A Skeptical Faith

A sermon Offered by Al Murray
Sunday, November 25, 2007 • Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading

Opening Words

Skepticism vs. Cynicism vs. Faith  (from Freethought.homestead.com)

The term skeptic is usually used to mean a person who is taking a critical position in a given situation, usually by employing the principles of Critical Thinking and the scientific method (that is, scientific skepticism) to evaluate the validity of claims and practices

Critical Thinking, within the framework of skepticism, is the mental process of acquiring information, then evaluating it to reach a logical conclusion or answer. .

The cynic does NOT employ critical thinking to evaluate the validity of claims and practices.  Another way of putting this is that a cynic is clouded by personal bias when examining information, and thus always proves himself correct

Skeptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, cynics.  The truth, however, is that valid skeptical criticism (as opposed to arbitrary or subjective misgivings for an idea - cynicism) strictly originates from an objective and methodical examination.

Homily - A Skeptical Faith

The old comic strip had one panel showing  2 doors.  A sign pointing to one door read “heaven this way”, the second sign said “Unitarian Universalists:  discussion on heaven this way.

Religious Skeptics

Our religious historical path has been paved by critical thinkers, this list is by no means complete, nor are the ideas presented here detailed, this is just a surface skimming of some critical thinkers who have gotten us to where we are on our journey.

Francis David,  used critical thought , logic, historical documents and reasoning to win the debate at the Diet of Torda and convince King Sigismund that the trinity as set forth by the council of Nicea was incorrect and that Unitarianism was the true form of Christian religion

Miquel Servetus, used available documents, reasoning and critical thought to come to much the same conclusions as Francis David.  He also reasoned that “Jesus was not the eternal son of God” but rather that Jesus and all humanity was the son of the eternal God.  A major and controversial difference.

Jan Hus, of whom a full sermon will be dedicated to later this season, questioned the very authority of the pope.  Did the office come from scripture or was it set up by mankind to create order and a hierarchy over religious orders?

Giordani Bruno,  used scientific observation to note that the Sun was probably just one of many stars and that the heavens were the same in every direction.  He came to the conclusion that the earth was not the center of the universe.  It should be noted that Bruno was also an occultist and believed in reincarnation.

J.W. Hanson in 1779 argued, using the Apostle’s creed and other documents, that the concept of original sin had no biblical force and that Universal salvation was available to all people.  Hanson paved the way for the first Universalist preacher John Murray (no relation that I know of) to serve at the NJ farmhouse chapel of Tom Potter and who was later called as minister by the Gloucester Universalist Society.

Scientific Skeptics

Going back to the mythical Prometheus, humanity has questioned the accepted norm and brought fire or other scientific ideas out of the darkness and into the light.

Copernicus, Galileo, and others helped our knowledge with ideas about the correct place of our Earth in the cosmos.

Herophilus, Galen, Ibn al-Nafis, and Miquel Servetus all lead the way for William Harvey to fully describe the Circulatory system of the blood.

Many, many other discoveries and inventions have been set forth for us by critical thinkers.

Crackpots and Charlatans

An offshoot of the skeptical movement is that anyone is free to espouse pseudo-science to either trick people or convince themselves that they alone have the knowledge reserved from mere mortals.

Jim Jones, Appelwhite, P.T Barnum, the snake oil salesmen of American history, Uri Gellar, TAPS (the ghost hunters…um, the TV channel is called the sci-fi channel).

Many of these people use some of the facts, they cherry pick the facts and some documents (often of dubious or disputed origin) that serve their cause, ignoring whatever inconvenient facts disprove their positions.  When pressed they either duck and cover or argue from prearranged and practiced angles designed to snowplow the questioner under.

Zero point energy, perpetual motion, telekinesis, worm holes. Mass less reaction drives.  All exhibit use of incomplete facts and either ignorance or outright misuse of scientific principles. Drugs that purport to cure all manner of ills (this statement has not been verified by the FDA)

Many new religions that have recently sprung up have been called cults by the cynics.  Maybe, but a cursory examination of them should be applied.  What are the tenants of the religion?  Openness or exclusivity?  Is there a rigid doctrine and multiple, sometimes costly indoctrination steps or levels, or an inclusive, transparent membership.   Do you have to give up all your possessions?  Do you have to undergo “training”, in isolation?  If it sounds like programming, it probably is.

