Psychic Alien Ghosts from the Planet Heaven
I imagine that the vast majority of those that inadvertently land on this page care little about rationalistic nitpicking, let alone giving a rat's ass about whatever the hell it might mean to be skeptical. Nonetheless, to my few regular readers, whether they be real or a figment of my most optimistic fantasies, I thought it only fair to come clean. Since many of my posts, and indeed my general view of the world is largely coloured by these ideas, it seemed unfair to be anything but perfectly honest about what they are.
As far as the philosophy of skepticism is concerned, and not just the general meaning of the word, Wikipedia defines it as "an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence."
Huh?
Well, not to oversimplify a concept very dear to me, but to be skeptical is to hold to be true that for which there is sufficient evidence, and inversely, to be unswayed by assertions or ideas for which there is none. Therefore, you may hold as a belief that there are such things as ghosts, ESP, astrological phenomenon, or an afterlife, but without at least a shred of proof, us skeptics just ain't buying it.
That is, unless a few of those shreds suddenly became apparent. The good skeptic does not deny any phenomenon supported by new and compelling evidence. Therefore if on one day a spaceship really arrived over Montreal, and out of it poured an army of undead palm readers lead by a 500 foot tall Jesus of the galaxy Nazareth 12, there isn't a skeptic around who would be doubtful.
Although skeptical activism tends to focus it's efforts mainly on subjects such as pseudo-scientific alternative medicine and debunking wacky conspiracy theories, anyone with a lick of wit can see where a generally skeptical mindset would tend to lead you, and I won't insult anyone's intelligence by skirting around it here.
The vast majority of skeptics are also atheists, and I proudly count myself amongst them. In fact, quite often the very first sacred cow to be jettisoned by the skeptical mind is the existence of gods. Yet this is no way a prerequisite, as many who pursue skeptical inquiry retain their religion. Skepticism is a process, or even a way of thinking, not a set of beliefs.
It also shouldn't be confused with denialism, a way of thinking often mislabeled as 'skeptical' but employing perhaps the exact opposite philosophical methods. Global warming 'opponents' would be such an example. While they may claim to be skeptical about the existence of man-made global warming, they in fact deny it's existence despite the scientific consensus. They're (generally) not going where the body of evidence takes them, but rather searching for evidence that supports an already existing ideology. Therefore, since they don't believe in global warming, they go looking for arcane facts to back them up.
The skeptic forms an opinion on what is happening in the world after observing the best evidence available. Until then he or she attempts to reserve judgement.
To me, skepticism is so logical, so obvious a way to see the world that I think it innocuous. Nonetheless, an admission of skepticism is often met with anger by those that maintain one or more sacred cows. Religion is an obvious example of course, but many of the people I grew up with shed at least any formal belief in deities long ago. Atheism and agnosticism really are far more common than people know, especially because it's often made so difficult in our culture to expose oneself as either.
Notwithstanding, it's obvious that the dismissal of religious claims need not necessarily correlate with rationalism. Our society is rife with pseudoscientific medicine, 911 and moon-landing conspiracy theories, spirit channelers and anti-vaccine nuts. Were you, dear reader, to really poll your friends on their beliefs about things like alien visitations, ghosts, bigfoot, the 2012 Mayan calendar, Atlantis, and young earth creationism, you'd probably find the most level headed of them believing in at least one.
That's because without the formalized ideas of skepticism and critical thinking rolling around in your head, very often there's room for some pretty kooky ideas to remain. We evolved as creatures unable to explain much of what we encountered, but with an absolute passion to do just that. Claims about gods or ghosts were our first attempts as a species to account for the natural world. The difference now however, is that we have better tools.
Science is the tool we use to discover the world, and skepticism is the tool we use to manage belief in it's findings, while rejecting that which science can show to be unlikely. As best as I know how to put it, and without writing a short book, it's the best way I've found to interpret the world.
While many would consider the rejection of religion specifically as a negative or exclusive act, and while it may be for many, at least in my own case the exact opposite is true. I never really believed in god, at least as an adult. Those beliefs never had to be removed really, they were just never added. In the words of the great Sam Harris; "Atheism has no content." It's not up to the non-believer to prove why they don't believe, it's up to the believer to prove why they buy into such fantastically improbable ideas.
There's just no good reason to believe these sorts of things, because for every single one I've mentioned in this article, along with many, many more, there's pretty much not a single shred of solid evidence. The only way one can get around these truths is to claim the existence of a supernatural world, undetectable by our instruments, which does not make itself known and does not follow the physical laws that govern the Universe.
There's certainly no way to disprove such an idea using science, because science can only operate in the natural world, but that doesn't lend the idea any credit. While possible, the concept of a supernatural world is an awfully elaborate device to maintain when the only reason to do so is in support of some pre-scientific and mystical claims, made around the time of the agricultural revolution. Claims, once again, for which there is no evidence.
So in the face of these probabilities I find skepticism to be the responsible position. It helps me focus on issues of interest, and ignore those ideas that really just waste time. In the pursuit of truth, one must at least pick a starting path, (while being ready to move to another if the evidence suggests it) and I'm going with one that doesn't terminate in a dead end of magical thinking. The Universe is too big and too beautiful to be explained away by imaginary human constructs. The existence of black holes, the probabilistic positions of electrons, dark energy, the nature of gravity: all are concepts too weird and too wonderful to be attacked with anything less than the sharpest of world-views.
This mindset gives me comfort. There is peace in being at one with the truth. And despite the assertions of many who believe that an unguided Universe is a terrifying one, I find the harmony of the natural world both beautiful and exhilarating.
Truth is both stranger, and more fulfilling, than fiction.
