Christian and Skeptic??

[drkitten]

And the current evidence as it pertains to the existance of any particular definition of "God" can tell us what exactly?

Well, evidently, you don't have much personal evidence.

Not that that's necessarily bad. I don't have any personal evidence of eating blowfish sashimi, so I don't know whether it tastes good or not. And if someone were to ask me whether or not I liked it, I could certainly say that "I don't know" with a clear conscience and a straight face.

On the other hand, if someone asked me whether I think I would like it, or I found myself with an unexpected layover in Tokyo and someone suggested we go out for blowfish, I could also look at other evidence. A lot of other people seem to like blowfish sashimi, or there wouldn't be all those restaurants out there. That's (weak) evidence. I like some other kinds of sashimi -- that's also (weak) evidence. The suggested restaurant got a five star rating in the local English-language paper. That's also (weak) evidence. So although I don't know whether or not I like blowfish sashimi, I have a better idea after putting together all those pieces -- yeah, sure, I'll probably try it -- than I did out of the blue.

But let's turn it around. Let's say that you have tried blowfish sashimi, and you do like it. What kind of evidence can you present to convince ME that you like blowfish sashimi?

 

[Darat]

Perhaps based on the feedback from this thread I should really consider no longer participating in these forums... I'd really rather not be considered a hypocrite by people.

I recognize the apparent conflict, and unfortunately it's beyond my ability to resolve it at this time. Nor am I entirely in disagreement with the viewpoint itself; I do hold a belief that I cannot prove and there is no evidence for it that would be acceptable to support it for other people.

That would be an unfortunate outcome of one of the most enjoyable threads here in a long time.

There has been a wide range of opinions expressed in this thread as to what are the "qualifications" for calling yourself a sceptic or not. According to some people you are, according to others you aren't but on both sides people are only expressing their opinions. (Unless there has been an international standards body that has agreed what a “sceptic” is and I wasn't informed.)

If I was you I wouldn’t feel pressured because of opinions expressed by others, but then I’m an equally opinionated git!

If you enjoy the forum stay and if you don’t leave.

 

[Ashles]

Perhaps based on the feedback from this thread I should really consider no longer participating in these forums... I'd really rather not be considered a hypocrite by people.

You can't worry about what other people think if you want to contribute to an internet forum.

Everyone should be judged on their posts. Hell, if Jambo were to, for example, start criticising homeopaths in a sensible way then I'd read his posts and comment appropriately.

And I still don't personally see the big problem people have with you believing in God.
I can accept that it might make it a bit hard to describe you as a 'sceptic', but it doesn't mean you can't be sceptical.

If you make any claims about God or biblical events then I would probably disagree with you, but I have been in agreement with many of your posts in the past.

As I have said before some of the most 'sceptical' theories have been created by believers using a strict sceptical methodology.
I think that deserves respect, not accusations of hypocrisy.

I understand why people feel there are elements of double standards, but everyone does it all the time to some extent. It doesn't make jmercer's opinions on other matters any less valid.

This brand of radical uberscepticism doesn't really help matters a great deal if it would encourage intelligent and interesting posters like jmercer to feel uncomfortable and leave.

 

[Kumar]

Like hell it is. If you want the concept in science behind your latest mental ejaculation, look for it yourself.

Alike "Heaven", "Hell" also belongs to HIM. I have already looked it myself. I was just indicating. Can't you compare it with anything in science?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

PPE

PPE (the Powerful Personal Experience).

It seems that PPEs have a lot to do with why believers believe. The folk here, on the JREF forums, (with a few exceptions) are not stupid. They have generally tried to think through their beliefs and have come to accept them as valid. The trouble is that people tend not to want to discuss these PPEs because they are, by definition, very personal and emotional matters with strong meaning to the believer.

PPEs happen to sceptics, too, but are interpreted as "not from god". Regarding any such PPE, I would be glad to discuss it with anyone. I have had a few myself and tended to seek a rational explanation. I've had visual aura, a sense of a presence, a full-blown vision, a UFO sighting, and many more.

Now, some believers are very keen to "witness". It is part of the evangelical nature of most religions to try to gain converts. But believers on this board (especially those who are sceptics concerning paranormal experiences outside their own belief bubble) are naturally reticent to divulge information that is very personal. This means that we are not able to analyse these experiences and to, perhaps, suggest alternative mundane explanations.

