The danger of beliefs that spare no room for doubt

The world seems to be drowning in dogmatism. Wherever I look, whatever I read, I find little except belief based on absolute certainty. Dogmatics of all shades, from religious fanatics to secular fundamentalists and scientific atheists, are all telling me the same thing: they are absolutely right and everyone else is totally wrong.

As a believer myself, I can hardly be against belief per se. But I am against all kinds of beliefs, based on religion, politics or science, that spare no room for doubt. Belief gives us meaning and direction. But we need doubt to give us a sense of proportion. Without an appreciation of our own follies, belief turns into an instrument of domination. All of us, whatever our beliefs and incli nations, could do with a serious dose of doubt. We need, says my friend Stuart Sim in his latest book, Empires of Belief, to be far more sceptical towards all belief systems, science included. We need doubt in both our private and public lives: at home, in the market and in the political process.

But not all doubt is healthy. Perpetual doubt, doubt for doubt's sake, can itself become a form of belief. Sim, who is professor of critical theory at Sunderland University, argues that the postmodern approach to doubt, which suggests that we should doubt everything at all times, ends up denying the very existence of knowledge. He traces the origins of the postmodern notion of doubt, and much of academic scepticism, to the Greek exponents of Pyrrhonism, who were active around 200AD. Pyrrhonism was a form of scepticism which itself tended to be very dogmatic, arguing that knowledge of any kind simply was not possible. We need to move forward, Sim suggests, to more sophisticated notions of doubt.

A linear history that links postmodernism to Pyrrhonism suggests that doubt is the sole creation and preserve of western civilisation, but highly elaborate forms of scepticism can be found in all cultural traditions. Sim draws out sceptical trends in Islam and Buddhism in particular, contrasting them with the western sceptical tradition. Doubt, he also demonstrates, cannot be a free-floating position or a contrarian stance for its own sake. It is not about relativism and giving exactly the same importance to every thought, position, idea or theory, as the postmodernists seem to assume. It has to be grounded in logic and rationality, facts and evidence. In the end it is about argument, exposing assumptions and undermining absolute knowledge. It is not a high-flown philosophical solution, either, but rather a practical means of facing down authoritarian belief systems.

We also need to be sceptical about claims to scepticism. There are various positions which are called scepticism, Sim suggests, but which have little to do with the real thing. For example, Euroscepticism, global warming scepticism and scepticism about evolution (such as creationism or intelligent design) are anything but. In each case, a monolithic system of belief lies behind the apparent scepticism - it is simply another way to defend dogmatism.

A true sceptic, I would argue, should be able to see some good in all systems, while throwing scorn at their unsavoury sides. Doubt should be a positive value that enhances our everyday life. That, I believe, is the real antidote to the dogmatic despair of our times.

"Empires of Belief" is published by Edinburgh University Press (£15.99)

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website