Is skepticism unhealthy from a religious perspective?

[bigvindaloo]

I classify myself as a sceptic when it comes to religious matters. I have trouble believing in truth before I see it before my eyes. I enjoy my pudding if I get to eat it too. From a religious perspective, is this attitude unhealthy? (I consider myself a seeker, and also very open-minded). Is a sceptical attitude a justifiable null hypothesis when it comes to religious belief? Or is the fruit you garner from your religious practice independent of a sceptical proof?

 

[PureX]

Only some religions require blind adherence to their doctrines. And even then only some expressions of those religions. I would say that Islam and Christianity are the most dogmatic of the current main-stream religions today, but even then, it's not all factions of these.

My own view of this is to try and separate fundamentalism (what I would more accurately call ideological absolutism) from the various religions that it infects. Ideological absolutism can infect any ideology, not just religious ideology, and the result are cults based on blind adherence to ideological dogma. I think this is a separate phenomena, and is not necessarily a product of religion, but of the misuse of religion.

 

[michel]

I classify myself as a sceptic when it comes to religious matters. I have trouble believing in truth before I see it before my eyes. I enjoy my pudding if I get to eat it too. From a religious perspective, is this attitude unhealthy? (I consider myself a seeker, and also very open-minded). Is a sceptical attitude a justifiable null hypothesis when it comes to religious belief? Or is the fruit you garner from your religious practice independent of a sceptical proof?

As Purex just mentioned, Roman Catholics, orthodox (and, I think LDS) don't really allow for doubt; personally I have met many Christians, who when asked, can't claim 100% belief......and, to be fair, neither can I.

I do take the existance of God as Faith.....but what or who God is is a different matter.

 

[James the Persian]

As Purex just mentioned, Roman Catholics, orthodox (and, I think LDS) don't really allow for doubt; personally I have met many Christians, who when asked, can't claim 100% belief......and, to be fair, neither can I.

I do take the existance of God as Faith.....but what or who God is is a different matter.

This isn't really true, Michel. Orthodoxy leaves an awful lot of room for personal theological opinions. We even have a word for these: they are called theologoumena. We don't dogmatise anywhere near as much as, for instance, the RCs do. There are, certainly, core doctrines that all must adhere to to be able to claim that they are Orthodox, but then you appear to adhere to the majority of these also, and you certainly aren't Orthodox unless you've recently converted on the quiet.

Even with the core doctrines, it is OK to doubt. It is OK to hold personal views that are contrary to them, even, so long as you are unaware of the fact. Nobody is a heretic in Orthodox thought simply by adhering to a heresy, they must rather know that it is heresy and wilfully choose to follow it nonetheless. I think we allow for an awful lot more doubt than you realise. What we do not allow for, though, which may be where your misapprehension comes in, is for those who doubt to teach erroneous beliefs as doctrine. To do that despite being warned by the Church would be to become a heresiarch. That said, most of us have absolutely no desire to disagree with the Church, even on small details, so you won't see a huge amount of disagreement in the Orthodox community. This is not, however, because we aren't allowed to have doubts but rather because we wish to conform ourselves, voluntarily, to Christ. That seems like a very different phenomenon from what you suggest, though maybe the difference is only really clearly visible from the inside.

James

 

[michel]

I stand corrected; thanks James. Can you give me an example of " is for those who doubt to teach erroneous beliefs as doctrine" ? I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

[James the Persian]

I stand corrected; thanks James. Can you give me an example of " is for those who doubt to teach erroneous beliefs as doctrine" ? I am not sure what you mean by that.

Easy enough. If I were to doubt, for instance, that the Theotokos was ever-virgin (not exactly doctrine but it is Holy Tradition, as shown by our Liturgics, the Ecumenical Councils etc.), that would be fine. It is not a matter of personal salvation to believe that she never slept with Joseph. So long as this remains a theologoumenon, all should be OK. However, were I to start preaching the view that she was not ever-virgin to others in the Church as though this were doctrine, that would be crossing the line. If I did so, I would expect to be censured by the Church and, if I persisted despite that, to be excommunicated until such time as I repented. Hopefully that explains the sort of thing I had in mind clearly enough.