What I'm wondering is would the "sceptical Christians" in this thread talk about their experiences in, let's say, a Christian forum, or would they be just as reticent?

From this thread, it seems that the general civilty of debate with those who say they are sceptical and Christians stems from the claimants, on the whole, being non-dogmatic and being willing to understand the problems that unbelievers have with the position they hold; whereas, ardent believers are very unwilling to question their beliefs, and take exception to anyone questioning them. "Questioning", for them, is seen as "attacking". People are asking them questions that they, on the whole, are unwilling to ask themselves. They see this, wrongly, as an attack on their beliefs. Often these folk are anti-Randi bigots who view Randi as "the enemy". When they show up in a thread, that is usually when the thread goes downhill. They don't really want to discuss their beliefs or have them scrutinized, they want to ram their beliefs down the throats of others. They are also usually fascinated with the thought of the million dollars.

That is a pity because there is much to be learned by both sides. I may not share the beliefs of others, but I DO want to try to understand them. Being on this forum has helped me see just how powerful and tenacious personal belief systems are. The "willing suspension of disbelief" applies to us all at some level, at some times in our lives. One thing we have in common is our humanity.

As someone once said with great irony: "I HATE bigots. I'd have the whole stinking lot of them shot." We are all guilty of making categorical judgements at some level. But it is unhelpful. And yes, I know that I do it too. However, I'm trying to base my judgments on evidence from posters in the threads. That is all I have to go on, especially since PPEs are often so illusive.

 

[Sin City Teacher]

Perhaps based on the feedback from this thread I should really consider no longer participating in these forums... I'd really rather not be considered a hypocrite by people.

It would really disturb me if jmercer quite this forum because other members considered him a hypocrite. Yes the phrase "a Skeptical Believer" is definitely an oxymoron. If you look both words up in the dictionary, they are opposites... antonyms. However, it sounds like jmercer is on the path of being more open minded. I would hate for this forum to discourage his path of becoming more skeptical and more of a critical thinker. I think jmercer considers himself a skeptic, because he doubts some traditional Christian beliefs. So I guess I would call him "slightly" skeptical. So even though it would be a stretch to call him a "true" skeptic, compared to some Christians... he seems a little skeptical. On the other hand, if he "knows" there is a god and he "knows" Jesus is his savior, than I am not sure if he knows what being a skeptic really is?!

-SCT

 

[jmercer]

These forums - and the postings in them - represent to me important work being done on a volunteer basis. Regardless of my personal struggles over my belief in God, it's crystal clear to me that there's been an upsurge in superstition and ignorance that's creating a backlash against science, logic and clear thinking. I encounter it every day, as I suspect most of us do.

So to me, the things happening in these forums aren't just postings, but they represent a part of the struggle against getting swallowed up in a rising tide of illogic and superstition. And I enjoy the forums, and I think I've added some value to the threads I've participated in. I know I've certainly received value, and have learned a great deal from the people here.

I'll continue to participate, then, as long as the discussion in this one doesn't result in a derailing of other threads that I join in as a skeptic. (Yes, I still consider myself a skeptic - at least in some areas.)

Everyone here treated this topic (and me) with respect regardless of their point of view. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude and return respect for all of you for doing so. It's exactly this treatment that's allowing me to make the decision to continue on.

I will, however, try to keep myself aware of the dichotomy I unwilling represent here... and I'll certainly try not to be intentionally hypocritical.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Perhaps based on the feedback from this thread I should really consider no longer participating in these forums... I'd really rather not be considered a hypocrite by people.

I recognize the apparent conflict, and unfortunately it's beyond my ability to resolve it at this time. Nor am I entirely in disagreement with the viewpoint itself; I do hold a belief that I cannot prove and there is no evidence for it that would be acceptable to support it for other people.

There is a conflict, I agree. But I think the term "hypocrite" has pejorative connatations that are unhelpful and inflammatory.

I certainly don't think you should stop contributing. You bring an additional topic of sceptical enquiry to the forum regarding religion. A hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold. You hold religious belief and question other paranormal claims. You are not putting forward beliefs and opinions you do not hold. You DO hold them.

Personally, I admire your frankness and ability to stay calm when discussing a very emotional subject. Among sociologists even the definition of "religion" is a contentious issue. So, ignore the "emotive" words, and keep discussing.

In religious studies they use the terms "emic" and "etic" to describe the "insider" and "outsider" perspectives.

