There are many reasons why men desire to reject Christianity. The most obvious reason is the moral responsibility that comes with it. To confess the truth of Christianity is to accept great moral responsibility. To free oneself from that moral responsibility, one simply needs to pretend to reject Christianity.
One of the principal means by which men reject Christianity is skepticism. Skepticism can be described as the refusal to accept any teaching unless the truth of that teaching has been demonstrated to be true.
When asked to believe in the existence of God, the skeptic will respond that he cannot know whether God exists or not because he has never observed God, and cannot observe God in an experimental way. Thus, since God cannot be observed, the idea of God’s existence cannot be accepted.
When asked to believe that God created the world, the skeptic will reply that he cannot know this because He was not present at the beginning of the world, and cannot recreate in a laboratory the conditions of the world’s beginning, and therefore has no way to determine how the world began.
When asked to believe in the assumption or the coronation of the blessed Virgin Mary, the skeptic will argue that he cannot accept these teachings because they are not stated explicitly in the Bible, or that there is no clear historical evidence of such events.
When asked to believe in a mystery of the Christian faith such as the Trinity, the skeptic will argue that the appeal to a need for more learning is simply an excuse for an inability to explain the teaching convincingly, which makes it unworthy of acceptance.
These skeptical responses can go on indefinitely because the skeptic is never required to give a better or clearer or more credible response then those he rejects. He is investigating questions that are uncertain by their nature, and is pretending that any uncertainty in their explanation is grounds for rejection. He pretends to be willing to believe whatever requires no belief.
The real problem with skepticism, however, is that it is impossible to maintain. All of the skeptic’s objections are troubled by contradictions of those same objections throughout his life. For the skeptic accepts many uncertain teachings without demonstrative proof, and chooses arbitrarily which teachings he will reject–even when proof is much more certain than that of ideas he has accepted.
The skeptic makes convenient use of objections when he wishes to excuse himself from undesired implications, but accepts similar ideas when his desires are unaffected.
Consider a few examples:
A listener recently commented on my talk on “Understanding the Doctrine of the Trinity”. He raised a number of objections to points I had made in the talk, to which I responded. He then asked several questions in response to my response. I directed him to the Summa Theologica where St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, answered his questions 800 years ago, in great detail. He responded by accusing me of attempting to dodge his question and argued that the appeal to a need for greater learning was simply an excuse. He added that he has a master’s degree in Divinity and that no more learning should be necessary to understand a fundamental Christian doctrine. I responded that this objection is merely skeptical and impossible for him to maintain consistently. He is seeking not grounds to believe in the Trinity, but to understand the doctrine, and is unwilling to do the study required for that understanding. Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Church teaches it, not because it has been demonstrated to them (which would make faith uncessary).
This argument Is skeptical because the argument that a theological teaching should be “simple” and “easy to understand” is subjective. Who determines what is simple and what is complex? Who determines how much preliminary learning is reasonable and necessary and how much is too much? For example, was it reasonable for him to pursue a master’s degree in divinity but then refuse to read the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas? Obviously the master’s degree did not answer this question for him and he (subjectively) decided that no more learning may be asked of him. Why, however, did he not stop with a bachelor’s degree? or with a high school diploma? or with a sixth grade education? or with no formal education at all? We see that the limit set by the skeptic is subjective and unreasonable.
Another example can be seen in scientific objections raised against religion. When a skeptic wishes to reject a certain idea, he argues that he demands demonstrative scientific evidence. He admits many things, however, with no such evidence. How does he determine which subjects require demonstrative evidence before they are accepted and which subjects do not? This is the inconsistency of skepticism.
If one desires answers to profound questions, one must be willing to undertake profound studies. If one desires to make reasonable decisions regarding subjects that are, by nature, uncertain, one must be willing to admit what is probable, not only what is absolutely certain.
As we discuss philosophical and religious subjects with modern men and women, we should always be on the lookout for skeptical arguments. These will be negative arguments based on principles that cannot be maintained and are not maintained throughout one’s life. The skeptics arguments are insincere And unrealistic.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
Enjoy this article? Take a moment and share it with friends.
