Skeptical on Skepticism
For every post here on God And Security, 20 posts go never make it out of my head, and instead go "unposted". Throughout the weeks, many items catch my fancy, thoughts come and go, and my job gets in the way (I need to post from home, ya see...).
Today, one escaped. Here are some thoughts on skepticism.
Many of todays atheists prefer to be called "skeptics". I suppose this is because "atheism" sounds like (and, indeed has largely become) a religion. Skeptics (in this context) are people who proclaim non-theism in light of the lack of proof, and then take the stance that the lack of proof (or acknowledging that they won't likely prove a negative) is reason enough to take a contradictory stance.
These pseudo-scientists seek to show that a lack of first-person, verifiable positive feedback (i.e. proof) is reason to take a stance on (or, more specifically, against) an item. In this case, the case for God.
I say "pseudo scientists" because real scientists throughout history have often taken an idea that seems preposterous in comparison to popular belief and searched for a reason to believe, rather than a reason not to. The skeptics seem to focus their skepticism solely (or primarily) on God, rather than on so many other earthly things.
For example, this article talks about a scientist who may claim to have created a brand new life form in a laboratory. I take a skeptical position only because the history of scientific breakthroughs is dubious at best. For each huge breakthrough, there are 10,000 utter failures, and in today's media those utter failures garner some significant attention. Despite this, these same skeptics who approach any possible proof of God as fraud are silent when "their team" comes up with a (unlikely) scientific breakthrough, such as artificial life.
Don't get me wrong. God has given us to tools to do amazing things, and I think that we *will* be able to "create life" some day, and it will be interesting to see where theology goes at that time. I'm just making a call out to my skeptical friends to realize that they aren't "skeptics" when their only focus is God. They're "atheists".
Or, maybe we can just call them "targeted skeptics", or "double-standard skeptics". I suppose, however, that we should show some compassion, though. Interestingly, many of the skeptics I know appear to be that way because someone, at some time turned on them in their church. Someone who didn't accept their lifestyle, maybe.
That someone was *not* God. That someone was another flawed human being, quite likely being a poor steward of the faith, just as Woo-Suk Hwang was a poor steward for science, cloning and stem cell research.
But skeptics don't want to hear any comparisons, for they have an axe to grind and logic and comparisons have no place.
Ironically.
Rather than focus on the existence of God, I have a suggestion for skeptics. This suggestion is based on my experience that the skeptics I have known believe that the belief in God is a negative force, causing war and strife. Something I disagree with, but that's not the point. I agree with this person.
Instead, how about if the skeptics (who are *not* likely to convert people) enter into philosophy and theology to help those who "misuse" God's (or god's or gods' or Allah's) name(s) to help them understand why (deity of choice) doesn't support that view.
Just a thought.
Today, one escaped. Here are some thoughts on skepticism.
Many of todays atheists prefer to be called "skeptics". I suppose this is because "atheism" sounds like (and, indeed has largely become) a religion. Skeptics (in this context) are people who proclaim non-theism in light of the lack of proof, and then take the stance that the lack of proof (or acknowledging that they won't likely prove a negative) is reason enough to take a contradictory stance.
These pseudo-scientists seek to show that a lack of first-person, verifiable positive feedback (i.e. proof) is reason to take a stance on (or, more specifically, against) an item. In this case, the case for God.
I say "pseudo scientists" because real scientists throughout history have often taken an idea that seems preposterous in comparison to popular belief and searched for a reason to believe, rather than a reason not to. The skeptics seem to focus their skepticism solely (or primarily) on God, rather than on so many other earthly things.
For example, this article talks about a scientist who may claim to have created a brand new life form in a laboratory. I take a skeptical position only because the history of scientific breakthroughs is dubious at best. For each huge breakthrough, there are 10,000 utter failures, and in today's media those utter failures garner some significant attention. Despite this, these same skeptics who approach any possible proof of God as fraud are silent when "their team" comes up with a (unlikely) scientific breakthrough, such as artificial life.
Don't get me wrong. God has given us to tools to do amazing things, and I think that we *will* be able to "create life" some day, and it will be interesting to see where theology goes at that time. I'm just making a call out to my skeptical friends to realize that they aren't "skeptics" when their only focus is God. They're "atheists".
Or, maybe we can just call them "targeted skeptics", or "double-standard skeptics". I suppose, however, that we should show some compassion, though. Interestingly, many of the skeptics I know appear to be that way because someone, at some time turned on them in their church. Someone who didn't accept their lifestyle, maybe.
That someone was *not* God. That someone was another flawed human being, quite likely being a poor steward of the faith, just as Woo-Suk Hwang was a poor steward for science, cloning and stem cell research.
But skeptics don't want to hear any comparisons, for they have an axe to grind and logic and comparisons have no place.
Ironically.
Rather than focus on the existence of God, I have a suggestion for skeptics. This suggestion is based on my experience that the skeptics I have known believe that the belief in God is a negative force, causing war and strife. Something I disagree with, but that's not the point. I agree with this person.
Instead, how about if the skeptics (who are *not* likely to convert people) enter into philosophy and theology to help those who "misuse" God's (or god's or gods' or Allah's) name(s) to help them understand why (deity of choice) doesn't support that view.
Just a thought.
Comments