You are emic regarding Christianity and (probably) etic regarding other paranormal beliefs. If believers in other paranormal stuff were as undogmatic and open to scrutiny as you have been, I think the debates would be a lot more civil. Religion is not going away. We need to try to understand its appeal. In this, you can help, so I say you should not feel you have somehow compromised yourself.

 

[jmercer]

Re: PPE

PPE (the Powerful Personal Experience).

Now, some believers are very keen to "witness". It is part of the evangelical nature of most religions to try to gain converts. But believers on this board (especially those who are sceptics concerning paranormal experiences outside their own belief bubble) are naturally reticent to divulge information that is very personal. This means that we are not able to analyse these experiences and to, perhaps, suggest alternative mundane explanations.

What I'm wondering is would the "sceptical Christians" in this thread talk about their experiences in, let's say, a Christian forum, or would they be just as reticent?

For myself, I can say that I wouldn't share it on a Christian forum. My experiences were personal both in the sense of being individualized, and in the sense of being very private due to the nature of the situation. I don't want to be overly dramatic, though. It's just that the events surrounding the entire thing are personally embarrassing and very sensitive. No real terrible dark secrets, just stuff that I went through that I really don't want to share with the world at large.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

These forums - and the postings in them - represent to me important work being done on a volunteer basis. Regardless of my personal struggles over my belief in God, it's crystal clear to me that there's been an upsurge in superstition and ignorance that's creating a backlash against science, logic and clear thinking. I encounter it every day, as I suspect most of us do.

So to me, the things happening in these forums aren't just postings, but they represent a part of the struggle against getting swallowed up in a rising tide of illogic and superstition. And I enjoy the forums, and I think I've added some value to the threads I've participated in. I know I've certainly received value, and have learned a great deal from the people here.

I'll continue to participate, then, as long as the discussion in this one doesn't result in a derailing of other threads that I join in as a skeptic. (Yes, I still consider myself a skeptic - at least in some areas.)

Everyone here treated this topic (and me) with respect regardless of their point of view. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude and return respect for all of you for doing so. It's exactly this treatment that's allowing me to make the decision to continue on.

I will, however, try to keep myself aware of the dichotomy I unwilling represent here... and I'll certainly try not to be intentionally hypocritical.

Thanks, everyone.

This is exactly why you should continue to post.

 

[Beth]

people do consider their subjective experiences as valid when faced with a lack of another explanation, however, is that wise? Is it particularily valid?

We ignore our own perceptions of reality at our peril. To discard them without strong justification strikes me as not only invalid, but unwise.

I agree that the subjective nature of things, information in particular is very important and overlooked. I read a book not too long ago discussing this very thing. Our understanding of what information is, and how one can possibly look objectively at the subjective "meaning" of information to different observers is perhaps one of the next really interesting area's of science. The more I learn about consciousness and human experience and physics and reality the more I find myself unsure of just what I can say about my subjective experiences. There are some basic frameworks to explaining consciousness. They are not complete but their a decent start. Dennett has a basic theory that seems quite plausible in many ways, its a start where many assume that there is none at all.

I agree. I have thought it a fascinating area of study for years. I'm not terribly familiar with Dennett, but I have heard of him. Not sure what book you've just read, but Susan Blackmores "The Meme Machine" is excellent and discusses some of the problems with Dennett's theory. She has a rather interesting take on the nature of consciousness herself.

Beth

 

[voidx]

Well, evidently, you don't have much personal evidence.

Not with experiences that would lead me to a belief in God no. But I've admitted that.

Not that that's necessarily bad. I don't have any personal evidence of eating blowfish sashimi, so I don't know whether it tastes good or not. And if someone were to ask me whether or not I liked it, I could certainly say that "I don't know" with a clear conscience and a straight face.

On the other hand, if someone asked me whether I think I would like it, or I found myself with an unexpected layover in Tokyo and someone suggested we go out for blowfish, I could also look at other evidence. A lot of other people seem to like blowfish sashimi, or there wouldn't be all those restaurants out there. That's (weak) evidence. I like some other kinds of sashimi -- that's also (weak) evidence. The suggested restaurant got a five star rating in the local English-language paper. That's also (weak) evidence. So although I don't know whether or not I like blowfish sashimi, I have a better idea after putting together all those pieces -- yeah, sure, I'll probably try it -- than I did out of the blue.

