Blowing out the lights of hope
Hope, including faith and belief, often act as an antidote for all that is negative (no thanks to our human cortex) so that we are able to push back all the gloom and doom that bombards our brains on a daily basis.
Where the glimmering lights of hope shine in this darkness, we come to see that we are not without solutions for almost every kind of problem facing us; nor are we absent a spiritual path that works, in the example of Buddhism (believe me, Buddhism works as advertised!).
But then blow the winds of skepticism. Soon the small lights of hope begin to flicker; then they start going out one by one.
The skeptic hates any kind of data or new possibilities which threatens to overturn his pet opinions. A skeptic is often very, very conservative. He doesnt like change or thinking out of the box. In fact, the skeptic will do almost anything to make sure that the data he disagrees with will never see the light of day.
When the great scientist Lord Kelvin, who formulated the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, said that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible, and radio has no future, and X-rays will prove a hoax, he was being a skeptic making a judgement in advance of the facts, essentially, lying through his teeth since he had no actual way of knowing that flying machines were impossible, etc. He was a wind bag trying to blow out the small lights of hope for a better future.
Skeptics like Lord Kelvin are skeptics for many reasons. One of their traits is that they are extremely vain and cant imagine any idea superior to their own. They have no problem with developing a closed mind. It is only after they permit themselves to have an open mind do they give up their close mindedness. (There is a rather humorous story told by Nikola Tesla which relates to the great Lord Kelivns skepticism of Teslas major work which had to do with non-Hertzian waves and their transmission through the earth. Eventually, Lord Kelvin came around to Teslas theory! and bec ame one of Teslas warmest supporters.)
Buddhism has it skeptics, too. Ironically, they are often Buddhists. They dont believe, for example, the canon of Buddhism contains anything the Buddha ever said. They dont believe the Buddhas awakening was such a big deal. His awakening is basically just about helping people, nothing more. These same skeptics have never read much of the Pali canon or the Mahayana canonlet alone handle the recondite notions contained therein. Nor do these skeptics read scholarly works on the Buddhist canon. They cant meditate either, except to sit mindlessly on their arses confusing ritual with contemplation.
In a way, the Buddhist skeptic is like the proverbial dog in the manger from Aesops Fables who occupied a cattle manger full of hay. When the cattle wanted to eat the hay the wicked dog barred their way, snapping and barking at them. Likewise, the Buddhist skeptic doesnt want devoted Buddhists to study the Dharma which the skeptic certainly refuses to study. He wants devoted Buddhists to lose any hope they may have in the Buddhas true teaching substituting an ersatz teaching of fatalism or the same, lite nihilism.
