Personally, I would put the "line" between a Skeptical Doubter and a Faithful Doubter as the emphasis on the adjective/noun relationship in each phrase. In other words, a skeptical believer is a believer, first and foremost. The skepticism is a characteristic of the believer. A faithful doubter, on the other hand, is a doubter, first and foremost. The faithful is a characteristic of the doubter.
If, however, your immediate reaction is, "That's a bunch of crap," you are less likely to search through it for a nugget of gold. You still are "faithful" to what you believe, but you aren't very open to finding insights among the ashes - to wade through the grime to find the sublime. Your "faithfulness" keeps you anchored to your current truth, but it keeps you anchored away from any other truth.
(Btw, I think you can be a temple-recommend holding Mormon and be a faithful doubter - or an atheist and a skeptical believer. Neither title automatically endows one or the other with any degree of "truth". That is a completely separate discussion.)
2 comments:
How can you be an atheist and hold a temple recommend?
As to what I 'am'...it changes daily, sometimes many times a day, depending on the topic.
Sorry, Anon. That wasn't very clear.
I meant that part as two separate categories. I think you can be an atheist and a "faithful doubter" - because you can be "faithful to" your belief that there is no God. (believing what you can't see and constructing your "evidence" around that belief)
Post a Comment