But let's turn it around. Let's say that you have tried blowfish sashimi, and you do like it. What kind of evidence can you present to convince ME that you like blowfish sashimi?

There are some objective physical things in this scenario. Your taste experience of other types of sashimi for example. Everything else is rather weak due to the fact that it is based upon reportings of others personal experiences. You won't know until you try, but you CAN try. My question was essentially where is the evidence that was mentioned, and I'm taking away from this example that all we have are third hand reportings of personal experience. That means something, but not really a whole lot. All it tells me is about people's personal experiences, it doesn't really get me any further to explaining how God works. Using real world analogies is a mistake in my opinion because they invariably end up containing some sort of objective, measurable, observable variable. We don't have that when it comes to personal belief.

 

[tommyz]

Thanks for your reply, ilk. Previously, you had mentioned....

I am perfectly happy living my life in a completely non spiritual way, instead focusing on what I feel is positive for society.

Followed by...

Out of interest, why can I never win a Nobel peace prize or be "elected office" for my community? Because I am not "spritual"? What if by simply being a good person and doing good things I vastly improve the human condition, causing an end to war? Would I be eligible then? What makes me being a good person, just because I think it is right, somehow inferior to someone who is good because they think it's what a giant beard in the sky wants them to do?

Hmmm....you're perfectly happy living your life in completely non-spiritual way, and that's all well and good; I'm all for that, don't get me wrong. But you would do that instead of focusing on what you feel is positive for society? (these are YOUR words, not mine).

Of course I didn't mean to sound bitter and condescending in my previous post. Just so you know, my intent on these forums is to discuss such matters in a purely civil, intelligent, rationally coherent and respectful manner. I have no use for deliberate insults or ego bashing. With that said...and with all due respect:

Don't you think that was just a little bit on the selfish side when you said "...instead of focusing on I feel is positive for society?" Just thought I'd like to point out this little inconsistency on your part.

Again, I have absolutely no problems whatsoever even if that was the case; I personally know of people who don't even bother to vote and could care less about what goes on in the world around them...yet they are good, decent and honest hard working people. While I don't personally agree with that kind of naive and simplistic lifesytle myself, as long as they're honest, respectful and tolerant of others, what more could I ask of them?

Now think about this: Would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ever get to where he got thinking this way? Most likely not. He CLEARLY focused on what was positive for society ---regardless of his religious/spiritual beliefs.

I'm not the one to get all angry and upset at anyone who doesn't believe in god (or as you'd like to refer whatever he/she/it/they might be as "a giant beard in the sky" ---personally, I'd prefer a Jimi Hendrix style afro myself, but then again that's just my opinion ) So you can think and believe in whatever you want, I don't care. All that I (or anyone else for that matter) could ask of you is that you treat your fellow man with fairness, respect, tolerance, and dignity ---god or no god.

And if winning the Nobel Peace prize is your goal, I honestly and sincerely wish you nothing but the best of luck!

Regarding Mr. Covey, I am extremely wary of anyone who wants to sell me something. I would be much more receptive to you being proselytical about the actual methods, reducing the risk of promoting a cult of personality.

First off, Steven Covey does have a PhD, so perhaps it's more appropriate to refer to him as Dr. Covey. Secondly, for the record, I don't make a single red penny by promoting his website or any of his books. His ideals are simply those that I believe in most because they are time tested principles that have been proven to work for people of all different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds, time and time again ---and all presented in a rationally well written manner that doesn't even touch the topic of god or religion (well, honestly, except for the acknowledgement section where he "thanks god." But I'm sure most atheists can ignore that!)

And who said anything about spending money? Why not go to your local library and check it out for FREE? That way, even if you still have any doubts that I'm making any money off his products, I'd be GUARANTEED not to make a single penny by you reading his book. Sound fair?

Wishing you and yours a lifetime of wellness and prosperity, I remain...

TommyZ

 

[voidx]

Posted by Ashles
I understand why people feel there are elements of double standards, but everyone does it all the time to some extent. It doesn't make jmercer's opinions on other matters any less valid.

Your quite right. However there's nothing wrong with someone pointing out his double standards to him. I fully expect that if I was doing something similar you all would point mine out to me as well. The fact that everyone does it all the time is not an excuse for not calling it out even when we see it among those we know and respect. I haven't got the feeling that most of us here think jmercer has no capacity for skeptical thinking. To hint at that I think misrepresents what we've been discussing here. Skeptical thought and belief are completely seperate things. And I think everyone understands that we can hold both.

