I’m going to make a claim that may seem nonsensical: I believe doubt should lead to dogmatism. What I’m referring to is the practice of practical skepticism or skeptical investigation.

For parents, teachers, or anyone who imparts knowledge it’s an uncomfortable concept to consider. The idea of proactively questioning what’s been taught can be uncomfortable. But when doubt forces you to question something, it leads to a journey of personal discovery. The proactive process leads to genuine belief rather than inherited faith.

Skepticism is an integral part of growth. I’m referring to the general practice of maintaining an inquisitive outlook, not taking everything at face value. I’m not referring to philosophical skepticism.

http://gph.is/1Y3Aru0

For the sake of practical skepticism (skepticism we can use in our day-to-day lives to form stronger beliefs) I choose a moderate definition of skepticism rather than a rigid philosophical definition of skepticism:

The term skeptic comes from the Greek word skeptikoi and means investigator or examiner. These ancient philosophers referred to themselves as “those who suspend” (ephektikoi), as their investigations lead to the suspension of judgment. Some argue their delayed acceptance of belief was momentary and others claim it was permanent. In general, skepticism as a philosophy often forces one into a position of denial.

This is not practical skepticism – this is ignorance.

Applying skepticism in my personal life hasn’t lead to cynicism, jaded perspectives, or the avoidance of certainty. Instead, it’s become a process I use to apply reason and critical thinking to determine validity. Instead of denial, it's the process of discovering a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

However, one thing is certain: a skeptical mindset allows doubt. Doubt should be momentary season of questioning that leads to a search for truth.

Adopting a healthy skepticism

How can something potentially so debilitating as doubt be practical let alone useful? And why is it important?

From an early age, we’re taught to accept things at face value. When a child is asked for the justification behind a given command, parents often respond with “because I said so.” From an early age, we’re taught that inquisitive nature is inconvenient. As adults, people prone to alternative thinking are labeled conspiracy theorists, skeptics, cynics…

The list of negative concentrations goes on.

But at the same time, we're told not to judge a book by its cover. These two philosophies are diametrically opposed.

Social profiling is both a safeguard and a sin.

While I don’t adhere to the traditional forms of this ancient philosophy, I believe that skepticism is a key ingredient of growth. 

At the core, skepticism is about investigation, proactive inquiry, if you will. It is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. 

I grew up trusting everything regardless of the source. As a child, I remember believing someone who claimed that humans had the ability to breathe underwater — you just had to suck the oxygen from the water molecule.

Without the proper framework of knowledge in place, this idea seemed logical.

As is often the case, even the most untrustworthy of sources garner acceptance from naive minds.  

We wouldn’t imagine questioning things until our view has been ever so slightly jaded. Dad didn’t make it to your tee ball game — he’ll make it next time. It’s not until after the third, or fourth time after it’s become a pattern, does a child begin to question his father’s trustworthiness.

As Wittgenstein would say, doubt occurs within the context of things undoubted. If something is doubted, something else must be held fast because doubt presupposes that there are means of removing the doubt.

Suspension is key to traditional, philosophical skepticism. Ancient skeptics suspended both belief and judgment. However, I think many of us would argue that belief is an essential part of cognitive activity. You might even question our capability to persist without our basic beliefs. 

Belief is an important element of practical day-to-day living. You have to believe the chair you’re sitting on will support you, and indeed you must believe the air you breathe will provide your body with oxygen. Our daily lives demand a certain amount of trust. Whether that’s trust in God or in the inadament object you interact with.

But there are two sides to this skeptical coin. Opposite to belief is doubt.

Doubt is a notion often considered a hallmark of skepticism. Skeptical investigation forces you to call into question something you or the general public consider truth.

But as one Stanford writer explained, skeptical investigation as described by Sextus Empiricus is a matter of discrepancies among impressions. “This experience is described as turmoil. They aim to resolve this disturbance by settling what is true and what is false among them. But investigation leads them to suspension of judgment, which brings its own peace of mind.”

Ancient skepticism involved three stages: First, their personal struggle led to inner turmoil which then led to investigation of the matter and coincided with suspension of judgement.

Call it doubt, call it distrust, call it whatever you want, however you label it, the idea implies a lack of belief. 

To begin a skeptical investigation, there must be an imbalance of belief and doubt.

Growing up, I was taught that alcohol was bad — no ifs ands or buts. At the same time, someone I highly respected routinely enjoyed a glass of wine with dinner. The imbalance of what I was observing and what I had been told led to an internal line of questioning – and inner turmoil. 

“If consuming alcohol is wrong, then why does someone who seems to agree with everything else I believe, consume alcohol?” A seed of questioning was planted in my life.

Adopting a healthy skepticism

Questioning often gets a bad rap. In the corporate world, you’re told not to question your superiors. In the medical field, you’re told not to question people with two-letter designations before their name.  

People who question the status quo are portrayed as fanatics. They’re the ones sporting tin foil hats hiding out in a backyard bunker...cynics...paranoid...quacks you might even say.

But let’s not be mistaken. Blind allegiance isn’t a noble trait — it’s foolishness. Since taking a more open approach to tightly held convictions, I’ve discovered time and again that general consensus often doesn’t equal right.

This brings to mind an industry that gets far more credit than it should: the weight loss industry. This $70 billion industry says jump and we jump. Yet, it continues to fail every consumer. Heart attacks, strokes, and diabetes continually increase while much of the world scratches its head. 

