One of my favorite topics is that of Doubt and Faith. I have long believed that doubt is not bad… but it is a precursor to faith. Recently I read an Islamic article where the writer said that doubt is a healthy first step to Islam with doubt leading to belief. I think I will stick with doubt leading to faith, not belief. However, both views support the idea that DOUBT CAN BE RELIGIOUSLY HEALTHY. (https://hackingchristianity.net/2012/10/doubt-is-the-acid-that-eats-away-the-false.html)
But not all doubt is healthy. I thought I would take my shot at ranking different types of doubt from best to worst. I haven’t seen a good taxonomy of doubt. The ones I have seen were pretty limited. So here is my list from best to worst. You may disagree with my categories. You may want to add more categories. You may not agree what is better or worse than others. Feel free to share those thoughts in the comments.
#1 (Best) Methodical Doubt. This is Descartian Doubt, or the doubt that is used in the scientific method. It is withholding judgment until something can be demonstrated to be true logically or empirically. I like to think of this more generally as NOT immediately pushing the “I believe button.”
When running an experiment, or in doing research, we are supposed to be more interested in finding truth, rather than proving our own beliefs or agenda. I have had to turn down thesis proposals before (or asked the author to rethink and modify) that essentially said, “This research is seeking to demonstrate that…”. In such a case, one is not seeking truth. One is seeking validation. Methodological doubt establishes a foundation of formal doubt. This doubt may not be emotional. Rather, it is a choice to bracket one’s biases and beliefs, in the quest of truth.
#2. Reasonable Doubt. In many nations, the standards of jurisprudence support the notion that (legal) guilt is determined based on overcoming reasonable doubt. So perhaps John is caught on video shooting and killing Bill. It may be considered reasonable to verify that the video was not manipulated, or that there are secondary means to show that John probably did it (like documentation of him going to and/or leaving the scene of the crime). It is probably unreasonable to surmise that an extraterrestrial being duplicated his physical form and beamed to the location and beamed away after killing Bill. Reasonable is kind of subjective… but generally we as a culture tend to agree what is reasonable and what isn’t. Reasonable doubt is contextual.
One might argue that reasonable doubt and methodical doubt are essentially the same thing. However,
I think of methodical doubt as being more, well, part of a method. Reasonable doubt is more simply an honest recognition of one’s limitations— in terms of lack of information, uncertainty as to the trustworthiness of information sources, reliability of perception, and ability to deduce truth from falsehood. Methodological doubt is a step for finding truth above all else. Reasonable doubt is the healthy response to the realization of our own humanity, in all of its limitations.
#3. Existential Doubt. Existential doubt is the anxiety associated with questions of existence or being. Why am I here? Why does everything (or anything) exist? Do I (or us as a whole) have a purpose? What happens when I die? Was I designed, or just happened? Am I on the right path, or IS there a right path? Does anything I do truly matter?
#4. Volitional Doubt. Just as one can hold a belief in conflict with sound evidence, one can doubt in conflict with sound evidence. One might call this Unreasonable Doubt. One might also call it Emotional Doubt. One wants to doubt something (or outright reject something) and so one seeks to create “wiggle room” to embrace doubt even though sound reason would remove that doubt.
What is reasonable versus unreasonable is contextual as suggested before. However, within a culture, we are likely to share a lot in common as to what is reasonable and what is not.
#5. Suppressed Doubt. I think I need to explain this with my own experience. I was raised in a church that was fundamentalist. (I wrote ‘fundamentalist” in small case, because its form of fundamentalism was definitely not extreme, or FUNDAMENTALIST.) I was often told that we are saved by faith, and that faith is the absence of doubt. This led me to deny or suppress doubt. It took me many years to get to the point that I could see doubt as not necessarily bad.
Suppressed doubt is bad, in my view. First, suppressing one’s doubts makes it hard to relate with those who more openly and honestly struggle with doubt. Second, I believe that suppressing doubt means that one is not well-exercised in how to handle doubt when it bubbles up later in life.
#6. Pathological Doubt. Too much doubt can cause problems… like making it hard to make any plans, or decisions. It has been suggested that Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a “disease of doubt.” This is because it involves an inability to distinguish between what is possible, probable, and unlikely to happen. I suppose phobias could be framed in terms of unwarranted doubt or distrust rather than fear.
#7. Toxic Doubt. Peter Berger uses this term to describe relativism (openness to different perspectives as being potentially true) taken to an extreme. He believes this actually eradicates doubt. That is because too much doubt of belief becomes a sort of disbelief. As such, any value of doubt is lost.
#8. (Worst) Radical Doubt. This term was coined by Arne Unhjem who defined it as “the recognition—often implicit, rather than explicit—that there is no truth and no meaning that deserves man’s unqualified acceptance.” Looking at his work on this in “Dynamics of Doubt” starting on page 40, it seems like Radical Doubt is Existential Doubt that has become morbid. As reasonable doubt can devolve to volitional doubt and finally to pathological doubt, existential doubt can devolve into radical doubt— with the symptoms of meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair.
———-
If these groupings have value, there are a few things worth noting.
A. Doubt should be seen as far more than a cognitive thing. It also involves emotions and volition.
B. Contrasting it with faith appears to be misguided. Arne Unhjem’s book mentioned above is called Dynamics of Doubt, and I think it is best to think of doubt as a dynamic process (or cluster of processes). This process may lead one towards faith or away from it.
C. Doubt exists in many forms… many of which don’t really exist in conflict with or even opposition to faith.
D. From a religious standpoint. the first three categories of doubt are helpful to faith. I have written too much on this in the past. You can look at the links below on that.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I do wish that theologians embraced the productive study of doubt more. There are some who do it… but there needs to be more.
Links:
“Dynamics of Doubt” by Arne Unhjem. Available online by CLICKING HERE
“In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic” by Peter Berger. Available at Amazon by CLICKING HERE.
“Doubt: A History” by Jennifer Michael Hecht. Availabe at Amazon by CLICKING HERE
I have also written a whole pile of posts on Faith and Doubt. The category listing is found by CLICKING HERE
