This week I want to turn our attention to the notion of irrational skepticism. I recently received a letter from a skeptical listener who suggested that it was a waste of time to hear ‘evidence’ about the after life that could not be verified. The letter went on to point out the contradictions and copycat ideas that often come from this sort of testimony. So now, before we begin, let me say that I think there is such a thing as healthy skepticism and we should all be certain that we maintain a healthy portion in the cupboards of our mind. Indeed, in today’s world probably more than ever, given our 24-7 media cycle and the unending information overload, we should have a conscious sentry on alert somewhere in our mind at all times—a guardian whose only assignment is to protect against the infiltration of non-sense and irrationality in our thinking. That said, not every idea that is un-testable or fails to be empirically verifiable should be discarded and skeptics who so argue have lost their way and forgotten what skepticism really is.
Skepticism
Webster defines skepticism this way, “Doubt as to the truth of something,” but Webster also recognizes that philosophically speaking the word arises from a tradition defined this way, “The theory that certain knowledge is impossible.” Think about those two definitions for a moment. On the one hand we are predisposed to doubt, to question—and on the other we recognize that some forms of knowledge are inherently impossible to prove.
For me, healthy skepticism integrates both definitions. I do believe we should question, investigate, authenticate, and so forth—checking for consistencies and truth, especially before we dedicate our lives to some belief. However, we should also recognize from the outset that many things in our world are not objectively verifiable and that this in no way disqualifies them, for each and every one of us live private lives to some extent and our experiences are not therefore always verifiable. Thus, to deny this aspect of reality is to deny our own existence and where that may go down for some, for most of us it’s rather ridiculous.
Now I have heard many protest what they view as superstitious nonsense—this idea of a god who created all things. Some folks have prospered greatly and built entire reputations around their attacks on people of faith. Richard Dawkins comes to mind and he is an excellent example of one who plays with being a skeptic, especially for juveniles. Young people around the world quote Dawkins and the words from his book, “The God Delusion.” But what exactly is Dawkins basing his initial criticism on? Simply stated— definitions.
Let’s play with definitions for a moment. First we all recognize that words have contrived meanings—that is, they arise out of agreement and usage. Word meanings often change over time and even where the same language is concerned, they can have different cultural meanings. In England a rubber is an erasure and the idea of “keeping your pecker up” addresses the chin (chin up) as opposed some sexual aspect of anatomy. Now we don’t always have words to describe everything so we agree on words that define the indescribable. For example, the ineffable experience of the mystic simply means as Plotinus might have put it, an experience beyond the ability to linguistically communicate.
In Huxley’s “Perennial Philosophy” we find that the mystics of all time and throughout most traditions have experienced what we can only formally know as the ineffable experience. These same mystics, after informing us that what they experienced cannot be translated into words, then often attempt to paint a verbal picture of their experience and understanding of the infinite. Now give the word infinite a thought for a minute as well—for this word introduces something that itself can only be approximated with the language of math. That is, we have the idea of something beyond everything but what exactly does that mean? For there is no number so large that you cannot add one to it.
Okay, to my point. If I suggest that I have an idea of a geometrical shape and I describe my idea as a shape with four opposite and equal sides, each side placed at 90 degree angles from each other, you easily grasp the picture of a square. Now if I describe a geometrical figure whose circumference can be obtained by multiplying the radius by 3 pi, and which contains a total interior angle of 90 degrees, something goes wrong. My definition is not only ambiguous—it is downright wrong, for it’s impossible!
By contrast, if I inform you that I saw a color unlike any color I have ever seen but it was unbelievably beautiful—how have I invalidated my experience? Just because I am unable to adequately provide a mental picture for you, does not mean the color was not seen by me, or for that matter, that the color does not exist at all. Unlike the circle description with an interior of only 90degrees, there is nothing impossible about an ineffable color.
Ineffable
Our mystics and theologians are often pushed to describe detail they simply either do not have access to or cannot because there is nothing in our vocabulary to reference. Like the color that fails to be identified because it is different from any other color in our vocabularies, mystical experiences often give rise to approximate language, rough comparisons by way of descriptions, and the like. So for example, our mystics inform us of a time without time, an absolute monism, a transcendent omnipresent source, a creative power within and without everything, a certain omniscience, even omnipotence, and so forth, and the Dawkins of the world jump on this as though it were a literal description like our geometrical example of an impossible circle.
The fact is, a statement leading to a question such as those often offered by irrational skeptics has no place in either the world of science or metaphysical enquiry! To be clear, it is child’s play and utter foolishness to insist that there is no such thing as a god because some of these ineffable approximations offered to help you grasp the paradox of being, and the infinite nature of it all, seem to contradict themselves. When the approximate description includes a word like omnibenevolent, this addresses a feeling experienced and not an argument for good or evil. When the word omnipotent is used by the mystic, it too reflects a personal feeling, and not the literal definition that might be deduced by the irrational skeptic, and then treated as a trite argument that might go something like this, “If god is all powerful then can he build a rock so large he can’t lift it?”
Now in fairness, unfortunately many of the insights reported as a result of mystical experiences find their way into doctrine that sometimes becomes rigid. When this happens, the Dawkin’s of the world have every right to point it out as non-sense, but to discard it all together, to encourage others to throw spirituality and religion away as superstitious nonsense, is to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water!
Thanks for the read and as always, I truly appreciate your comments and feedback.
Eldon Taylor
Provocative Enlightenment
NY Time Bestselling Author of Choices and Illusions
www.eldontaylor.com