=( My Totally Excellent Adventure in New York/Boston is coming to an end. It's the last night of my trip here with my sister and my mother, still it was very eventful even to the last hour.
In the morning, we went to eat breakfast at a deli. I'll summarize the highlight of it.
Me: How much does this orange juice cost?
Mom: Stop asking all the time. Just take it.
Our 2 omelettes, 1 sandwich, and 4 drinks cost us $40. We read the receipt to find out that the juice cost $6 a cup. It must have come from the most organic oranges in the country.
Pope Benedict was in the area, and there were plenty of roadblocks. Most amusingly, there was a group of atheist protesters who maintained that the Vatican had been covering up cases of pedophilia, and a little atheist girl told us to take one of their fliers because 'God told us to'. Oh my. Haha.
We split with Mom, so my sister and I went to visit a couple of shops at this point.
After a small lunch, we went to watch the Avenue Q musical. It's great that we were finally able
to put a face to the singing. It was a great experience, with the exception of the excessive post-show sales plugs. I will certainly elaborate on this at a later time.
In the evening, we went to watch a concert in which one of my mother's friends was conducting. Here's a shout out to all Singaporeans: 'We now have our very own world-class conductor, Darrell Ang!' Whether or not Singapore's environment nurtures or restricts artistic talent is not something I'll comment on for now, but I just want to point out yet another recognized artist in our midst (Who has a flair for animated and dynamic conducting, as well as really sexy 'flip in the air' hair and sideburns. I want sideburns like those.).
.............................................................
Sometimes, I feel that in the process of holding on to something, I lose something else entirely. I especially feel this way when it comes to beliefs that, to me, may not seem to have the most balanced or objective outlook, yet are able to convict me regardless. Sometimes when I feel decided about committing to a certain perspective on a matter, I will subsequently (or concurrently) have a feeling that I might be headed for a fall if I commit too much to it/blindly. A feeling of self-satisfaction also tends to occur if I should feel that I've struck on a perspective that is both logical and of Great Significance. I often find myself consciously having to curb this feeling.
This is not to say that I don't have my own ideals that I pursue on a long-term basis. What I mean to say is that I consider myself to be of a dominantly skeptical nature. I understand a skeptic to be a person who does not readily commit himself to any particular belief, especially if committing should mean the forgoing of inquiry of the details of that belief.
–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.
To you, which is easier, to believe or to doubt?
Skeptics might tell you that staunch/unbending believers get quick relief and comfort from their beliefs because they don't have to take more time to question the validity of alternative beliefs. To give an extreme example, a person who believes that the Earth's resources are renewable and unending might live a life of extreme consumption without considering whether that life is justified. A more skeptical person might refrain from committing to such a lifestyle because he thinks he would feel guilty if it was bad for the Earth (This example assumes that the skeptic has a concern for environmental matters. It does not assume that the believer has no sense of guilt. Rather, he would not feel guiltless as he is sure that he is correct.). If a matter is of great significance to a skeptic, then much energy can be lost debating with one self over the right course of action to take. It can be very draining to constantly weigh and consider new things, and comfortless if you do commit to a course of action, all the way acknowledging that you could still be wrong despite your calculations (I think that would be the skeptical viewpoint).
Just to clarify, I don't accept that the absolute refusal to accept any sort of belief refers to skepticism. That's because I think that the belief that 'no beliefs are true' is an opinion in itself.
Now let me clarify what I mean by believers. I use the term in a very general and vague way. Suffice it to mean a person who has committed to a particular belief and has discarded (colored adjective), or come to terms with the larger part of his doubts about that belief. I think that this would subsequently lead to the discontinuation of any serious consideration as to the validity of that belief.
To leave it at that would be most unfair to believers Anyone who has ever believed in a higher being, someone, or some thing will know how excruciatingly hard it can be. Believing that a close one won't abandon you, that the bridge looks safe to cross, or that God exists can pit reason against ephemeral (or deeply rooted) feelings of distrust and fear, or cause one's feelings of trust and faith to conflict with disturbing, 'real life' facts and information to the contrary. I think of it this way because of my belief that the acceptance of a proposition takes place on at least two levels, an intellectual ('rational', calculating) level, and a deeper, spiritual, 'something' level. Personally, I often have times when I am strongly tempted to subtly change/tweak/euphemize/ soften/conform the way I appear to others, instead of believing that they'll accept the more controversial parts of me.
Noun: euphemism.
I have several beliefs about belief. Much like the rest of the rational (Ooo, colored adjective!) world, I think that dogmatic commitment to an idea can bring about a world of hurt to others and to self, be it on a global or an interpersonal scale. I believe this strongly because of frequent real life/in-game/personal experiences... I think that as hard as committing to a belief can be at times, it gives people relief from excessive self-examination, and it also gives people tangible and intangible strength to live their lives. One example could be the feeling of comfort and joy that comes from living a life that you believe is righteous. Another example would be the energy and the drive that stems from a single-minded determination. For those of us who believe in a God that loves us, there is the belief that he is willing to change our lives with his power, for the better, if we would but believe in him and recognize the times in which he's already been by our side.
In conclusion, as to whether i think skeptics are better or believers are, my answer is, "It depends." Do you embrace skepticism out of desire to face facts or a compulsion to avoid them? Do you put your whole heart into believing something because you feel it's an irrevocable fact, or because you can't face a life without the comfort that believing in it brings?
I invite you, my friends, to share more about your position on this. Is it more noble to doubt or to believe?
Note: Watch Tenggan Toppa Gurren Lagann for a dramatic, poignant, and yet simple portrayal of the ideological differences between skeptics and believers.