Faith healers,  mediums, spiritualists, even the strip mall tarot reader, none of their claims stand up to any rigorous investigation.

A problem is that some people are harmless cranks and others are charlatans trying to get our money. 

Anti Charlatan Skeptics

There are champions of critical thinking available to us;

Phil Platt, and other internet bloggers,  James Randi  (best know for his debunking of Uri Gellar on National TV and his million dollar challenge for proof of the paranormal), The Myth Busters,  Penn and Teller and their TV show (the name of which I am unable to say here) and the grandfather of magical debunkers: Harry Houdini.  All these people and organizations help to point out errors of non-critical thinking and unconsidered belief.

Websites that debunk Urban Myths and Internet hoaxes  Such as hoaxbusters.ciac.org/  or www.snopes.com/  serve as online references to the myriad and conflicting claims that populate the world wide web.  A pitfall is total dependence on only one reference.  Get multiple opinions, get differing reports, make your own conclusions.  Not all authorities are totally authoritative.

Your local public library, and especially the reference librarian exist to guide people along search paths.  Hmmm, maybe we shouldn’t go to church but rather to the Library, we should ask Susan if the reference section is open today?

Professional organizations and Schools. While many organizations are somewhat self-serving, their membership is composed of educated, certified professionals.  While the examples I gave earlier were of people who challenged the authority of their day, the certification process, when granted by independent 3rd  party organizations helps us decide which authority is authentic.

The Consumers Union, and when they work, such government agencies as the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer protection agency.  A problem is that some of these authorities have been corrupted by political and special interest groups and so do not always provide unsullied leadership.

So, who do we turn to when we ask that a religion be authenticated?  This is a difficult issue when the authority stated is direct revelation. How is it that Joshua, Ruth, Moses, Esther, David, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mohamed and Joseph Smith are more credible than the “prophets” of today?  

Is it that today, the majority of people can read and do not need interpretations from on high?  I like to think that more people are skeptical and questioning, but then there is that whole 80% of people believing in miracles thing.  Maybe we are more cynical, but there are still people who belief in faked miracles as proof of truth of a persons revelation.

A study of the Doctrine of miracles shows that at least a basic question of the veracity of a miracle is whether or not the power comes from Good or evil.     It’s a start, I guess.

So what des this mean for us?  It is easy to simply say “It’s all wrong. They are all out to get our money or our souls.”   Cynicism is the easy way out, but it is as wrong as non-critical belief and faith. Not everyone is out to get you or simply out to line his or her own pockets.

It would be easy to use an allegory that claims that Skepticism is the highroad between the twin swamps of unassuming faith on the one hand and cynicism on the other. Easy, but wrong:  no one way is any better; I just like my way and hope that you will question the easy answers. 

So “How do I become a skeptic?”, you ask and further, “What’s in it for me?”

Congratulations, if you’ve actually asked yourself these questions, you’ve started on the journey.  The Unitarian Universalist 3rd and 4th principles state,

“we affirm and promote acceptance of each other and encouragement to spiritual growth”

and

 “we affirm and promote a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” 

Free AND responsible.  Those two words form the backbone of our skeptical faith.  We are Free to explore whatever we choose, we have the responsibility to examine all the ideas and use critical thought in determining those truths we choose to believe.

Just as we don’t accept the claims of commercials asserting the superiority of one product over another without comparing; we should not accept the claim of one “true” religion over any other “true” religion.  This can be extrapolated to mean that we should not even take for granted what is spoken from this lectern on this chancel:  listen to what is said, discuss with others what you’ve heard.  As a famous ex-president said “trust but verify”.

Ask questions of the speakers, in a polite manner.  Reverend Tim has office hours and often hosts lunches or after service discussions.  Many of the invited guest speakers host after service discussions or have forums on their own websites.  I am available via email or at coffee hour or on most Sundays.

Ask questions, investigate purported facts, go beyond the surface details, explore possibilities, accept wonder as you define I and where you find it.  Enjoy the journet.

In the end, I think that Professor Raymo states it best: “Whatever Mystery we meet …  will not greet us with a human face, but, if we are receptive, it cannot fail to drop us to our knees with awe and reverence, fear and trembling, thanksgiving and praise.”

So may it be.

©Copyright 2007 Al Murray
All rights reserved.