Levels of Skepticism

By:  Erick Nelson
Last Updated:  November 2, 2000

Question #1

"Why should I believe that there was ever a real Jesus at all, or disciples who spread a message about him?  This was so long ago, in ignorant times.  In fact, aren't there huge problems with historical accounts - 

Even if all that you have discussed is faithfully and accurately preserved by the "historian" (by the way, what's his motivation to be honest and accurate? Is he being paid off? Threatened? Or is he just a moral kind of guy?), what's to prevent some dude who's got an agenda from grabbing all the old historical records (impossible to do in modern society for sure, but what about in the ancient world? Seems like everybody knew who the recorders of history were and could have seized and destroyed the records and substituted their own version of the facts, or discredited the "good guys") and recreating the historical record in his own image. The Communists attempted to do this and, as far as I can tell, did a pretty good job of it. Of course this was in the context of a closed and isolated society, I realize, but something to ponder nonetheless, don't you think?"

Levels of Skepticism

1. Skepticism about knowledge of ancient events - Their culture was different than ours. It was a smaller world then, and fraud was easier to achieve. Manuscript issues. etc.

2. Skepticism about pre-Guttenberg history. No printing. Possible political control over the historical spin. Superstitious and pre-scientific people. etc. Radical Skepticism at this level - How do I know any of this history is accurate?

3. Skepticism about modern history. WW2 Haulocaust is now being doubted; problems like the Kennedy assasination (sure we know much of what happened, by we don't know the details about who did it). Radical skepticism - How do I know the Civil War occurred?

4. Skepticism about recent reportage/events. How do I know that anything in the daily newspapers is true? How do I know the Presidential debates reall occurred and weren't computer-generated?

5. Skepticism about any knowledge based on others' observation and study (Science and Math). How do I know it's true if I can't verify it for myself? (value of pi to the 14th decimal: 3.14159265358979) How do I know for sure that the sun is further away than the moon? Science is always changing - what passes for truth today is refuted tomorrow.

6. Skepticism about anything I didn't personally experience.  How do I know for sure that any particular reportage is true, if I didn't see it for myself?  How do I know the tuna I had for lunch wasn't really cleverly disguised tofu?  How do I know the coffee I drink this morning isn't poisoned?  How do I know that my wife is really taking my kid to preschool today (even if I call the preschool, they could have cleverly routed my call to a cell phone or something)

7. Skepticism about inferences from my experience: the external world. How do I know that there really is a world outside me?  Solipcism.

8. Skepticism even about my own memories. Sometimes my memory lets me down or deceives me. How do I know that any of my memories are accurate?  Bertrand Russell called this "Solipcisim of the Moment." All I know for sure is that I exist and that I am experiencing something right now.

9.  Skepticism about my own identity and/or about the validity of reason.  How do I know I exist?  How do I know logic is valid?  If there is anything I know, it's that I exist (even if I can't exhaustively define myself in terms of various categories).  No one can prove that logic is valid, because that would presume the validity of logic.  It just has to be accepted or not.  These two items are presumably self-evident.

Skepticism and Christian Apologetics

Question #2

"Your levels of skepticism segment is very interesting.  Sometimes, I think I must be a total skeptic in all the categories. I want the truth to hit me like a brick wall."


Response

I can't believe you would fit into the most extreme categories. Surely you believe that there is a world independent of you, and that some explanations of what goes on "out there" are better than others! Otherwise, you couldn't think that any account is better or worse than any other!


Inconsistencies of Skepticism

To go back a bit - Being a non-skeptic at the level of "modern history" doesn't mean that I think every issue has been explained perfectly.  I can agree that the Kennedy assassination, for instance, is problematic.  In fact, it is the fact that I'm not skeptical in general that gives me the right to pick and choose based on an evaluation of evidence.  On the other hand, the person who is thinks it isn't possible to evaluate evidence about "modern history" and come to any truths has given up the right to pick and choose.  Any explanation is as good as any others, because they are all fundamentally flawed.

But you presumably think that some theories about Philip T. Kramer are better than others.  And you point out that stories can change over 50 years (implying that if the time frame was much shorter, they might be more reliable).  And you agree that the Plot Theory is probably not true.  If you were really skeptical at the levels of history, then you wouldn't make these distinctions.  You couldn't.


Practical Problems with Skepticism

And the more skeptical someone is, on a practical basis, as we go down the levels, the less useful he necessarily is.  If I am skeptical of all recent events, I can't be trusted to vote.  If I am skeptical of all accounts that go beyond my own personal experience, I can't trust my wife.  If I am skeptical of my own memory, I can't trust myself.  And if I am skeptical about the existence of the world outside me and of the validity of reason, I can't be trusted at all.

Now, many people have questioned the *theoretical basis* for knowledge at these levels (especially starting with Hume), but that's a different matter.  That's a deep philosophical question, which can be answered through diligent study.  But, on a real-life basis (which is what we're talking about when we talk about Jesus' claims), do you really doubt that knowledge can be obtained on these levels?  That's the point.


Soft Skepticism and Christian Apologetics

Just like there are two kinds of agnostics, there are two kinds of skeptics: hard and soft.  The hard skeptic/agnostic says that no one can know ("The one thing I really hate is the know-it-all agnostic").  The soft skeptic/agnostic simply says that he just doesn't happen to know.  I think most people who claim to be skeptics are in fact soft skeptics.  Not having studied the detective-like methods of historiography, they are simply in the dark about accounts of the olden days.  Not having gone through the rigors of the scientific method, and understandably lacking knowledge about the inter-relationships of scientific theories, they just kind of wonder whether we know as much as we sometimes think we know.   

This puts several forms of Christian apologetic in an interesting situation.  The apologist knows, or believes he knows, that valid converging evidence exists.  But the recipient of this information is ill prepared to deal with it. 

The historical argument is one of those lines of evidence.  It's a pretty important one, because the message about Jesus is a factual and (since it happened in the past) a historical claim.  The historical argument works great for the open-minded person who knows enough about historical investigation to respect it. But this argument is simply lost on the ignorant person (whether through lack of mental faculty or lack of information or lack of time, etc.).

The irony here is that many people who think of themselves as "skeptics" do so because they have come to the point of doubting common sense views.  Therefore, they sometimes assume that they are too intellectual for a common-sense religious such as Christianity.  However, in these cases, the fault is not with Christiantiy, it's with the skeptic.

The only thing that cannot be said in that situation is that the skeptic is too intellectually advanced to be a Christian.  


Hard Skepticism

The hard skeptic, at whatever level, picks a level and simply says that no one can know.  Now, his  argument he has is not especially with Christianity, it's with all secular knowledge as well.  G.K. Chesterton commented that this is like a farmer who maliciously burns the crops in his neighbor's field, only to find that his own field, and barn, and house to boot, have been burned to the ground as a result.  It's like sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

Now, if you're going to be serious about hard skepticism at levels 1-5, on a practical level, Christianity is on the side of the vast bulk of knowledge which is the basis of much of our civilized world.  And you are on the other side.

If your skepticism is more extreme, and you're dealing on a practical level, then traditional apologetic methods would be inappropriate.  You are effectively immune to all proofs.