Ojuice5001

When you encourage people to be skeptical of the existence of the gods, doesn't that encourage people to be skeptical of other things that are actually true--for instance, democracy? I mean, I think that's one reason for the popularity of nondemocratic ideologies like fascism and communism.

Don't confuse this with the crude connection some people make, where they lump atheistic democrats with communists because both oppose religion. That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that both are connected with skepticism. After all, a Marxist who disagrees with his democratic culture is just as skeptical, and considers his skepticism to be just as rational and good, as an atheist who disagrees with his theistic culture. I think that encouraging skepticism creates a skeptical society that doesn't always know when not to be skeptical, and that this happened in a place like 1940s Italy.

Is there any way that a skeptical culture can exist without skeptics who question true things like democracy or the moon landing? Just insisting that the desirable kind of skepticism is rational isn't enough, since in those two examples the adherents consider themselves to be following reason quite well.

seanie

In what sense is democracy 'true'?

And what's 40's Italy got to do with it?

Hugo Holbling

I'm afraid we can't allow the spread of skepticism because before long some damned fool would be questioning the existence of Santa. I - for one - want presents, and no skeptic is gonna scupper my chances.

scombrid

Oh God, if this skepticism thing get out of hand Santa isn't the only one that'll be out of work. Think of the psychics. Oh the horror of a world without James Van Praagh.

Tom Sawyer

Skepticism about everything is good.

If a communist wants to be skeptical about democracy, more power to him. The facts, however, make a strong case that, in general, democratic societies are richer, more powerful and give a better quality of life to a larger portion of their citizens than communist ones. Sure, there are a lot of problems with democracy but I have yet to see a system of government that works better.

Governmental systems and actions are the place where we need the most skeptics since they are the things that have the most bearing on the life that we lead. It's always good to question them.

The people who question the moon landing, however, are just plain dumb.

Veil of Fire

peteyh: Why? The only evidence they have is from TV and what the government tells them.... why shouldn't they be skeptical (especially considering all the outlandish things TV shows them these days)?

If your original statement, "Skepticism about everything is good," is true, then it logically follows that skepticism about the moon landing is good.

seanie

Reasonable scepticism is good.

However I've never heard a decent definition of reasonable so I'm not sure that helps much.

Tom Sawyer

VeilOfFire,

That's a good point. People should be as skeptical about the claim that we landed on the moon as they should about everything else. The evidence that we have in fact done so, though. is overwhelming. I'll change my statement from:

to:

The people who believe the claims that we have not landed on the moon, after reviewing the evidence, are just plain dumb.

Arrowman

As has already been pointed out, democracy is not "true". However, the proposition "Democracy is the most suitable, feasible form of government for a modern human society" can be tested with evidence and logic.

In my opinion, other forms of government have been preferred only based on faulty logic or poor evidence - and therefore a skeptical analysis of democracy vs other forms of government would come down on the side of democracy. That is however not your main point here. The question is not "is democracy 'true'?" so much as - well, let's move on...

And a democract in a totalitarian society, is being just as skeptical about his totalitarian culture, and also considers his skepticism to be just as rational and good.

There are five propositions inherent in the above:
1. God(s) exist(s).
2. God(s) do not exist.
3. Democracy is the "best" form of government.
4. Fascism is the "best" form of government.
5. Communism is the "best" form of government.

What is wrong with the notion that skepticism should be applied to all of these? I happen to believe that when the light of logic and evidence is applied to the above, the result will be
1. False.
2. True.
3. True.
4. False.
5. False.

Others may disagree, but the point is - the argument needs to be based on logic and evidence. That is all skepticism means in this context. Your implicit assertion that "skepticism can lead to negative outcomes" does not hold any water - let alone the implicit corollary that "therefore we should not be skeptical about god(s)".

Whether people consider themselves to be "following reason" is irrelevant - whether they are or not is the question; and that can be objectively tested. As has been shown above, it may be argued that a person who doubts the moon landings is "just being a skeptic" but in fact a person who doubts the moon landings after having examined the evidence and applied logic is not applying skeptical thought and principles at all; they're just dumb.

(Edited because an objective examination of the evidence led me to the conclusion that I had not spelled "principles" correctly.)

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Arrowman

Hi, Veil. It seems we might be picking up a conversation from a few months ago, on a similar subject in another thread. I apologise for dropping it at the time without further response to your argument. So I'll make a point of replying to you now.

It is true that the common definition of "skeptic" is "one who doubts" or even "one who disbelieves". It is in some people's minds almost a synonym for "cynic". (not in yours, I hasten to add - we've had this conversation earlier).

However, for those of us who call ourselves "Skeptics" (with a capital "S") and for the various "Skeptics" organisations around the world, the practical definition goes somewhat beyond that. A Skeptic is not simply "one who doubts" any more than, in Monty Python terms, an argument is the mere gainsaying of what your opponent asserts.

Certainly doubt is a key part of the Skeptic nature. But so is examination of the evidence, the application of logic and critical thought, and the drawing of conclusions there from.

A Skeptic will not accept any assertion or adopt any belief without a compelling reason (in particular, evidence) to do so. As I once read a fellow skeptic say, in offering that form of definition, "...and I cannot imagine any other way to live."

So, "skepticism about the moon landing is good" only in a very limited fashion. As I said above, and as peteyh said, to believe the claims that we have not landed on the moon, after having examined the evidence, is not "skeptical" - it's "dumb".

Now, it is true (I believe) that very few people, if any, are 100% Skeptic - that is, that they apply cold logic and evidence-based reasoning to every aspect of their lives. And people can be selective in their Skepticism - it is possible for a Skeptic to be a Theist, for example, even though there is no objective evidence for the existence of a God. It is possible for a person to be immune from the claims of quack medicine, and yet the fall for am investment scam. We're funny critters, us humans.

So, I stand by the argument that, in South Park terms "Skepticism's good, 'Kay?" I don't think the examples that you (and OJuice) offer are valid.