Paul Kurtz said, “Briefly stated, a skeptic is one who is willing to question any claim to truth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence.” (1) I am a skeptic; I do not believe what I lack good reasons to believe. Because I am willing to question any belief I hold, I have changed my mind a number of times.
Clarity in Definition
Clarity of definition is the first sign of clarity of thought. If you cannot define your terms, you probably do not know what you are talking about. (2)
I found this problem common in Bible college. I would ask a fellow student what “being born again” meant, and they would answer, “Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.” When I then asked what it means to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, some would reply, “It means being born again.” You can imagine the responses when I asked about sanctification, justification, or regeneration; many were confused, and some professors were little better.
Logical Consistency
Consistency in logic does not prove that something is true, but inconsistency does show that something is false. A contradiction is a sure sign of error somewhere in the belief system. (3) Skepticism thrives on this point, testing ideas for coherence and exposing doctrines that collapse under their own contradictions.
Adequacy of Evidence
Adequacy of evidence is vital. People often mistake mere assertion for evidence, or they appeal to a holy book as if citation alone settled the matter. Just because something is written in a book does not make it true. There must be evidence—verifiable and objective information that adequately supports the claim. (4)
A skeptic will not accept any claim without clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence. This stance nurtures intellectual honesty and allows beliefs to be shaped by reality rather than wishful thinking.
Endnotes
(1) Paul Kurtz, “The New Skepticism,” in The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992), 9.
(2) Susan Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 7.
(3) Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2–3.
(4) David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (London: A. Millar, 1748), Section IV.
Dr. Jay Forrest explores rational spirituality, meditation, and timeless wisdom—from philosophy and psychology to Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism, and mysticism—offering a clear, open‑minded path for the spiritual‑but‑not‑religious.