Philosophical skepticism, at its simplest, holds that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. Because any justification of knowledge depends on another belief for its justification, there is an endless chain of beliefs. Philosophical skepticism believes this infinite chain is impossible to complete, therefore, there is doubt about what can be known. Scientific or rational skepticism question claims until they can be shown to be repeatable; the scientific method. The current skepticism movement is a movement started in the1970’s which is scientific skepticism. It started mainly to refute paranormal and pseudoscience claims. The movement is populated by atheists who, many, hide behind skepticism to support progressive social agendas, and criticize religious believers because they disagree with their social politics. I believe these pseudo-skeptics are not actual skeptics because 1) they are quick to accept claims which agree with their social-political position and 2) they misapply the scientific method to subjects for which it was never designed in an effort to support their social-political positions.
Before the seventeenth century, all search for knowledge was contained in philosophy which means love of wisdom. The three main divisions of philosophy were natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy. The method of investigation was questioning, and rational argument: Are there things that exist that are not in time? What are numbers? What is the good? Is murder just? Does the sun or earth move? When is the next eclipse? What is the best political system? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is man faster than an elephant? If the answers seemed reasonable and explained the appearances, they were accepted. But accepted with the understanding that it might not be factually true.
The educational system before the 17th century called philosophy the "liberal art par excellence." The trivium and the quadrivium were prerequisites to study philosophy. The Doctorate of Philosophy was the pinnacle of a liberal education. The other doctorates were theology, law, and medicine. Theology, like philosophy, was a liberal art while medicine and law were practical arts. Philosophy was called "the handmaiden of theology" because the most prestigious degree was theology, "the queen of the sciences." Again, the study of the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric), the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy), and philosophy were theoretical in understanding. If the answers seemed reasonable and saved the appearances, they were accepted.
In the seventeenth century, the scientific method began to take over as the investigative method of natural philosophy. And the claims began to change from reasonability to reality. Natural Science became the quantitative branch of Natural Philosophy. Natural Science was concerned with natural phenomena which can be observed. The phenomena could be predicted and repeated. The natural sciences are very precise, accurate, deterministic, and independent of the person making the scientific observations. It could answer questions like Does the sun or the earth move? But the scientific method could not answer questions like: What is the best political system? Is murder just? or Is man faster than an elephant? Theses questions are either not repeatable or not subject to any measurement. Natural History was the qualitative branch of Natural Philosophy is which observations in biology and geology were described.
The 19th century saw the introduction of positivism and the social sciences. Positivism holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and, therefore, rejects metaphysics and theism. It was this belief that led to quantitative studies of natural history subjects. These subjects became the social sciences. While there was a desire to apply the scientific method to the social sciences they are not that precise. The mathematical proofs used in the social sciences are more statistical. Natural philosophy was now called “science.” While positivism rejected metaphysics it did not make metaphysical, and moral questions go away. Reason provided answers to these questions because all knowledge is not science.
Positivism collected a few other “isms” in the 19th century which also reflects the world view of the skeptic movement. Nominalism denies the existence of universals or abstract objects. Atheism denies the existence of God. Materialism, which skeptics call naturalism, regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter. Biologism claims there is very little difference between humanity and other animals; humans are organisms simply acting out innate drives. Empiricism teaches all knowledge comes from the senses. Consequential ethics teaches morality is based on the effect of an action, not the action itself. This is the world of the skeptic movement; the world of empirical science. There are some problems with the world of the skeptic.
An empiricist will claim all knowledge comes from experience. A rationalist will claim all knowledge comes from reason. Skeptics claim to work in the world of science (empiricism), they claim reason when it suits them. I have heard a “skeptic” claim a hypothesis as true because it seemed reasonable but it was not empirical, and the idea was one of a few hypothesis' on the subject. When skeptics claim we can know from reason they cannot exclude reason they disagree with. We reason to our own personal satisfaction. It would be contemptuous to claim only their reason is reasonable.
They claim consequential ethics as a science. Normative ethics is not a science, it is a belief system based in philosophy. The Council for Secular Humanism says their ethics is consequential in contrast to so-called “command ethics.” The divine command theory is basically; God said so. While this idea exists in some religions it is not true of all religions. And it is not contained in philosophy. The Euthyphro dilemma asks: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? A religion that uses philosophy would look to moral philosophy (ethics) for answers. One moral belief system is virtues ethics. Aristotle identified the classic virtues of prudence, justice, courage, and temperance. Justice is the virtue which tells us how we should treat others. Justice requires we allow a person to have what is theirs. Because of justice we do not steal, murder, or engage in slavery; it is their possessions, life, and liberty. Is murder hated by the gods because it is wrong, or is it wrong because it is hated by the gods? Virtue ethics tells us murder is unjust and injustice is wrong; therefore, murder is hated by the gods because it is wrong. So accusing some religions of using “command ethics” is a straw man. They have not said murder is wrong because it is hated by the gods. They said it is hated by the gods because it is wrong. Consequential ethics claims murder may or may not be wrong depending on the results. These ideas cannot be taken into the lab to determine if they are true or false. Ethics are based in reason. When a skeptic tells a religious person, "that to just your religious belief," they have not won the argument, they are avoiding the argument.
Biologism claims we act on our biology yet we have people with traits not found in their biology. Biologism (natural science) claims there is no gene for homosexuality or left handedness but social science would say they are born that way. Biologism would have us believe people choose these traits. Maybe there is a middle ground. Maybe we have biology, free will, and reason.
