I guess my first question would have to be; "Who is the skeptic?"
Different people here participate in, and read, different threads. So each of us gets a slightly different sampling. But to provide a quick example which illustrates the reason for my confusion, I was recently in a thread where I saw someone proclaiming to believe in the supernatural, yet labeled the Big Bang "trash". So who is the skeptic?
When someone believes something without evidence, then ignores the evidence supporting another concept, I wouldn't call them a "believer" or a "skeptic". I'm not sure what you'd call them. Is there a word for a person who chooses all of their ideas based on a coin toss or a roll of the dice? How else can one accept something which is completely devoid of supporting evidence, as true, while proclaiming something accompanied by overwhelming evidence, "trash"?
That said, skepticism is a good thing. Think about where we might be if no one ever decided to challenge the ideas of the status quo. I tend to believe it's a good thing that we're no longer tossing our kids into volcanoes. I think medicine is an appropriate replacement for spiritual ceremonies designed to rid sick people of "evil spirits".
I suppose some might call me a skeptic. But I think it's more demonstrably correct to call me "consistent". I don't pick and choose beliefs based on how they strike me from an emotional point of view. I tend to want to weigh the evidence, to study the assertions, the mechanisms and the claims and see if they hold any validity. It's the same thing most people do in making the vast majority of their decisions every day.
But those which I suspect are the target of the label "believers", while utilizing the same methods I use for most decisions, abandon those methods as soon as their emotions come into play. They're willing to apply logic and reason to evidence, until they hold a strong emotional investment in the outcome, and find the outcome contrary to what they wish to believe. At that point, they abandon reason, ignore evidence, and avoid logic in order to believe what best serves their emotional desires.
It's worth a bit of thought to consider how appropriate it is to make one's choices regarding belief/disbelief, based purely on emotions. What would happen if such a process weren't reserved only for supernatural assertions? I could check my bank account, review the funds in my wallet and see that I only have $96.00. And yet because there is a $500.00 item I want, I simply ignore the evidence and reason which demonstrates that I have only $96.00 and insist that despite the lack of supporting evidence, I actually have enough to purchase the $500.00 item, simply to serve my emotional desires? Is that a good thing?
When people fail to properly weigh the evidence and place their emotions ahead of reason, they end up adopting all kinds of superstitions. And superstitions have a long history of causing all kinds of harm to many, many people. It also degrades the average intelligence of a populace at large. I don't consider hurting people over false beliefs to be a good thing and I recognize that only through intellect do we ever find ways to improve the quality of life for ourselves and for the rest of the living things on the planet.
Want to call me a "skeptic"?
Thank you. :-)
