The Modern Skeptic

THE MODERN SKEPTIC. BY MILTON BENNION, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. Skepticism is most manifest in periods of rapid change in thought. This is true both in individual and in social life. In its social manifestations it is known in history as a "period of enlight- enment," and is generally discernable at some time in the history of every great nationality. The most notable examples are the Greeks in the time of the Sophists, the most famous skeptics of antiquity; and the French philosophers of the eighteenth century, of whom Voltaire and Diderot were types. The educated classes among the Greeks and the French in these respective periods, as social bodies, may be said to have been in the stage of adoles- cence. A similar mode of thought and feeling commonly occurs in the life of the individual somewhere between the beginning of the teens and maturity. It is characterized by a tendency to renounce previously accepted opinions, to repel external authority, and to become a law unto themselves. Naturally skepticism is one aspect of this frame of mind. It comes very frequently as a re- action against a childish mythology, or illogical faith, or as a rebellion against an arbitrary and oppressive authority. In case of both individual and race development this condition is normally outgrown and is followed by a more rational faith and a deeper insight into the necessity of institutions and lawful authority. What are the most common external causes of skepticism in reference to religion? First unreasonable religions and incon- sistent theologies. Take, for illustration, the widely accepted doc- trine concerning the revelations, miracles, and prophesies recorded in the Bible which affirms a belief in these, but denies that

524 IMPRO VEMENT ERA . in post-biblical times there ever has been or ever will be a reoccurrence of these manifestations of God to man, "Such things," they say, "are not suitable for this enlightened era." "True," replies the skeptic, "they are but the myth- ologies of a savage or barbarous age." Thus the theologian prepares a weapon for his own destruction. Akin to this point is the tendency to judg e a cause by the character of those who pro- fess it. Finding professors of theology who use their religion as a means of worldly gain, or as a cloak for sin, the critically-minded charge this to religion and turn away. This thought involves a logical fallacy, but it has weight with many minds, nevertherless. I speak of these as important causes of skepticism, but in no sense as a justification of it. Another very general cause of skepticism is inadequate inter- pretation of the latest scientific theories. Many otherwise intelli- gent people fail to distinguish between final and efficient causes, and when science has discovered the efficient cause of a phe- nomenon they assume that there is no place for the idea of God in connection with it. This mode of thought is frequently mani- fest in talk about the laws of nature as causes or controlling powers. What is a law of nature? It is only a statement of the way anything uniformly occurs. To elevate it to the rank of a cause, force, or power is a mere fiction, quite as unworthy of acceptance as the most absurd theology. The fact that the pro- cesses of nature occur in a uniform way, under the same condi- tions, is thought by some to be unfavorable to the idea of God. It is unfavorable to the idea of God as a capricious will behind each particle of the universe, controlling it in a way that never can be predicted. Such a condition would make the existence of civilized society impossible. Man, with his limited powers and intelligence, seeks to reduce to system and order everything with- in his control. How much more, then, should we expect an omni- potent and omniscient God to establish system and order, or natural law, in his universe The laws of nature, then, instead of being opposed to the idea of God, are a strong evidence in its support. Instead of explaining things in an ultimate way, the laws of nature them- selves call for explanation. It is very common nowadays to hear

THE MODERN SKEPTIC. 525 the law of evolution cited as an explanation for everything in nature. The fact that without the idea of end or purpose evolu- tion would be impossible, seems to have been overlooked by many students of science. Recent investigations in psychology have, in many individual cases, tended to further the cause of skepticism. It has been found that in sense-perception the mind is frequently subject to illusion; and that many people, sometimes in their lives, have hal- lucinations; that is, they seem to perceive something which has no existence except in their own minds. This is a common experience of the insane. Now if anyone proclaims that he has had a vision or revelation, the skeptic, while admitting that such a person may be sincere, will declare that it was only an hallucination. He rea- sons this way: "Psychology has shown that people do sometimes have hallucinations. This is something that is not observed by everyone, therefore it is an hallucination." The fallacy here is that of applying a physical science test to a human experience that is very different from physical science. I may have a pain in a tooth, and you cannot know for yourself that it is there. Indeed, you may say that it is an hallucination, and I cannot disprove it if you persist in unbelief. A Christian may have a deep and abiding love of Christ, but the unbeliever cannot realize it, and his skepti- cism may give rise to sarcasm and contempt. A missionary may travel and preach for the love of truth and the good of humanity; but the self-seeker will say: "No. This is only a pretension. He has some selfish motive." It may be contended that the above are cases of feeling and volition, not of knowledge. In reply it may be said that even in these cases there is the knowledge of pain, love, and desire or mo- tive. And this is as real and as strictly individual as the feelings themselves. Indeed, psychology has shown that all knowing, as such, is One person cannot know absolutely the mental private. content of another. It is only when the object of knowledge is open to the inspection of all through the senses, or when it is a concept subject to logical or mathematical demonstration, that the so-called scientific tests can be applied. Science and scientific methods have great value and are perfectly legitimate in their place, but they do not cover all human experience. The most

526 IMPRO VEMENT ERA . vital questions pertaining to man, his spiritual powers and obliga- tions, lie outside the domain of positive science. Religious knowl- edge and experience are as private and individual as the knowledge and experience of love, pain, or desire. How, then, can this knowledge be attained? Only by indi- vidual experience. We can know pain only by suffering; love, only by loving; and the Spirit of God only by being made partakers of it. This the spiritually minded may do by seeking God in faith and humility, at the same time manifesting purity of life and will- ing obedience to Divine commands. But knowledge alone is only a part of human experience. The feelings and the will are more fundamental in life than is knowledge According to many modern . philosophers, it is upon the more secure basis of feeling and voli- tion that morality and religion have their foundations. This view of morality is confirmed by modern psychology. A moral skeptic may deny the moral law and declare that the whole duty of man is to seek his own pleasure in his own way, which is to say that he has no duties. Without a common ground of feeling and volition, no one can prove to him that he is wrong. The skeptic in religion is in a similar position. Both are most likely to be moved by ex- perience more intense and soul stirring than mere reasoning. A few special causes of skepticism may be worthy of mention As sin may sometimes be practiced under the cloak of religion, so skepticism may be assumed as a justification for wrong doing. God, immortality, and a universal moral order, are notions not agree- able to the impenitent sinner. He may deny religion because that gives him most satisfaction; and while living in corruption, he is, of course, devoid of religious experience. This is a good example of how the feelings and the will may determine belief. Pride, self-- seeking, and worldly-mindedness are barriers to faith and knowl- edge of God. We -do not assume that all skepticism is due to these special causes. In the absence of these, however, skepti- cism, when manifest, should be only a temporary stage in the de- velopment of the individual. No constructive mind can rest in skepticism. Such a mind presses on until it attains a knowledge and appreciation of the fact that the most real thing in the universe is God. Forest Dale, Utah.

H m o 3 o o n