James

 

[Sunstone]

However much cliche it is to say it, it is nevertheless true enough that different people have need of different paths. One such path, a time honored path in India, is sometimes called the "Negative Path".

The Negative Path involves rejecting anything that is proven by the adherent to not be the way. "Not this! Not that!" I would think skepticism plays a huge role in that path.

But cynicism, rejection for the sake of rejection, is a misunderstanding of the Negative Path. The point of the Negative Path is to arrive at truth, and not reject truth when it is finally arrived at.

 

[James the Persian]

However much cliche it is to say it, it is nevertheless true enough that different people have need of different paths. One such path, a time honored path in India, is sometimes called the "Negative Path".

The Negative Path involves rejecting anything that is proven by the adherent to not be the way. "Not this! Not that!" I would think skepticism plays a huge role in that path.

But cynicism, rejection for the sake of rejection, is a misunderstanding of the Negative Path. The point of the Negative Path is to arrive at truth, and not reject truth when it is finally arrived at.

I'd never heard of the Negative Path before, but that sounds remarkably like apophatic theology, which you could say is pretty much the hallmark of eastern Christian theology, particularly when we talk of God.

James

 

[Booko]

I classify myself as a sceptic when it comes to religious matters. I have trouble believing in truth before I see it before my eyes. I enjoy my pudding if I get to eat it too. From a religious perspective, is this attitude unhealthy? (I consider myself a seeker, and also very open-minded). Is a sceptical attitude a justifiable null hypothesis when it comes to religious belief? Or is the fruit you garner from your religious practice independent of a sceptical proof?

Faith without some healthy skepticism is nothing but blind faith, and can become very dangerous.

Please retain your skepticism. As long as its balanced by a willingness to change and to listen (open-mindedness), imo it's a good thing.

 

[Shtef]

This isn't really true, Michel. Orthodoxy leaves an awful lot of room for personal theological opinions. We even have a word for these: they are called theologoumena. We don't dogmatise anywhere near as much as, for instance, the RCs do. There are, certainly, core doctrines that all must adhere to to be able to claim that they are Orthodox, but then you appear to adhere to the majority of these also, and you certainly aren't Orthodox unless you've recently converted on the quiet.

Even with the core doctrines, it is OK to doubt. It is OK to hold personal views that are contrary to them, even, so long as you are unaware of the fact. Nobody is a heretic in Orthodox thought simply by adhering to a heresy, they must rather know that it is heresy and wilfully choose to follow it nonetheless. I think we allow for an awful lot more doubt than you realise. What we do not allow for, though, which may be where your misapprehension comes in, is for those who doubt to teach erroneous beliefs as doctrine. To do that despite being warned by the Church would be to become a heresiarch. That said, most of us have absolutely no desire to disagree with the Church, even on small details, so you won't see a huge amount of disagreement in the Orthodox community. This is not, however, because we aren't allowed to have doubts but rather because we wish to conform ourselves, voluntarily, to Christ. That seems like a very different phenomenon from what you suggest, though maybe the difference is only really clearly visible from the inside.

James

James,

Over time I have read quite a bit of what you have had to say on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and, I must say, it comes across as the most sophisticated Christian denomination. It appears to be mature and doesn't seem to suffer from the insecurities of other sects.

This is interesting to me because I, myself, am actually baptised in the Orthodox Church - my family originates from the balkans. We're just not a very religious family and because of that I don't have much of an understanding of of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Thanks to you, this is changing and I like what I see.

 

[Shtef]

I classify myself as a sceptic when it comes to religious matters. I have trouble believing in truth before I see it before my eyes. I enjoy my pudding if I get to eat it too. From a religious perspective, is this attitude unhealthy? (I consider myself a seeker, and also very open-minded). Is a sceptical attitude a justifiable null hypothesis when it comes to religious belief? Or is the fruit you garner from your religious practice independent of a sceptical proof?

depends what religion you're referring to. Budhism actually encourages skepticism