Skepticism, cynicism, Forteanism and credulity

Do you just accept everything at face value, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence?

I don't see the evidence as contradictory, I see it as supporting the Bible account.
. . . . . .

Tell a young child that the sky is blue because it reflects the colour of the sea, or that air is very slightly blue, or that God likes the colour, and they'll probably believe you. As a child, you rely on grown-ups to advise you, and you generally trust them implicitly. Mummy and Daddy wouldn't lie to you, would they?

Unfortunately, Mummy and Daddy often don't know what they're talking about. Ignorance can be passed on to children in the same way that bigotry can. If little Jimmy asks why the sky is blue and Dad doesn't really know, he might make something up, or make a guess, or repeat what he was told when he asked that question. People don't want to say "Gee, I dunno" and look stupid in front of their kids.

This is wrong. If you don't know something, say so. Explain why. Maybe even take the trouble to find out, or at least get a vague idea of the subject. (The sky is blue due to blue light being scattered out high in the atmosphere. Take a big glass of water, put a small amount of milk in it, to make it cloudy, shine a powerful torch through it. Looked at from the other side, the torchlight becomes red as the shorter wavelengths get scattered out in all directions. If you look closely, you can even see the blue tint from the sides. This is called Raleigh Scattering, and is why the sky is blue and sunsets are red.)

I know a woman who is a vegetarian. I once offered her a cup of coffee, and asked if she would like sugar in it. She said yes, but only brown sugar. Why not white, I asked? It has whale fat in it to make it white, she replied, quite matter-of-factly. My mind boggled. Here was a normal, level-headed, intelligent woman who seriously believed that white sugar was white because it had whale fat in it! (Sugar is white for the same reason that salt, snow and ground glass appear white - the transparent crystals scatter all wavelengths of light at all angles.)

I can only assume that someone told her this when she was a child - either as a joke, or because they believed it, or they simply made it up because they didn't know and didn't want a child pestering them with daft questions. Unfortunately, she believed it, never thought to question it, and grew up still believing it (she's about 32).

Basically, kids will believe any old guff you care to fill their little heads with. This is why honesty is the best policy. If you don't know something, say so. Don't make something up that they might still believe when they're adults.

How does all this relate to religion? Well, which is easier to explain to a child, and which is the child therefore more likely to believe?
A kindly old man with a beard made all the world, and loves and looks after us all;
or
The planet formed billions of years ago, and all sorts of horrendously complex forces and chemical reactions shaped it until we see it as it is today?

Which is nicer and more comforting?
Granny died because the Little Baby Jesus loves her so much and wants her to be with him in Heaven, where she'll be happy forever and you'll meet her again;
or
Granny brain ceased working, and the personality that you knew and loved has simply been snuffed out of existence forever.

People take the easy option, and children trust that they're telling the truth. The non-religious option seems cold, hard, callous, uncaring. Naturally people take the easy, warm, fuzzy route.

I consider myself to be an open-minded skeptic (you may have other opinions =). What I mean is that I am happy to listen to anyone's point of view, or wild theories about anything, but I will not accept it at face value. I won't believe something just because you say "This is true. You must believe." I need a little bit more than that.

As a Fortean, I recognise that there are more than two sides to every story. It is unwise to dismiss something out of hand simply because you don't like the sound of it. Also, I realise that science does not know everything (yet), and scientists can often make mistakes or let their personal beliefs influence their work (this is why we have peer-review - something that religions could do with). However, I also know that there is always a rational explanation for even the most outlandish claims. Yes, it could be an evil spirit causing it, or an unknown type of energy, but isn't it much more likely to be something quite mundane?

That is not to say that all claims of the supernatural should be arbitrarily dismissed. Science does not know everything yet, and maybe never will. Things do happen that current science cannot explain. However, just because science cannot explain them today, does not mean that they are paranormal or supernatural. It might take 500 years, but science just might get there in the end. Then the supernatural becomes the natural. Heck, maybe Poltergeist Dynamos will one day be an invaluable energy source! Maybe Psychic Telepathy Machines will become a quick and cheap alternative to the telephone!

Things that are claimed to be "supernatural" can be divided into three categories:

• The truly supernatural - ghosts, gods, miracles etc. (no good evidence to support this, I'm afraid).
• The natural, that science has yet to fully explain - origin of universe, structure of matter etc.
• Hoaxes / misinterpretations / hallucinations (ghosts, gods and miracles again...).

When confronted with something apparently supernatural, you should always use the "Which is more likely" test:

example:
A medium claims to contact the dead, to pass messages on to comfort the loved ones left behind.
Which is more likely?

• She has some mystical super-power, and actually is in touch with the spirits of dead people, who are always peaceful and at rest now, and don't want the bereaved to worry, but can only talk for a few minutes and can never remember more than the first initial of anyone's name? ("I'm getting an A, does the letter A mean anything to anyone here?")
• She takes people's money and tells them what they want to hear because it makes them feel better whether it's true or not - meaningless reassurances, and vague references to family members?

This is critical thinking. It is a very quick way of detecting bogosity (spiritualists are a well-known source of bogons). If you clear away all the new-age, hippy, mystical, magical nonsense you might actually find out what is going on. If the only thing left is mystical nonsense, either there is nothing there at all or you can claim the next Nobel Prize and James Randi's million dollar award.

Skepticism is not about debunking beliefs or proving something to be false - merely asking the person making the claim to demonstrate that what they say is true, or to provide objective, unambiguous evidence to support the claim. If a thing cannot be demonstrated as being true, there is no need to attempt to prove it false.

You should, at the very least, suspend judgement if the person asking you to believe something cannot give a reasonable answer to the simple question "Really? How does that work, then?"

If the answer includes such vague terms as Energies, Vibrations, Auras, Spirits or Balance, you can move on to "Really? What does that mean, then?" (and expect a sudden change of subject).

You'd be surprised at how many people will accept it without thinking.