The key is that we cannot legitimately apply both to the same concept. jmercer obviously thinks critically on many things and is also a skeptic. I have no problem saying that. However he cannot really claim to be a skeptic when it comes to his belief in God. And I think he would agree with that. The question here really was, are skepticism and belief compatible, and they aren't, you have to choose one or the other. That we might choose inconsistently based on our own bias and on any particular topic, doesn't change the fact that they are indeed incompatible. We all selectively apply our skepticism to varying degree's. The quality of our skepticism on any given topic is not necessarily diminished by the fact that we are less skeptical somewhere else. Unless the topics are somehow related. But there is nothing wrong with someone going, "hmmm I don't really think your applying your skepticism to this particular topic" and then discussing it. I personally have avoided the term hypocrite because I feel its too strong a comment, especially for jmercer in particular because he's very honest about his belief and how skeptical he is of it. He's had some powerful personal experiences, and despite the fact he knows them for what they are, they still form a powerful part of his belief. I understand that.

This brand of radical uberscepticism doesn't really help matters a great deal if it would encourage intelligent and interesting posters like jmercer to feel uncomfortable and leave.

I think radical uberscepticism is rather a gross misrepresentation to how most of us have acted within this thread. No ones intent here has been to make him leave, and to be honest I'd really only be somewhat disappointed in him if he left. I see he has decided to stay and I think he should by all means.

 

[voidx]

We ignore our own perceptions of reality at our peril. To discard them without strong justification strikes me as not only invalid, but unwise.

I didn't say we should ignore them. However we have a tendency to take our perceptions as unassailable and concrete and this is equally as dangerous.

I agree. I have thought it a fascinating area of study for years. I'm not terribly familiar with Dennett, but I have heard of him. Not sure what book you've just read, but Susan Blackmores "The Meme Machine" is excellent and discusses some of the problems with Dennett's theory. She has a rather interesting take on the nature of consciousness herself.

Beth

Dennett's Consciousness Explained is a very interesting read. I think he is at least on the right track to finding an objective explanation of consciousness being produced by the brain. My roommate has read The Meme Machine and recommended it but my reading list only seems to get longer so I haven't got around to it. The other book was called simply Information, the author escapes me but I'll update you if it comes to me.

 

[drkitten]

There are some objective physical things in this scenario. Your taste experience of other types of sashimi for example. Everything else is rather weak due to the fact that it is based upon reportings of others personal experiences.

That's very close to my point, though.

From my perspective, inside my head, the most objective and strongest evidence that I have is my personal taste experience. If I had tried several types of sashimi and hated them all, I'd be acting rationally to believe that I would hate blowfish and to avoid it on that basis. But you can't share my perspective or experiences, so you can't (fully) understand them.

From your perspective, outside my head, the most objective and strongest evidence is probably the restaurant review.

But you're almost certainly not going to be able to convince me to try blowfish sashimi on the basis of a review, if I already "know" from personal experience that I hate other types.

I submit that such a sashimi hater is not being hypocritical if he disbelives in something for which he has seen no convincing evidence (like mediums), while believing in something for which he has personally experienced strong, if non-transferrable evidence (like the taste of other kinds of sashimi).

My question was essentially where is the evidence that was mentioned, and I'm taking away from this example that all we have are third hand reportings of personal experience. That means something, but not really a whole lot. All it tells me is about people's personal experiences, it doesn't really get me any further to explaining how God works.

Well, a lot of the people who are big into the personal experience aspect of God don't care whether you can explain Him or no. A number of influential theologians have even claimed that attempting to explain how God words is ipso facto a Bad Idea, because God is beyond mortal explanation. A lot of other theists figure that their personal experience is theirs, and your personal experience of God is yours.

The fundamental problem is the unsharability of experience, not the unreality of it. I can prove, to my own satisfaction, how a particular kind of food tastes by trying it. But I can't even describe it to you, let alone prove it, unless you try the food as well. And it may not even taste the same to you. There's a classic high-school biology experiment, where the ability of a human to taste PTC (phenlythiocarbamide) is known to be genetically controlled. I'm a PTC non-taster. I don't know what it tastes like, and I never will. But I see no reason to reject your claim that it tastes bitter.

