Merchants of Skepticism
I am beginning to dive more deeply into the subject of modern Israel’s relationship with the Middle East (and our involvement in the conflict).
My plan is, as I study and arrive at something I feel is a concrete, important marker in the study, to write about it. This will further clarify my thinking and perhaps help others think through it as well.
This first waypoint is an observation that I’ve made for a while but have not had the words to describe what I was feeling or seeing. This has changed.
I want to be careful to note that, though some seem to have lost the ability for this nuance, it is possible I will uncover new information that changes my mind. If that happens, I’ll write it up accordingly. Also, while I bring some theological baggage into the conversation, I am aware of it. I may not yet be aware of the depths to which said baggage will indeed affect my thinking, but since I’m at least aware of my ignorance, we’re in a good starting place.
What do I mean by “Merchants of Skepticism?”
We should define terms. Merchant is a term ascribed to someone who sells something with the hope of making a profit. Skepticism is caution regarding the truth of a thing.
Thus, a “merchant of skepticism” is someone who profits from selling caution.
What is the product? What is the actual good being sold?
There are a few layers here. In business there is something called the StoryBrand framework, which attempts to show the various layers of problems any given product could solve.
Adapted for this situation and for the merchants of skepticism, it might be this:
- Layer 1: Physical: Endless Questions
- Layer 2: Emotional: Fear and Doubt
- Layer 3: Philosophical: Good Guys vs. Bad Guys
Let’s dig into a few questions about this.
Is there anything wrong in principle with being a merchant? No. This is perfectly legal and celebrated across the planet. The Bible endorses it ad nauseam, even for preachers! Don’t let me scare you with this, haha. I just mean the Bible says pastors have a right to earn their living taking care of God’s flock.
Is there anything wrong with asking questions? No, of course not. We should always be willing to ask questions and attempt to find the answers. No one should believe things blindly or just because they are told (Proverbs 18:17).
Is there anything wrong with fear and doubt? One could argue from the Scriptures that there is both a healthy fear and a healthy doubt. These are postures that prove helpful in situations where you are trying to make a good decision and avoid painful consequences. Doubt is sometimes useful for greater understanding (see Acts 17 and the Berean’s encounter with Paul and Silas).
Is there anything wrong with a good guys vs. bad guys mentality? Prima facie, no. The world essentially runs on the framework of good vs. evil.
So what’s the problem, then?!
The problem is that good thinking begins with questions, but it doesn’t end with them. Merchants of skepticism serve one meal: questions with a side of assertions (stated, yet unproven, “facts”). Very rarely does a merchant of skepticism make an argument for his position.
Bluntly, this is bad thinking. Horribly bad thinking.
If you’ve got 15 minutes, I can help you identify this thinking right away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quQYjDU4lT4
If you watch the above video, you will notice (in no particular order) a few things:
- Many statements presented as “obviously true” or as “objective facts” that are simply neither (we call these assertions)
- When “the goods” are asked for (near the end), the interviewee is suddenly hesitant to share because it drifts into his opinion (as if the whole thing hadn’t been already) and proceeds to make self-admitted conspiratorial claims (in a very “I really shouldn’t be sharing this so I’ll be ULTRA vague” way)
- Note how the tenor of this 15-minute conversation (between two people who ostensibly agree!) is littered with questions. On one hand, the host feigns ignorance and a desire to understand, and on the other, praises the guest for such wisdom and shedding light on a conclusion that is “obviously true.”
I happen to have engaged with many of the assertions made in this video over the years, and I know they are false.
One assertion in the video is that dispensationalists teach that Jews have a different salvation than Christians. This is absurd! Dispensationalists believe that one is only saved by coming to Jesus Christ, but don’t take the “replacement” view that the church has replaced Israel.
And it’s on the basis of this incorrect understanding (called a strawman fallacy) that the entire segment rests. The point of the video is: “Jews use dispensationalist theology to chokehold American Christians into participating in their global quest for money and power.”
NOW — I want to be very clear here. Could this, in theory, be true?
Of course. There’s no logical contradiction here. It could absolutely be true. But you won’t learn whether or not it IS true from the merchants of skepticism. They can’t actually tell you, because they don’t present arguments and evidence for their position.
They ask questions in a barrage, assert a view, and use inflammatory language to persuade that it’s true, but they hesitate to give arguments with facts. (Good thing, I guess, because it seems when they do “state facts,” they get them wrong or exaggerate them to the point of absurdity. This is (I admit!) an assertion that I will flesh out with more evidence in a future article.)
Another example of this in full display is Tucker’s interaction with Mike Huckabee.
I’m not happy with how either man performed in this exchange to be honest, but just take note if you watch how NO answer Mike gives is good enough for Tucker. To be sure, there are better answers than the ones Mike gave to some of Tucker’s questions. But I also believe (truly) that Mike didn’t understand until in retrospect what Tucker was really getting at, as often happens after a heated exchange.
Tucker made inflammatory statements about the intent of Israel in this war that contradict the evidence. (For example, claiming its leadership desires genocide when their military operations usually display careful precision in avoiding civilian targets.)
When You Can’t Be Right
When you’re having discussions meant to persuade (either an interlocutor or an audience), one of the most telling signs you’re dealing with someone who may be engaging in bad faith is getting the sense they couldn’t be persuaded to your view no matter what.
In the exchange mentioned above, I wish Mike had asked Tucker (1) if there was a particular point he was trying to make with his questions and (2) what evidence would satisfy him.
It is necessary to know this; otherwise, the conversation will inevitably break down into goalposting. This is when someone moves the goal line on what they would deem as acceptable evidence for their view.
This is related to the motte and bailey fallacy as well, which is what happens when someone rushes to the bailey to make a forceful assertion but then retreats to the safer, more defensible claim (the motte) when cross-examined.
In discussions where people endlessly ask questions, a way to get back on track is to say, “I appreciate your asking these questions. But I get the sense you’re actually trying to make a point with them, and I’m getting confused. Would you mind simply stating your view so I can assess whether or not I agree, and why?”
If they produce a response, ask for 1-3 practical examples of evidence that would satisfy them. If you can produce those examples, do it, and remind the person they just told you it would satisfy them. If you’re unable to, simply let them know they make a fair point and you will look further into the matter and respond later.
A sign of good faith when you’re outgunned is to ask the person for the sources they recommend to learn about the point they are making. If they have no such sources, you’ve probably learned more about your sparring partner than they’ve learned about you 🙂
It’s Just Good Journalism, Right?
I want to close this first article by answering a fair question about much of what I’ve said.
Folks like Tucker, Candace Owens, and others who seem to be on the “anti-Israel” side of this thing (though at the motte, they will claim they are not anti-Israel) are journalists. Their job is to dig deep and ask the questions others are afraid to. Right?
Actually… no. As an example, American Public Media’s ethics guidelines say this:
We are here to inform the public by considering multiple perspectives, but ultimately presenting fact-based truths… We believe that a democratic society depends on an informed public, and that an informed public depends on a free and independent press.
The point of journalism is, to the best of the journalist’s ability, to articulate the truth using facts and evidence. It is NOT, contrary to the beliefs and practices of some, to ask an endless barrage of questions.
It starts with questions, but at some point, the questions have to stop and the answers have to come. If there are never any answers, then you’ve been led on what we in the South call a snipe hunt: endless pursuit of an imaginary target.
Ironically, you should be highly skeptical of the merchants of skepticism. Fact check their claims. Look beyond their emotional rhetoric. And for God’s sake, if they ask a question, press pause and go read a book. Find the real answer.
Questions aren’t arguments, and the merchants are selling a bill of goods.