Skepticism and Superstition

Skepticism is doubt that one can know anything. A skeptic might also be a person who downright disbelieves — for example in the existence of God. Superstition, on the other hand, is belief in the religious significance of things in such a way that non-religious events are made out to be religious (a lost article is blamed on some unfriendly power taking it), or the religious meanings of events are interpreted wrongly, usually according to some popular misconception of how God works. In the latter case, a superstition is heterodoxy (perhaps not full-blown heresy because a superstitious person may not know any better). I begin to think there are no truly “non-religious events”, so a superstition will always be a wrong interpretation. (Please don’t ask me about the religious significance of my lost car keys.) In any case, both skepticism and superstition are epistemological problems. Reality is what it is, whether someone doesn’t believe in it, doesn’t know how one could possibly believe in it (or be justified in one’s belief in it), or believes wrongly about it.

What is interesting is that superstition in some people produces skepticism in others. This is quite a phenomenon historically speaking. I suppose it underlies the Enlightenment’s rejection of “medievalism” (along with medievalism’s attendant religiosity), which was deemed superstitious in the face of the rise of modern science and the newly emergent worship of almighty Reason.

But let’s be honest. Were the medievals superstitious? In at least some respects, certainly yes. If superstition is heterodoxy (at least), then rejection of it is a good thing! The modern critical, empirical turn wasn’t all bad. But why then land in skepticism at the opposite extreme? Why not find orthodoxy, which is critical of wrong belief but is in no way unbelieving or doubtful that true belief is possible? Why could not the critics of medievalism, the scientists and investigators, the “reasonable” folks of the early modern world, find the truth of the matter? Was it their dedication to a method capable of discrediting falsehood (via its skepticism and criticism) but incapable of finding truth (via its skepticism and criticism)? Why cannot truth stand up to skepticism and criticism? Or was the truth never proclaimed, in order to have a chance to stand up? Or was it proclaimed but not heard? Or was it heard but rejected (perhaps under the influence of an idolatry of “method”)?

I keep coming back to the problem: What is worse, secularism/atheism or heterodoxy/heresy? Skepticism or superstition? Aren’t they related to one another? Is it possible to have skepticism without heterodoxy?

Is it possible that with orthodoxy one can have rejection, yes, but not skepticism? What does Jesus say? The world will reject and persecute His disciples, yes. But can it fail utterly to hear the Good News, or understand it at all? In the Parable of the Sower, is it possible that some seeds never reach the soil at all?

What is needed to reduce skepticism and criticism (if not persecution) in our modern world is a good, solid preaching of the Good News — the Real Thing, not shadows of it. Not chimeras. Not superstitions. The latter, I fear, do more harm than good. A lot more harm. Superstition breeds skepticism. The battle for orthodoxy must go hand in hand with the battle for souls.