As a Christian person, I'm still trying to find the right midpoint between extreme skepticism and extreme gullibility. Two questions are relevant in my mind: How skeptical does the Lord allow us to be, and how skeptical does the Lord need us to be? One scriptures that comes to mind is Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
I was first introduced to this scripture on my mission in a somewhat different context, but I think it has significant meaning when applied to the issue at hand. The word "serpents" in Christian scripture is most often a symbol for the adversary and/or his followers. To me, then, this scripture means that Christ is commanding His apostles to possess the same intellectual skills as their greatest enemies. They are to examine evidence, search for truth in as many valid ways as they can, and be unafraid to reject an idea that might be wrong (but be equally inclined to embrace an idea that is correct).
But the "harmless as doves" ending seems to reject the intellectual cynicism that is characteristic of many skeptics. Some would argue that the attitude of a skeptic is one of his greatest skills; that the ability to be a skeptic, occasionally summoned, is far less valuable than the consistent habit of being a skeptic. This echoes the words of Eliezer Yudkowsky (who I've mentioned in this post and this post), who said of rationality, "It's dangerous to be half a rationalist." By this, he means that it's hazardous to someone's intellect to selectively practice methods of rationality. Particularly, it's dangerous to apply the flame of curiosity and skepticism to everyone else's beliefs without turning that flame on your own ideas to assess them for credulity.
When I first read those words, I was reminded of something I thought about on my mission after talking about anti-Mormon literature with my companion. I remember thinking, "You know, I bet somewhere out there, there's a piece of anti-Mormon literature that if I read it, I would leave the church." I kind of left it at that, not really wanting to think about it more deeply. Later on, I realized that that idea itself wasn't the problem, it was the fact that I simultaneously held that idea in my mind with the contradictory desire to not ever read anti-Mormon literature. If I knew that there was information that would make me scrap my beliefs, but decided against that realization to stay away from the information, wasn't I avoiding truth? Wasn't that the bigger problem?
While writing this series of posts, I realized that, in order for this cognitive dissonance to actually be a problem, it had to be the case that if any given information made me reject my current belief schema, it was because it was true information. In other words, if it's possible for false information to make me turn away from my beliefs, then the cognitive dissonance is just the fear of being deceived. I think it's entirely possible for me to read something that contains sound factual evidence, but to be misled by the interpretation an author claims from that evidence.
So, I could turn the flame of curiosity and skepticism up to 100% and aim it at myself and everyone around me. I could spend hours reading everything that's ever written about Mormon beliefs or Christian beliefs, from apologists and antagonists alike. I could spend every minute questioning and doubting instead of believing, but I'm not going to. Why? Because I think it would be far too easy to commit a type II error.
Let's say our null hypothesis is "Mormon/Christian doctrine is not true" (remember, null hypothesis include the word "not"). A type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis; in this case, rejecting Mormon/Christian doctrine when it is actually true. I think if I tried to be as skeptical as possible, with my infantile skills of evaluating truth, someone smarter than me could easily deceive me into a type II error. And in this case, weighing the consequences makes a type II error far more dangerous. If I make a type I error, the consequence is me being a lifelong member of the church and being about as happy as I am now. If I make a type II error, the consequence is me being a spectacular rationalist/skeptic (or so I think), but being deceived, which holds far greater consequences. To put it simply, I'm not taking that risk.
But I don't want to be blind to truth. I think God wants us to know all truth, wherever it is. People might want to keep us from truth, but God doesn't. As a developing skeptic and a developing disciple, I think it's best to increase my skills of both in parallel. The more I learn, the better I'll understand how to find truth, the better I'll be able to discern fact from fiction, the better I'll be able to determine what a collection of facts implies, and the better I'll be able to make the right call about something and avoid type I and type II errors. As I move forward in life, I'll gradually turn up the flame of curiosity and skepticism so that I can find out what is really true. But because I do it slowly, I won't subject myself to a level of curiosity that will mislead me. I won't be hard on my own beliefs until I'm ready to do it without fooling myself. And that, I think, is the right balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment