Is it Self-Defeating to Argue on Behalf of Skepticism?
The answer is a resounding NO! Christians claim that it is and then try to drive a whole truckload of assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If, after all, it's self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism then, well, anything goes, including the inspiration of a canonical set of documents written by ancient superstitious people and the beliefs that are entailed within them by interpreters today (yesterday's interpreters got it wrong, you see). So even if it is self-defeating to be skeptical about skepticism Christians are completely wrong to make such a huge leap.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.