Tag Archives: hyper-skeptic

General Apologetics, Skeptics, Top Ten Posts of 2013

#1 Post of 2013 – You Might Be a Hyper-Skeptic of Christianity If . . .

194 Comments

After producing the TQA blog for 5 years, we have had hundreds of skeptics comment on our blog posts. With so many skeptics, I’ve seen patterns of behavior that have led me to refer to some of the skeptical commenters as hyper-skeptics. A hyper-skeptic is someone who will not ever consider any evidences, arguments, or reasoning given for Christianity.

For those fair-minded skeptics out there who don’t want to become like this, here are the warning signs I’ve seen. What makes a person a hyper-skeptic? Well, you might be a hyper-skeptic if …

You don’t need to read anything actually written by Christian scholars, because you are just smarter than they are (and you’ve heard it all before).

You think it’s doubtful that Jesus ever lived.

You believe that Christian apologists are lying most of the time.

You actually think that the evidence for a flying spaghetti monster is as good as the evidence for the Christian God.

When you read a blog post written by a Christian, you aren’t reading for understanding; you’re reading to find isolated phrases or sentences that you can attack.

You believe that Antony Flew renounced atheism only because of old age and senility.

You don’t understand theology or metaphysics, but you’re certain it’s just a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo.

You almost never agree with anything a Christian apologist writes, even on the most uncontroversial subjects.

You believe that if you ever publicly agree with a Christian, you are contributing to the downfall of civilization.

You are 100% certain that people cannot rise from the dead, and no amount of historical evidence would ever be convincing.

You think that the strength of the historical evidence supporting the stories in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the strength of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection.

You think that The God Delusion is a tour de force that annihilates all of the best Christian arguments for God.

You think that the Bible contains nothing of value.

There are plenty of fair-minded skeptics that comment on the blog, and I appreciate them (at least I try to). But if you’re a skeptic and you find yourself fitting much of the criteria I’ve listed above, you need to step back and ask yourself why. Why have you become as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the religious folks you like to deride?

If you are a hyper-skeptic, you are not reasonable and you are not thinking clearly when it comes to Christianity.  Take some time off from the blogosphere and figure out why you’ve crossed this line. I sincerely doubt it is a purely intellectual issue.

Skeptics, Top Ten Posts of 2012

Is There Ever Enough Evidence for the Hyper-Skeptic? #7 Post of 2012

102 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently I was listening to the Unbelievable podcast and heard something telling from atheist James Croft.  As he was discussing the historical, eyewitness evidence of Jesus’s resurrection with Christian Chris Sinkinson, he said the following (this is a paraphrase of what he said):

The amount of eyewitness testimony of the death and resurrection of Jesus can never be enough to convince me, and it shouldn’t be enough to convince any reasonable person.  I would never accept any amount of testimony as evidence of the resurrection.  The only way I would accept the death and resurrection of anyone is if there were detailed medical records, and there were medical professionals there to verify the death, and I could stand beside the corpse myself, watching what happened.

Croft, therefore, would never accept any testimony of any resurrection from the dead unless he saw it for himself and there were medical professionals there to certify all the facts.  But, of course, this means that he has conveniently set the bar so high that no resurrection claim from history could ever be believed.

By setting this impossibly high standard, Croft has to do no work, no investigation, no research, no thinking, no considering of the central claim of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus.  For him, this would all be a colossal waste of time, because he has decided, based on his atheistic presuppositions, that resurrections don’t happen.

Croft is a classic example of the hyper-skeptic.  Anybody who would say that no amount of eyewitness testimony from the past should ever convince anyone that a person came back from the dead is arguing not from a position of neutrality, but from an extreme philosophical skepticism in the tradition of David Hume.

Of course, the typical hyper-skeptic has no problem believing highly fantastical things such as the assembly of the first self-replicating organism by pure chance 4 billion years ago, even though the hyper-skeptic wasn’t there to see it, there were no scientific experts standing around watching it, and there are no written records from that time that we can examine.

Intelligent Design proponent Bill Dembski once asked hyper-skeptic Michael Shermer if Shermer would allow Dembski to write skeptical articles about Darwinian evolution in Shermer’s Skeptic magazine.  Shermer declined.  It seems that Skeptic magazine isn’t skeptical about everything.

The critical point to take home is this: hyper-skeptics are usually only skeptical about a small number of select topics, and are thus hopelessly inconsistent in their skepticism.  Their skepticism is, in most cases, just a philosophical cover for being anti-whatever-they-don’t-like.