In this example, the unsuspecting consumer is the frog sitting in a pot of water increasing in temperature with each passing moment. By now, it’s clear that questioning the status quo often leads to uncomfortable discoveries. So allow me to throw a proverbial rock into your living room window pane with a piece of research. 

We often seek nutritional advice from our doctors, because, well...they’re doctors. In 2008 a group of medical doctors conducted research with regards to their colleagues’ ability to provide nutritional advice. What they discovered will surprise you. Of the doctors surveyed, “14% felt physicians were adequately trained to provide nutrition counseling.”

This isn’t to say that you should doubt the counsel of your physician. Rather, I challenge you to be willing to take a more open approach. Step back and ask yourself whether you’re just going along with what the crowd believes.

If the subject matter can handle it...

Why are we so opposed to question? If the subject matter can handle it, you shouldn’t fear it being questioned.

My wife is the type to often ask, “but why?” Our oldest daughter has inherited the same ideal. Believe me, as a parent providing advice and life instruction, her ongoing line of questioning is not always convenient. 

But it’s challenging. And I think that’s one of the reasons we avoid it. It requires time and mental energy to go back to the origin of your beliefs. It forces you to evaluate whether the belief has credibility, whether you should have such a belief in the subject at hand.

As an avid podcast listener, I continually hear people talk about their personal meditation practice. I’m a born again Christian, not a Buddhist, or tree-hugging hippie. For years I wrote this practice off as something only to be practiced by such groups.

People who grew up in a conservative upbringing often fall into one of two camps: either you hold firmly to the convictions you were brought up in or you strongly reject them. Stepping outside of either path can be uncomfortable.

It wasn’t until I was willing to investigate the practice of meditation – the pluses and minuses, the things I agree with and many I don’t – that I was able to discover some of the benefits of it. 

The concept, when met with an inquisitive mind allowed me to open up to the possibility of what if...what if my preconceived judgement was wrong? Or what if my preconceived judgement was only partially right?

This led to more questions that forced me to search for the answers myself.

And today, my meditation practice has benefitted my faith as a fundamental Christian. You won’t find me cross-legged chanting strange words. But my willingness to investigate the practice allowed me to scrape certain aspects from it that could be used in my own life while rejecting what went against my personal Faith.

The act of daily prayer has always been difficult for me. Sitting still in complete silence for minutes on end is not an easy practice for a restless mind. But my simple meditation practice has helped me overcome this barrier. It’s allowed me to sit for longer moments. As a result, my prayer life has never been this strong.

Questioning things can be uncomfortable but growth never comes from a place of comfort. It requires deliberate persistence. A proactive will to discover truth.

Blind acceptance, on the other hand, is easy, but it isn’t beneficial. It’s lazy and often leads to the undesirable results of ignorance.

Questioning is an integral part of growth. Nothing improves without it. We can easily see the adverse effects on societies where thought and investigation are discouraged. Any communist country is a sad example.

An inquisitive mind comes to a more certain conclusion. Thinking for yourself promotes growth and safeguards against the status quo and ineffective practices. 

Skepticism is not…

I love a good conspiracy theory, but I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist, doubting every event in history. But my skeptical mind allows me to be open to the what-ifs of life. 

I still remember the first time I was encouraged to question the status quo. I was a freshman in high school and I was appalled at the idea that what the media was feeding me could be anything but the truth.

The idea of questioning such an authoritative voice was uncomfortable. It felt wrong. It wasn’t easy. But as the idea ruminated in my mind, I allowed myself to analyze the facts at hand. Not with universal acceptance, but as a clear-minded observer.

Skepticism is not convenient.

I read, I listened, I observed...

I discovered the truth, but it wasn’t convenient. 

I became skeptical of what I was previously told. I was skeptical without being cynical. Cynics are intolerant — they have inflexible thoughts that leave no room for additional ideas.

Today, I’ve realized that you can be a skeptic without being a cynic. Cynicism seems to call everything into question without need. Cynics have an argument to debunk other people’s ideas, but have little to support their beliefs.

Skepticism is simply an extra filter. Rather than taking anything for granted, it’s validation of the truth. You don’t take social constructs as true no matter how strong peer pressure is.

Become more skeptical 

I see the need for questioning. As a result, I identify as a skeptic in the practical sense. Not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know the truth. René Descartes explained it well when she said, “In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, of all things.” 

Turn challenging the truth into a habit. Once again, I’m not asking you to become a cynic and distrust everything and everyone. Practical skepticism is about finding the other side of the story. To understand whether the sources and analysis are impartial.

Listen to both sides of a story. Look for heterogeneous sources. Set your conclusions aside before you read all the information. Ask: What if? to explore a different hypothesis. And avoid the mob mentality or blind acceptance.

Set your preconceived notions aside. Adopt a curious mindset. Maintain a desire to learn.

It’s okay to judge a book by its cover — but you should be willing to still open it up. When questioned, analyze why you’re so dogmatic about particular issues with impartiality — is it because of universal acceptance? Don’t be afraid of the results.

Be okay with not knowing...for a time. From the moment you begin questioning until you come to a conclusion, you’ll be in a state of unknown. Be okay with the journey to conclusion.

My story isn’t the story of someone who questioned the principles he was raised on and wound up abandoning those principles after personal investigation. It’s the story of someone who after proactively questioning returned to the principles he was taught from early childhood with a tighter grasp, with more appreciation rather than rebelling against them.

As I previously mentioned, skepticism should lead you to the answer. 

Trying to find an answer is not wrong  —  being blinded by the need for quick resolution is the problem.