I suppose many of us who call ourselves skeptics go through various stages in our skepticism; after all, if we didn’t we wouldn’t be human. I know that the way I view my skepticism, as a coherent worldview & way of knowing consistent with the scientific (and related philosophical) methods, is a bit different than in what I like to call the “youth” of my skepticism.
In the early days, I was often brash and overly dismissive of those who espoused various, for lack of a better term, woo-woo beliefs. Over time I came to realize that I wasn’t really engaging in good skepticism but instead overt cynicism: I was simply adhering to a position and everything which didn’t automatically agree with that position got dumped into the proverbial dustbin. I’ve spoken with a number of other skeptics who agree that this is how they used to behave as well; it was almost as if I was so proud of my newly acquired “skeptical badge” that I wanted to go around bashing everyone who didn’t think like me over the head with it.
Now, from what I understand of human nature, we all do this sort of thing to a certain degree or another, but that fact doesn’t necessarily justify such behavior and it certainly doesn’t help to advance any sort of fruitful discussion.And that’s where we have to ask ourselves an important question: should skepticism be something which we only use to insulate ourselves from the varied nonsense beliefs out in the world, or should we utilize the tools of skepticism to engage with those who think differently from us & do not necessarily share our worldview? I think the answer is “a little bit of both” – most all skeptics already do the former by default, but many are skittish about the latter. I think it is vital for us to emphasize the engagement of, for lack of a better term, “believers” in what I like to refer to as the Long Debate.
From what I understand, traditionally the term “Long Debate” refers to a series of philosophical discourses over the centuries regarding the nature of life, God, the supernatural, existence, and so on (the so-called “big questions”, if you will). I think much of this discourse between the various schools of philosophical thought is healthy, and I think that we, as skeptics, should emphasize engaging in a similar manner.Allow me to use some examples of what I mean from my own personal life. First, I have a nephew who is very religious, in the fundamentalist Christian sense, and who espouses a belief in young-earth creationism. He has recently started to attend a religious college and, knowing of my atheism and being young & curious (not to mention, probably wanting to save his dear uncle’s soul), he and I started up a dialog about religion, God, etc. At first I attempted to discuss the issue of evolution vs. creationism with him from a purely scientific standpoint, using the usual arguments that scientific evidence supported evolution versus creationism and so on. Of course, these arguments fell flat with my nephew, because he had already, during the first 18 years of his life, been insulated from such methods of reasoning. So, still wishing to engage with him, I decided to take a different tack: by going the route of philosophical discourse.
In order to get us started, I purchased for him as a Christmas gift a number of audio courses regarding such issues as the great ideas of philosophy and the philosophy of religion. I also referred him to an excellent podcast called “A Christian and an Atheist” where the two hosts engage in a dialog about God, religion, life, and whatnot in a manner where they are talking to, instead of at or about, each other. With his young and curious mind (because yes, even creationists are curious), my nephew quickly began to study the material in the audio lectures and listen to the podcast, and since then we have had many useful discussions online concerning these issues.
Has he suddenly given up creationism and accepted evolutionary science? No, of course not, but what has happened is that he has learned about what little he really was exposed to during the first 18 years of his life. He is learning, through his own study and our discussions, that perhaps the world isn’t exactly what he thought it was and that maybe, just maybe, he might have to rethink a few things. Folks, I call this progress, because the key to getting people to think more skeptically is to first to get them to think, and you have to engage with them in order to make that happen.
In another example, I have a back injury that is the result of some damage to a deteriorated disc in my lower back, and I have a close friend who is constantly urging me to “go see the chiropractor”. Of course, I don’t see any particular need to consult a chiropractor because the problem is kept in check through a regular course of exercises & stretching in which I engage on a daily basis – such was the course of treatment prescribed by my physician & physical therapist. No chiropractor required.Despite this injury, I still maintain a very active lifestyle in that I continue to do regular martial arts training (I have trained consistently for 21 years), including throws (and being thrown), hard impacts on the ground, and serious heavy-bag kickboxing training. However, every now and then my back acts up, as bad backs are wont to do, and it knocks me out of action for a few days until it heals up. And, like clockwork, every time this happens (which is only about once or twice a year), my friend says: “you should go see the chiropractor!”
“Why?” I ask. Usually the response is along the lines of an explanation that the chiropractor will “fix” my back. So I respond with something like: “Well, if the chiropractor ‘fixes’ you, then why is it that you have to constantly return to see them?” I also gently point out that I get the same results without having to pay a fee every time I want to stretch out a sore or injured back.Now, my friend and I continually engage in this banter, and it is obvious that we disagree. However, I concede that, for them, the chiropractor does indeed to the job that my personal routine of exercise & stretching does for me (thankfully, my friend sees the chiropractor only as someone who performs physical manipulation – they roll their eyes, appropriately, at any mention of “energy channels” or similar nonsense). As such, peace is maintained between us, and my friend still knows that I maintain a healthy skepticism of all things chiropractic; and I like to think that some of that skepticism has rubbed off upon them through the course of our engagement on this topic.
The benefits aren’t simply one-way, either. In the course of our discussions, I have grown to have a newfound respect for both my nephew and my friend. I have come to understand part of the reason why it is they both believe what they believe (even though I think they are either flat-out wrong or simply misguided). I have come to learn that you cannot hope to change the world by running and hiding from it in some kind of skeptical ivory tower, because – like it or not – sooner or later the world’s going to find you & start battering away at the tower. It is far better, in my view, to go out and meet the world head on.Even more importantly, I have reminded myself that even those “believers” with whom we might disagree are every bit as human as myself, something that I think we need to remind ourselves of on occasion. And in so doing, I have further reminded myself that it is possible to make the skeptical case on a variety of subjects while still maintaining healthy relationships with those less-than-skeptical folk to whom you are close.
Matt Lowry is a high school & college physics professor with a strong interest in promoting science education, skepticism and critical thinking among his students and the population in general. Towards these ends, he works with the JREF on their educational advisory board, and he also works with a number of grassroots skeptical, pro-science groups. In what little spare time he has, he blogs on these and related subjects at The Skeptical Teacher.