The Confidence Of The Skeptic

     It has been claimed in reference to the notoriously skeptical philosopher David Hume that no one is so gullible as a skeptic. There is some reason to think this is also a good way to look at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the character Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was supposedly very observant, logical, intelligent and scientific. Yet his author, Doyle, fell for many of the supernatural fads of his day.

     I count myself a skeptic. Yet I now choose to affirm my solid trust in a Higher Power many people would say is a figment of my imagination.

     I explained some of what went into this in my post The Best Possible Decision. I see no need to defend the reasons for my faith any more than I did there and will do in my forthcoming memoirs. I can prove to myself as well as anyone can really prove anything that my trust in my Higher Power is well placed.

     But I do want to address the contradiction some might see between calling myself a skeptic and taking such a dramatic leap of faith.

But aren't skepticism and faith opposites?

     Although I discussed in the post I mentioned that we have no choice but to trust something, whether we admit it or not, I will concede that the evidence -or lack thereof - suggests the wise path would be not to expose oneself to danger by blindly trusting anything.

     Having set aside the question of proof and evidence, it's now possible to look more scientifically at the attitude of the skeptic and of the faithful. We prejudice the question of the real essence of a person's mindset when we argue over whether it's the best one or not. Truth about one aspect of a question can sometimes distort our interpretation of related truths by overshadowing them.

     We "know" that skeptics lack confidence in beliefs, while the faithful have few or no doubts about their convictions. And because we "know" this - and because it's true in many cases - we blind ourselves to the fact that an attitude of confidence and an attitude of doubt have no necessary connection at all to being skeptical or faithful.

     Put simply: A skeptic can be very confident in his conviction that a lot of beliefs are highly questionable. He can even be absolutely certain of it. Meanwhile, the faithful may choose to act with absolute fidelity to their beliefs, yet still be afraid that their truths are false.

Even if they aren't opposites, don't they lead in different directions?

     The key thing to understand about the skeptic is that he usually has far greater grounds for confidence in his evidence-bounded beliefs than the trusting man has for confidence in his sweeping faith ... if it turns out the skeptic's beliefs really are more limited by the evidence than are the true believer's. All else being equal, the less you concede, the more likely it is you won't be wrong.

     So how can I be skeptical and full of faith as well? By having examined the question of trust and faith rigorously.

     The key fact I realized when I took a truly skeptical and scientific approach to faith is that the Universe did not leave me a choice as to whether to trust. I have no way of knowing whether the food I eat is poison, I just take that on faith. I don't know whether the air is poisoned. I don't even control my next breath. Sucking air is an act of faith.

     In short, I was skeptical of the view that faith is an irrational, unscientific approach to the world.

     So skepticism led me to faith in the Universe.