Sceptics (or, if you’re American, Skeptics)
There are two types of sceptics, I’ve decided. There are those who debunk claims of the “miraculous” by finding and offering a rational scientific explanation, and there are those who debunk any claim they don’t understand and/or that hasn’t been proven. And many of those in the second category will describe themselves as scientists, but I contend that this is a travesty of the fundamental nature of science. True scientists ought to be a) seeking knowledge (which is, after all, what the word science means), and b) acknowledging that there are things which science hasn’t yet been able to find an explanation for – which doesn’t mean there isn’t one! In other words, a true scientist doesn’t say “I can’t prove it, therefore it isn’t true”, but rather “I can’t explain it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true; research is necessary to find out enough to be able to decide”.
How does this relate to clergy abuse or the church? Well actually, I’ve been following the news articles about Pier Giorgio Frassati (deceased) being flown out to Sydney for WYD, and noticed a claim that when they exhumed him as part of the preparation for sainthood, his body was uncorrupted. A little internet digging on the conditions of his burial turned up not only what I was looking for (entombed in the family vault), but other claims of incorruptibility among “the saints” of the church. And on another site discussing it (comprising, let it be said, one obviously devout Catholic and many sceptics), I found a link to an article in The Skeptic journal (p.35) about the whole issue. Now having previously been exposed to those who run The Skeptic, I think many of them are so keen on being sceptical that they lose sight of being rational, so I was a little reluctant to follow that link. However, it was worth reading as a quite rational counter-argument to the devout and unquestioning Catholic on the discussion site.
And that was where I began thinking about what characterises scepticism, and how it overlaps or conflicts with a truly scientific enquiring mindset. Naturally, of course, the whole thing also bore out what I have previously argued about faith: that blind belief in what the church says is a recipe for disaster. Or at least for being thought an idiot! 
.
Oh, and by the way – if you had any thoughts of visiting Frassati’s dead body as it lies in state in St Mary’s Cathedral during WYD, to check out the claims of incorruptibility, don’t bother. The coffin will be closed.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:43 am
In other words, a true scientist doesn’t say “I can’t prove it, therefore it isn’t true”, but rather “I can’t explain it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true; research is necessary to find out enough to be able to decide”.
I would add: “And the burden of proof lies with those claiming it is true.”
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’d add a rider to that, AV – that the burden of proof lies with those claiming it if and when they expect or insist that others believe it too. That is, provided believing it (whatever it is) doesn’t result in actions that hurt others, there’s nothing against people believing anything they want without having proof. But when they start insisting that others should believe it too (or they’ll go to hell, in the case of religious claims), that’s when proof is called for.
But my contention is also that a truly enquiring mind will go looking for evidence both ways rather than either a) debunking or b) sitting back waiting for the proof to be handed to them.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:06 am
I’d add a rider to that, AV – that the burden of proof lies with those claiming it if and when they expect or insist that others believe it too.
Yes, obviously. But it is only in such circumstances that the question of who has the burden of proof arises.
But my contention is also that a truly enquiring mind will go looking for evidence both ways rather than either a) debunking or b) sitting back waiting for the proof to be handed to them.
It depends on the nature of the claim being made. Take, for instance, the claim that an exhumed corpse had not decomposed at the expected rate over a given period of time because the corpse belonged to a person who had been declared a saint by the Catholic Church and was therefore miraculously “incorrupt.” What kind of evidence am I supposed to be looking for that supports this claim? How can I demonstrate that God stayed the decomposition process?
If it is a fact that some bodies when exhumed have been found not to have decomposed at the expected rate, and if it is also a fact that a significant proportion of these bodies belong to individuals posthumously declared to be saints by the Catholic Church, then these are phenomena that require explaining, and it would indeed be irrational to dismiss the phenomena themselves out-of-hand.
But the claim that the lack of decomposition has a miraculous or supernatural cause is something additional, and it is by no means unreasonable, before accepting or rejecting the claim, to demand of the claimant the evidence that substantiates it.
With regard to supernatural claims, there is something to be said for the impulse to debunk, too. Experience shows us that there are rarely (if ever) good reasons to accept claims about phenomena that invoke supernatural causation–whether you’re talking about ghosts, or fairies, or deities, or saintly incorruptibility. (I’m certainly not aware of any such reasons.) It is far more likely, then, that a natural explanation can be given. Regarding the phenomenon of arrested decomposition of saints, when I was presented with the phenomenon by the commenter Mary, I neither fell to my knees to praise Jesus, nor did I dismiss the phenomenon out of hand. Curiosity and my BS detector led me to investigate the matter further, whereupon I found the Skeptics article. But even if a natural explanation can’t be found right now, right this second for a phenomenon, that doesn’t mean that “God did it” is a viable alternative. All it justifies us in saying is “We don’t know.”
June 25th, 2008 at 10:44 am
it is only in such circumstances that the question of who has the burden of proof arises
I’m not sure that’s altogether so. I think a lot of people challenge claims they perceive to be far-fetched, whether or not the claimant is expecting the hearer to believe it too. And I think there’s a sense in which in that situation the person accusing a claim of being far-fetched swings the onus of proof onto themselves somewhat, simply because they are making a counter-claim, the onus of which it is on them to prove.
However, I take your point on the rest of it. I guess I was focusing more on the claim of incorruptibility itself, rather than the claim of miraculous origin. Basically because it seems to me to go without saying that if incorruptibility can be found to have natural causes, then the “miraculous origin” claim is an optional extra (some or all incorruptibles may be so as a result of divine intervention, but not necessarily). That then comes down to more fundamental beliefs about whether god exists and how s/he/it acts in our world. But if there is no natural cause found, then that increases the likelihood of some UNnatural cause – not to conclusivity, of course, because it may simply be that we don’t know enough yet.