What skeptics call science can disagree with itself: Are we born left handed or do we choose it? How is it proven? While most skeptics claim to be an atheist, therefore, free of belief systems, they have a belief system when they include ethics and reason in their science.
Skeptics call consequential ethics a science. If you believe the ends justify the means, then you are a consequentialist. If you believe means are justified by justice, motive, honor, then you subscribe to other theories of ethics. Skeptics are calling a theory of philosophy a science. Stephen Jay Gould developed the term "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) to describe how, in his view, science and religion could not comment on each other's realm. Philosophy decides meaning and morality while science is concerned with facts and theories. It is the claim that philosophy is science that gives the pseudo-skeptic the cover to push a progressive political agenda, but first they must neutralize religion. They do this by trying to make religion seem unreasonable and unscientific. The Catholic Church still believes philosophy is the handmaiden of theology; every Priest has a degree in philosophy as a prerequisite to their theology degree. The Church has always accepted proven scientific claims as part of God’s creation. Therefore, no reason to reject them. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive; from Roger Bacon to George Lemaître, the Church has been part of science. The Church still asks and tries to answer all questions, and does not limit itself to science. It embraces all of what was philosophy: reason, science, ethics, and metaphysics. Stephen Jay Gould is correct: empirical science on one side and philosophy on the other.
There is an element of being anti-Christian in the skeptic community because they make moral claims which conflict with Christian morality. Skeptics also use reason as if it were empirical science which also leads to conflicts with Christian reason. Christianity is not monolithic. While it can be divided into thousands of groups, I’ll list three. First, there is Orthodoxy which is the ancient Christianity found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. These Churches predate the bible, empiricism, and consequentialism ethics, but they use reason and ethics. Second, there are liberal Christian churches who reject much of ancient orthodoxy including the bible to adopt to modern beliefs of secular society. Finally, there are bible Christians who believe in their personal interpretation of the bible. Skeptics mainly go after the bible Christians. Bible Christians have a history of rejecting science based on their understanding of the bible. Of course skeptics have been known to try and give Christians their own interpretation of scripture in a bazaar attempt to claim Christians must believe something, they don’t. Also, most skeptics seem to believe that bible Christians represent all Christian thought. Again, there are thousands of individual Christians and Christian churches which can be placed all over this simple triangle of orthodoxy, liberal, and bible Christian. When skeptics mock the Catholic Church it is out of complete ignorance of Catholic teaching, and the facts surrounding their mockery. To compare the three type of Christian, I could give a couple of examples on how they would respond to events. Galileo claimed the earth moved around the sun in a circular orbit. The Catholic Church rejected his claim because Galileo’s science and reason did not prove his case. Liberal Christians would reject his claim because almost everybody else rejected his claim. The bible Christians rejected Galileo's claim because the bible rejected his claim. Kepler’s model of an elliptic orbit was slowly accepted by the science community and at the same time, it was accepted by the Catholic Church. Second example: most people now claim same-sex couples make a marriage. The Catholic Church rejects that claim because science and reason reject the claim. Liberal Christians agree with the claim because most people agree with the claim. Bible Christians reject the claim because the bible rejects the claim. The point being that Christians may agree about a claim, but for different reasons, and they may disagree. Christianity is not a monolith.
There is also a claim in the skeptic community that the world is becoming more just and it is due to science and reason. Thereby suggesting religion is against science and not reasonable. This is the milieu of the skeptic movement. The idea that religion is the opposite of science, and immoral. This kind of thinking is a NOMA violation. Natural science, social science, religion, and ethics ask different questions which require different methods to get answers. Science almost never does anything until someone asks the question; which is reason. If a question is in the field of science, we leave it to science to answer. If it is an ethical or metaphysical question, we leave it to philosophers to answer. Steve Jobs conceived of the iPhone and then science made it happen. Christianity’s philosophy conceived all humanity being equal. It conceived of ending slavery. The civil rights movement was a Judeo-Christian religious movement. It is true that reason is making the world more just, but science has nothing to do with it.
The skeptic community is socially and politically progressive. They generally support: abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. They are against public prayer, non-profit status for religion, and public religious displays. They claim values of tolerance and equality. While these words sound good, they are not defined. Tolerance is not a virtue. We do not tolerate evil. Skeptics demand tolerance for themselves but don't show tolerance for religious people, for example: demanding the destruction of decades-old religious displays, or campaigning against a National Day of Prayer. Both have no cost to the public but show a lack of tolerance for religion. Much of skeptic progressive equality is taking from one and giving to another or holding one back so the other can catch up. One man's equality is another man's socialism. While some can claim equality, others view the same action as unjust. Using the sword to take one man's life, money, or liberty for the benefit of another can be considered good by one, and evil by another. There is no science of tolerance and equality; these are philosophical questions. The science of abortion and euthanasia is that it ends a human life. The science of birth control is that interrupts natural human biology. And there is no science to support same-sex unions as being married. A "skeptic" cannot support these issues by using science, but they can by using reason. A religious person can also reason and they may or may not find the same answer reasonable. A skeptic would not even address these issues as a "skeptic" because the answers are not found in empirical science. The pseudo-skeptics will address these issues because they are not skeptics but bigots. Their reasons are no better, and many worse, than Catholic reasoning or the reasoning of other religions. Again, saying, "that is just your religious belief" is the equivalent of progressive politicos saying, "Fox News." They have not won the argument, they are avoiding it. A bigot does not want true knowledge and understanding as a philosopher or scientist would. They want to justify their hate. Ironically, they hate based in a lack of what they claim to have a monopoly on; science and reason.
