I feel like skeptics get a bad rep. And actually anybody who chooses individual thought versus groupthink. Why is this? All the information we receive about the world is filtered through our understanding of that world. So, 1) shouldn't we work really hard to understand our own belief systems and 2) shouldn't information reach us in a way that we need it to? I.e. based on our own, individual understanding of the world. What I need to hear to understand a concept or story is going to be different from what you need to hear, and that makes sense to me. I don't expect others to learn the way I learn.
So where does skepticism exist in all this? I think it's healthy to flex your skepticism muscle because it pushes you to understand things through the filter of 'me' and my existence in the world, instead of accepting information that is force fed to you, prechewed for easier digestion. Being skeptical allows you to push further into a topic, not stopping at face value. I think when it comes to the big questions, like the nature of humanity, why we're here, where we're going, it's incredibly important to be able to push deeply. And being skeptical of what you're told about God, spirituality, humanity, etc. etc. allows you to come to an understanding that resonates deeply within you, in a way that no one belief or opinion could.
I'm a skeptic but not to the point that it prevents me from seeking out information. It would be easy to tip too far, be super weary of how the world is orchestrated, feel powerless and never seek understanding for yourself because it's all rigged anyways. I don't take things at face value, but if something jumps out at me I pull that thread and see where it goes.
So today, I wanted to look a little at skepticism as it relates to belief and inquiry. The most famous doubter I know is Thomas the apostle who did not believe when Jesus was resurrected. He is referred to as Thomas the doubter, and to this day we call nonbelievers or incredulous people 'doubting Thomas'.
He would not believe until he thrust his own hand into the wound. A Christian reading of this story preaches the importance of belief without sight. That last line can be interpreted as 'it's great that you need to see to believe, Thomas, but look at all those who believe without taking the next step'. Good for them, I guess, but as someone who needs to take the next step, I see this as Thomas, who was skeptical of the return of the lord because it went against his understanding of how life on planet Earth works, needed to see and/ or feel this truth to accept it.
There's some debate about whether or not Thomas actually touched the wounds of Christ. Paintings of the act, under the title 'The Incredulity of Thomas', usually show contact. Here's Caravaggio's take on the theme:
I think bickering about if contact was made or not is beside the point. Thomas was able to go farther than the other apostles because he expressed doubt. He alone touched the wound, experiencing it firsthand. If you cannot believe without testing the boundaries of what you're told to believe, can you simply not believe? When it comes to divine capital T Truth, I have to believe that there are many paths to this understanding.
The theme of these paintings are called 'The Incredulity of Thomas'.
The term is broken down from the Latin as not believing or trusting. I think this is where my understanding breaks from the Christian. They interpret this as the need for blind devotion, for if you don't have that you cannot believe. But I read it more through the lens of not trusting aka doubting, which can then lead to deeper belief if pursued further. And I don't conflate trust with belief.
Skeptic comes from the Greek meaning inquiry into doubt. Why has this become a negative in our contemporary understanding of the world? We're supposed to be doubtless, completely sure of our opinions and place in the world. Every day a new event takes hold of our collective consciousness and we're expected to have a strong opinion that is the correct understanding of the event.
Well, after enough years of being told how to think and feel, I'm opting out. I choose skepticism and doubt, but I let them guide my intellectual curiosity rather than stop it short. And I'm happier than I've ever been because the information that reaches me and creates my world is pertinent to me. I know, it's a crazy idea. Maybe you do a better job selecting information important to you than some large entity that has a vested interest in selling you that information.
So here's to promoting healthy skepticism, trusting yourself, and exploration.
