---

How Selective Doubt Undermines Honest Inquiry

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

– Proverbs 18:17

Introduction: When Skepticism Becomes a Shield

Skepticism, in its best form, is a virtue. It guards against deception, fuels scientific inquiry, and demands evidence before belief. But like many virtues, when it becomes distorted, it turns into a vice. One of the most common and least recognized distortions today is asymmetrical skepticism—a form of selective doubt where certain ideas are scrutinized to death while others are conveniently given a pass.

This isn’t just inconsistent; it’s intellectually dishonest. Asymmetrical skepticism is especially pervasive in debates over religion, history, science, and morality. In this blog, we’ll explore how this bias emerges in discussions of biblical history, fine-tuning, cosmology, and moral reasoning, and how it ultimately blocks honest inquiry.

---

1. What is Asymmetrical Skepticism?

Asymmetrical skepticism occurs when one applies harsh scrutiny to any claim that challenges their worldview while accepting much weaker standards of evidence for claims that support it.

For example, many skeptics demand airtight, eyewitness documentation for the resurrection of Jesus while casually accepting speculative reconstructions of prehistory or assumptions about consciousness arising from matter. But if the standard is absolute proof, then nearly all of history—and even much of science—must be discarded.

C.S. Lewis warned against this double standard when he described a mindset that “wants to be left alone, to live life on its own terms, and to reject anything that makes demands upon it” (1). Such skepticism is not open-minded inquiry—it is a defense mechanism.

---

2. Psychological Roots of Asymmetrical Skepticism: Doubt as Identity Protection

Why do people engage in this kind of selective doubt? Research in psychology gives us insight. One key factor is identity-protective cognition—the tendency to selectively accept or reject evidence based on whether it affirms one’s group identity or self-image (2).

Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, argues that “reason is the servant of the intuitions” and that we often use logic not to seek truth but to justify our gut-level reactions (3). In other words, we reason like lawyers, not scientists.

Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases also shows that once a belief is established—especially one tied to self-worth or community—people will go to extraordinary lengths to defend it, even in the face of contrary evidence (4).

This connects with traits associated with narcissism: intellectual arrogance, disdain for opposing views, and an unwillingness to admit error. A narcissistic mindset isn’t necessarily clinical; it can be cultural. It often shows up in online spaces where “winning” an argument matters more than learning something true.

---

3. Asymmetrical Skepticism and the Bible: Historical Reliability Under Fire

Skeptics often treat the Bible as uniquely suspect. Take the resurrection: Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 is dated by scholars—skeptical and believing alike—to within five years of Jesus’ death (5). Paul knew the witnesses personally and names several of them.

Yet critics wave this aside, saying, “We don’t have direct testimony. Paul might be mistaken. Visions don’t prove resurrections.” But why don’t we apply that level of doubt to Caesar’s Gallic Wars or Tacitus’ Annals—both written decades or even centuries after events and often with far less corroboration?

The difference isn’t the evidence—it’s the worldview at stake. When historical claims threaten deeply held assumptions, asymmetrical skepticism kicks in.

Bart Ehrman himself admits we have more sources for Jesus than for most figures in antiquity (6). Yet he questions their reliability because of theological implications. This is not history—it’s ideology.

---

4. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Rigorous Evidence, Selective Ignorance

The constants of nature—gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces—are so precisely balanced that if altered slightly, life would be impossible. As cosmologist Luke Barnes notes, “The universe is not just fine-tuned for life—it is finely tuned for discoverability” (7).

But when theists cite this as evidence for a designer, skeptics often cry foul: “That’s just religious wishful thinking!” Instead, they propose the multiverse—an infinite number of universes, each with different physical laws.

Here’s the problem: there is no empirical evidence for other universes. As physicist George Ellis has pointed out, “Multiverse theories are not testable—they are speculative” (8).

This is a textbook example of asymmetrical skepticism. Design is dismissed as “unscientific,” but unprovable alternatives are embraced without hesitation—because they preserve naturalism.

---

5. The Origin of the Universe: A Case of Cherry-Picked Doubt

The kalām cosmological argument is simple:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise two is supported by strong cosmological evidence—the Big Bang and thermodynamics indicate a beginning. Even agnostic physicist Alexander Vilenkin concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” (9).

But many skeptics retreat into speculation: “Maybe time loops back. Maybe it’s a quantum fluctuation. Maybe it came from nothing.”

Again, notice the double standard. The same people who reject the Bible for lack of “direct evidence” are perfectly willing to believe in timeless, causeless beginnings when it helps them avoid the theistic implications.

---

6. Moral Realism and the Convenient Skeptic

Most people, regardless of belief, act as if objective moral truths exist. We say things like “racism is wrong” or “human trafficking is evil”—not just socially inconvenient, but actually evil.

But when Christian apologists argue that moral truth implies a moral lawgiver, skeptics often shift: “Morality is just a product of evolution. It’s subjective.”

This is deeply inconsistent. If morality is subjective, then so is your outrage. Philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction… and has no being beyond this” (10). Yet few people live as though morality is merely a biological trick.

Asymmetrical skepticism shows up again: moral outrage is valid when attacking religion—but morality becomes “fluid” when it points to God.

---

7. The Broader Impact: A Barrier to Honest Dialogue

Asymmetrical skepticism isn’t just unfair—it’s corrosive. It prevents open-minded dialogue and leads to cynical, fruitless debates. In online forums and academic circles alike, believers are forced to meet impossible standards, while skeptics shift goalposts.

This damages not only the pursuit of truth, but the soul. When doubt becomes a shield, it can harden into pride. And pride, not ignorance, is the greatest obstacle to belief.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth—so that it might close on something solid” (11).

---

Towards Balanced Inquiry

Skepticism, rightly used, is a tool for discovery. But when wielded asymmetrically, it becomes a weapon—one aimed not at falsehood, but at anything inconvenient.

To skeptics: if you demand evidence, apply the same standard to your own beliefs. If you question miracles, also question materialism. If you doubt God, also doubt the blind faith in randomness.

To believers: don’t be afraid of hard questions—but don’t accept loaded dice. Insist on fair play. The truth can handle it.

Even the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, no friend of religion, warned against the imbalance of selective skepticism:

“When one admits that nothing is certain, one must, I think, also add that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is on this basis that I am prepared to distinguish between degrees of probability, and therefore to be more skeptical of some things than others, but not skeptical of everything equally.” (12)

Truth does not fear scrutiny. But it demands consistency. And that is the beginning of honest inquiry.

If you’re only skeptical of the claims you disagree with, is your skepticism about truth—or just about convenience?

---

Footnotes

1. C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, HarperOne, 2001.
2. Dan Kahan, “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioral Public Policy, 2017.
3. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Pantheon, 2012.
4. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
5. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel, 2004.
6. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, 1999.
7. Luke Barnes, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2012.
8. George Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?”, Scientific American, August 2011.
9. Alexander Vilenkin, quoted in Many Worlds in One, Hill and Wang, 2006.
10. Michael Ruse, The Evolutionary Origins of Morality, Princeton University Press, 1999.
11. G.K. Chesterton, The Autobiography of G.K. Chesterton, Sheed & Ward, 1936.
12. Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays, Routledge Classics, 2004 (originally 1928), p. 26.

---