I consider myself a skeptic, in the truest sense of the word. If you look up the definition of a skeptic you'll most likely find it to be something along the lines of 'A person inclined to question/doubt accepted opinions'. Seems fair enough doesn't it? Most of us would accept that definition wouldn't we? But when we really look at those proclaiming to be 'skeptics' are they really that sceptical after all?
Let's face it, many people make good living out of being skeptics, Richard Dawkins with his theories on God or the lack of, James Randi with his $1,000,000 paranormal challenge, Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society devoted to disproving supernatural claims. Notice anything yet? Why does the term 'skeptic' only ever appear to be used against the spiritual or paranormal? Surely if you're truly skeptical you should be skeptical about everything including mainstream scientific ideology, otherwise you're not skeptical at all you are selectively skeptical about anything that doesn't fit into your belief system.
So I'm a skeptic, but I also regard myself as spiritual (spiritual in the intangible/non physical sense not the religious sense). So how does that work, how can someone be spiritual and skeptical? Well it works because I'm open minded enough to take a rational view of human existence. I concede that there might be things that mainstream science does not have convincing answers to yet, such as consciousness. But I'm also not convinced by much of what I read or see in the so-called 'new age' culture.
So when people suggest to me that they can't have any form of spiritual interest because they are 'too skeptical' I merely respond by saying that I believe myself more skeptical than them, because I question EVERYTHING, not just the spiritual stuff, but the mainstream stuff too.
Submit Your Own Article