Seems counter-intuitive, no? But consider this: the skeptic is asking to be persuaded. He says "tell me how you came to that conclusion, I want to go there too. Let's find something concrete to agree upon and build from there". If there's no compelling evidence to support a conclusion, the skeptic remains rightfully unswayed.
[Brief trip to another panel to find out the opposite of skepticism]. Ahh. Wiki seems to think that the opposite of skepticism is "belief" or "credulity". Hmmm.
Well, I can go for that. A skeptic, when presented with evidence (or lack thereof) has no choice but to establish his position in consideration of what is before him. A believer, on the other hand, will take your word for it.
Therefore, when someone accuses me of not having an open mind about the supernatural, it's essentially a non-sequitur. "Persuade me", I say, "but not with second or even first-hand testimonials. I've heard all those. And the presence of a beautiful landscape is no more evidence of a god than the presence of a quarter under my pillow is evidence of a tooth fairy. Bring me the great pumpkin and I'll bow before him. Take me to the established halls of human science and show me a vampire, I will tremble in his presence. I promise you I will, because I have an open [enough] mind to be swayed by the facts."
The faithful, on the other hand, can reconcile the transformation of water to wine and the ressurection of a human corpse without a second thought. Having a chat with a burning bush or a suprisingly articulate snake is no stretch at all.
So I haven't ruled out the possibility of it, but listen - all I ask is ONE talking snake. Just one or two words even. Or, through the power of unselfish prayer, restore just ONE person back to health [caveat: that person has to be an amputee, and the limb needs to grow back]. Do that and you'll be standing behind me in line for your Sunday church service.
Until then, however, I will remain comfortably skeptical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment