Can a person be overly skeptical? Tyrants of skepticism

[freakazoid]

Being questioning and skeptical is a good thing. People would be better served if they were more skeptical. Witness the growth of the popularity of TV Evangelists and their wild claims and rants for money because of their claims. Skepticism in this case is a wise choice. But I wonder if there ends up being too much of a "good thing?" Just exactly at what point is something accepted as truth? There might be a culture of "skepticism" that is in danger of overpowering and even isolating people who have for their own good reasons decided that something is true. The Catholic church [and other religious institutions] is a fine example of so-called skepticism about a great number of things. Their own brand of skepticism. They prohibited many good concepts as heresy and claimed to be on solid ground for doing so. They claimed to be "skeptical." But, in the long run they became tyrants and attempted to destroy anything that others accepted as reality even if such people had their own solid ground to stand on. Can we be skeptical without being tyrants? We can be wrong you know and our "skepticism" can blind us just as much as we claim that others are blinded by their so-called lack of skepticism. We could become tyrants of skepticism if we aren’t careful. And that can be just as dangerous.

[Zzyzx]

That's your second post involving TV Evangelists, freakazoid. Now I know why you're afraid of the dark. It's okay; they only come out on Sundays.

"Skepticism in this case is a wise choice." -- We're all skeptics. Even the seemingly mindless drones that raise their arms and scream "hallelujah" in sync with the well-dressed man on TV have their reasons to tune in. They've decided, albeit absurd, that these "wild claims" are something worth believing in. Who's to say whether they're right? Their skepticism of the world 'round them has led them there. Our similarly-wired brains have led us elsewhere.

If something is accepted as truth, are people skeptical of it anymore? For the vast majority, no. You'll always have the "nuts", though. In their defense, the world actually revolves around the sun.

Once the Catholics, using your example, decided that a certain thing was so, that's what people were raised to believe. The masses weren't searching for answers - that's the way things were, and they lived with it. Anyone who suggested otherwise - skeptics - were considered crazy to think so. You might say that the Catholics were skeptical of the skeptics but not skeptic of the skeptics' skepticism focus, eh?

Ever notice that skeptic sounds a lot like septic, but has little to do with sewage? Neither had I.

We take a lot of what we've learned for granted. I've never doubted that baby zebras come from adult zebras or that Antartica sits atop the south pole, although I've directly witnessed neither. Does that make me naive?

Yes, not allowing yourself or others to settle on a belief can be just as dangerous as not considering alternatives. All that really matters is that a person is happy with their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others. Ignorance truly can be bliss.

[freakazoid]

That's your second post involving TV Evangelists, freakazoid. Now I know why you're afraid of the dark. It's okay; they only come out on Sundays.

"Skepticism in this case is a wise choice." -- We're all skeptics. Even the seemingly mindless drones that raise their arms and scream "hallelujah" in sync with the well-dressed man on TV have their reasons to tune in. They've decided, albeit absurd, that these "wild claims" are something worth believing in. Who's to say whether they're right? Their skepticism of the world 'round them has led them there. Our similarly-wired brains have led us elsewhere.

If something is accepted as truth, are people skeptical of it anymore? For the vast majority, no. You'll always have the "nuts", though. In their defense, the world actually revolves around the sun.

Once the Catholics, using your example, decided that a certain thing was so, that's what people were raised to believe. The masses weren't searching for answers - that's the way things were, and they lived with it. Anyone who suggested otherwise - skeptics - were considered crazy to think so. You might say that the Catholics were skeptical of the skeptics but not skeptic of the skeptics' skepticism focus, eh?

Ever notice that skeptic sounds a lot like septic, but has little to do with sewage? Neither had I.

We take a lot of what we've learned for granted. I've never doubted that baby zebras come from adult zebras or that Antartica sits atop the south pole, although I've directly witnessed neither. Does that make me naive?

Yes, not allowing yourself or others to settle on a belief can be just as dangerous as not considering alternatives. All that really matters is that a person is happy with their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others. Ignorance truly can be bliss.

You make good points. But the only thing I am afraid of is having to open the door to two Mormons trying to recruit me! LOL :D

[freakazoid]

Skepticism can come in many forms; both good and bad. I am using a broad definition of the word, but, in one sense of it's meaning 'skepticism' can be seen as an underlining philosophy of (using the reference to communism) many ways of thinking. Perhaps a better analogy, in my opinion, is the one of the Catholic Church as I used before. They expressed skepticism concerning many claims of science (I am referring to the era when the Catholic Church held vast religious power similar to today along with a form of state power in Europe no longer seen) and enforced they beliefs based upon skepticism in brutal tyrannical ways. True, I am relying on a broad definition of 'skepticism,' but I am trying to point out that 'closed minded skepticism' (which we still see today) can be just as bad, and in some cases worse, as many other forms of the basis for tyranny. Sadly, we seem to be witnessing the rise of a deadly militant Islam that could be understood as basing it’s actions (terrorism) on a form of 'closed minded skepticism' that it can live in peace with the United States or other countries such as Israel.

In general, when a person expresses that they are 'skeptical' about one thing or another or one claim or another, they are almost always stating that they don't believe or don't except a given belief or claim. Key terms here would be 'don't believe or don't except.' It is not a given that they are open to anything else beyond what they have decided. Skepticism becomes a euphemism for ‘across the board disbelief.’ In other words most skeptics (and I am one) are, as we all are at times, pretty damn sure of themselves. Sure, we all try to practice 'open minded skepticism,' but this is a goal not always achieved. A high ideal, but more times than not, skepticism is only a preconceived set of 'I don't believe or except one thing or another, so don't bother me with your other ideas'. Simple human nature comes into play here. That is to say; we all believe that what we believe is correct...even our skepticism concerning a given subject. Major point here...are we, when we claim to be skeptical, doing so because we demand empirical evidence or are we just stubbornly taking our stand (as proud skeptics) and choosing to disbelieve everything for one reason or another? A sort of 'macho skepticism.' I think we need to examine our reasons for being 'skeptical.' Hopefully, they are positive ones on solid but open ground.

[Korono]

Skepticism is a good thing. Skepticism is merely doubt, and one must doubt all things to some extent. He who doubts nothing knows nothing. The extreme of it, though, is cynisism. Cynisism is simply denial and leads to ignorance. As any extreme, it should be avoided.

See how the simpler explenations are always so much more appealing?