[jkwilliams]

Be skeptical of your own skepticism.

Good advice. When we believe we have achieved certainty, we tend to stop learning and growing.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Be skeptical of your own skepticism.

 

Good advice. When we believe we have achieved certainty, we tend to stop learning and growing.

 

Yes, 3/4 of the world problems would be solved  if all people were truly skeptical.

 

"Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen

[pogi]

I don't like the connotation of "doubt" that is tied with skepticism in regards to spiritual examination.  

 

I agree that it is healthy to examine your own position, but one must be careful to examine a position from all perspectives and not just your preferred biased perspective or approach of examination.  For example, some people only examine their positions from a scientific, scholarly, or archeological perspective and neglect the spiritual examination of claims by actually planting the seed.  This is where skepticism may cripple some people, because "hope" (the antithesis of doubt) is required for successful spiritual experimentation.  Telling a skeptic to hope (and mean it) is like telling a conscientious vegan to eat a rare steak without feeling guilt.  The experiment will simply not produce the promised results because they failed to follow the prescribed steps.  For these people, they will never taste of the fruit, because they hold too tight to their favored approach of examination - doubt.

 

One can be skeptical without being a skeptic. I think there is a difference.  I am not totally opposed to skepticism.  It works great in science and is the preferred approach.  It does not work so great in LDS spirituality however, in fact, the scriptures are clear, it cannot work. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

Yes, 3/4 of the world problems would be solved  if all people were truly skeptical.

 

"Skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make." - Collin Maessen

 

So, if we use your statement as the base line no person is ever able to come to a conclusion of truth.  Each person would remain in a state of befuddlement and unbelief.  Is that accurate or do you also think an individual can find any degree of truth?