All that said, I don’t have any problem with people believing whatever faith construct works for them. The danger of organised religions is that they turn individual preference of belief into a) so-called divinely authorised, and b) obligatory. They are thereby misappropriated for reasons of power. And that’s where Mary and others like her get misled, because they take the package on trust without realising the underlying purpose is as a means of controlling people.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
And I think there’s a sense in which in that situation the person accusing a claim of being far-fetched swings the onus of proof onto themselves somewhat, simply because they are making a counter-claim, the onus of which it is on them to prove.
Again, it depends on the claim. To return to the incorruptibility example, it seems to me that it would be quite easy to support the claim that “God intervened in the decomposition process” is far-fetched as an explanation, given the dearth of cases historically in which it has been demonstrated conclusively that God has intervened in . . . well . . . anything.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
It’s a kind of “proof by omission”, though, isn’t it? I mean, no matter how much one argues that god has never been proven to have intervened before, that a) doesn’t mean s/he/it hasn’t, and b) doesn’t mean s/he/it never will. Though I agree that intervention starting now is extremely unlikely
And I guess that’s why I stand where I stand in matters of faith. My concept of god is quite fluid (truth, justice and love are the embodiment of god, rather than god being a person or concrete soul-identity), and my faith practice is very individual. But I don’t care if anyone else believes the same, I don’t have to prove it’s true, and the minute I start telling anyone else they should believe what I do, I’ve stepped over the line, IMO.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
It’s a kind of “proof by omission”, though, isn’t it?
No. For one thing, it’s not a question of what can be proven, but simply what can be demonstrated and justified given the available evidence. As many philosophers of science (and scientists themselves) like to point out, scientific facts and explanations are not eternal, absolute truths: they are rather only tentatively true in the sense that their “truth” is contingent upon current knowledge and evidence, and they are open to re-evaluation as new evidence and methods are discovered.
The absence of evidence that God intervenes, or has previously intervened in the phenomenal world is not proof that such intervention has never taken place. By the same token, the absence of evidence that the Fairy Godmother intervenes or has intervened in the phenomenal world is not proof that such intervention has never taken place. Nonetheless I can still maintain, given the lack of evidence, that both “Yahweh intervention theory” and “Fairy Godmother intervention theory” are far-fetched as explanations of phenomena. It is not an argument from ignorance, because I am not claiming that either the “Yahweh intervention” or “Fairy Godmother intervention” theories are wrong. I’m just saying that the lack of evidence in support of these theories means that we should assign them lower probabilities than naturalistic theories when seeking explanations for natural phenomena; there being abundant evidence of naturalistic theories successfully explaining natural phenomena. (In other words: apply Occam’s razor.)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
June 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Thanks, Clare . . . welcome to my blogroll!
And you’ve been tagged.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Thanks, sis, for a useful label on a crossover blog comment. “Valuable scepticism” vs “close-minded scepticism”. Exactly the distinction I had in mind! And this too: “a spirit of honest inquiry demands we…seek to form tentative theories… – if only to stretch our imaginations far enough to begin to encompass reality.”
As anyone reading my story would know, my philosophy about who and/or what god is, is based on facts – I was abused, no-one intervened, what sort of “god” fits with those events? (I concede that assuming a god at all is simply a matter of personal preference.) And it is in that sense that we often need to stretch our imaginations, as Jaqi said – when our pre-established understanding of the world doesn’t match events and facts. Close-minded scepticism clings to what it perceives as rationality, sometimes despite indications to the contrary, rather than risking exploration of the unknown and potential change.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Not to harp on this too much, but I think the term “close minded skepticism” is an oxymoron. As I understand skepticism, the moment one throws one’s hands in the air in the face of the currently unexplained and declares (by fiat, and without proper justification in the form of supporting evidence) that “science will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be able to explain this phenomenon, and therefore we must defer to the supernatural/theistic explanation [for which no convincing evidence is proffered],” is the moment one has abandoned healthy skepticism and given oneself over to close-mindedness.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Well actually…
The dictionary says true scepticism asserts nothing positively and doubts the possibility of knowledge at all (supernatural or scientific)! The more usual modern interpretation (also in the dic) is simply a general disposition to doubt. And my distinction lies between those who doubt but are willing to be convinced by sufficient proof, and those who doubt and don’t want to be convinced.
The first category, incidentally, is required for jury members in a court of law. The second category is one into which people often fall when confronted with fact or hypothesis which doesn’t fit with their cosmology.
To give a non-modern but still religious example – the church used to assert the earth was the centre of the universe. And when Galileo proposed otherwise, he was declared a heretic and threatened with excommunication and death. 359 years later, in 1992, the church apologised for its treatment of Galileo. Now I would argue that the church, in that instance, definitely fell into the second category of scepticism. They didn’t want to be convinced, because it threatened their interpretation of many parts of the bible that imply geocentricity or geo-importance (I made that word up!). And they didn’t care how much proof Galileo might have; they saw his views as dangerous to themselves and their power, and they brought the full weight of church displeasure to bear on him.
Now, AV, I’m sure this discussion has gone on long enough. If there’s anything you still don’t understand about my distinction, then feel free to ask. But if it’s just that you still disagree, then IMO continuing to restate your disagreement isn’t going to take us forward at all.