 

[Harlequin]

Bravo jmercer. I think it takes courage to discuss strong personal beliefs in the way you have here, in what might be considered a hostile environment.

Maybe the term "double-standard" is better than "hypocritical". I think it more closely resembles the concern. "Hypocritical" implies some sort of dishonesty that I just don't see in jmercer.

The start of this thread was about whether one can be skeptical and religious. We seem to have concluded that one can be, but possibly not at the same time! I think being skeptical about religion gets you into the type of Christianity that rppa describes (something like an agnostic that goes to church)?

Maybe we should stay away from discussions about what it takes to be a Skeptic. This is likely to be as difficult to define as someone who claims to be a Christian. On the face of it, it seems easy. We had a lot of discussion earlier in the thread about what you need to believe to call yourself a Christian. However, I think we all know that there is no single universally accepted definition of Christian, so perhaps it is not surprising that Skeptics will also disagree.

As long as this doesn't turn into an "I'm more skeptical than you" argument, I think it is useful. Christians(the rational ones) often like to debate with either unbelievers or other Christians, so that they can strengthen their own understanding of their beliefs.

Is this what we're doing for skepticism?

 

[tommyz]

As long as this doesn't turn into an "I'm more skeptical than you" argument, I think it is useful. Christians(the rational ones) often like to debate with either unbelievers or other Christians, so that they can strengthen their own understanding of their beliefs.

Is this what we're doing for skepticism?

Nevermind what we can do for skepticism, albeit a very noble virture I will always and forever hold near and dear to my heart.
There is something even greater than that, and it's called PEACE.

Sure we can debate back and forth, on and on and on ad infinitum about these matters, but in the long run, where's that going to get any of us? True victory can only be achieved by the victory over the conflict we have within ourselves, NOT with other people. Yes, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but that's strictly MY business, and I'm not even going to attempt to convert anyone either. What you believe about god or the complete lack thereof is a decision that YOU and ONLY YOU can make, nobody else.

And if my personal beliefs give you a reason to get all upset, offended, insulted or annoyed, then the difficulty is truly yours, not mine.

All that I can ask of ANYONE is that they treat their fellow man with honesty, integrity, dignity, respect, tolerance and compassion --whoever they are, and whatever they may believe in, god or no god. Is that asking too much? Or is that too complicated of a concept for us?

 

[rppa]

Edited: Duplicate post deleted.

Aren't we supposed to be able to delete our own posts? That feature doesn't work for me.

 

[rppa]

I think discussions covering religious beliefs are pointless and dangerous, and threaten the civility which is such a hallmark of this community. So I am no longer interested in that aspect of this discussion.

However, I would like to discuss what I consider the bizarre prejudice against any description of the subjective at all.

Let us suppose that you one day discover that, for no apparent reason, you experience simultaneously thoughts of your grandmother, the smell of garlic, hearing the opening notes from a Bartok symphony, and an overwhelming feeling of well-being and contentment. Now, this strikes you as peculiar, but the experience is very strong. Being a skeptical and a curious person, you begin doing some experiments. Shortly you learn that this experience is repeated exactly every time you think of the word "Nantucket" while walking fast.

You do the experiment repeatedly. Every time you do it, you are greeted with the same powerful rush of mental symptoms. As a control, you experiment with walking at different paces, with thinking of other words, with trying other stimuli. You find that the stimulus is very specific, but when you repeat it, the experience is identical.

Now there is nothing going on here which can be independently measured and verified by another observer. It's a purely subjective experience. You are doing your best to examine it objectively and scientifically, yet there is nothing here which is capable of being objectively validated.

If we carry some of the principles espoused in this thread, then the poor person experiencing this is to be told:
(a) he is not a True Skeptic, because he has formulated a hypothesis about his symptoms, and those symptoms are entirely subjective.
(b) even to talk about this subjective experience, to try to describe the repeatability of it and his experimental method, is somehow "Not True Skepticism" but "Faith" due to the subjective and unmeasurable nature of the phenomenon.
(c) A True Skeptic wouldn't even do the experiments, let alone believe that the experience was or wasn't happening. It would have no truth value. He would not formulate a hypothesis about it. To believe that this subjective experience is really happening is hypocritical of him, since he is only allowed to believe in things which can be observed outside his own skull.

Comment? Have I mischaracterized the view of what it means to be a True Skeptic when dealing with inherently subjective phenomena?