Skepticism is sexy.  It provides that slight tinge of self-satisfied aloofness.  You go ahead and believe that if you want.  I'll be along in a little bit after I've looked at it a little more thoroughly.  Or not.  It provides one with instant authority, instant gravitas.  I'm not presuming that these base motivations are behind all skeptics.  I know many very respectable skeptics.

I admit to a healthy skeptical streak myself.  Perhaps it's an unhealthy one.  Either way it's there, inculcated imperceptibly by both my culture and my faith.  Ironic, isn't it?  That faith calls one to put one's trust in the truthfulness of its object, but engenders skepticism at the same time, whispering all the time that all the other objects out there that claim to be truthful aren't.  Not fully or completely.  Doubt and skepticism is always couched in terms of something else, something that we are doubtful or skeptical of.  Because all of us believe in something.  None of us are complete skeptics about anything.  The most dubious and noncommital of us is committed to the idea that we can't trust anything or anyone completely.  

Doubt and skepticism - much like faith - has to be fed.  It is difficult to be passively doubtful, passively skeptical.  Not in any sort of meaningful, helpful way.  Doubting is an action.  Skepticism is not just an attitude, but a means of being.  We can't remain effectively dubious of something if we don't give that dubiousness something to chew on, something to validate it.  If there's no validation for our skepticism, we slide quickly towards either ignorance (which is truthfully where more people than not probably are, on the skepticism scale) or belief.  

I can appreciate and respect an honest skeptic.  Someone who is active in investigating the source of their doubt.  But I've begun to realize that skepticism is not a neutral stance.  Speaking in terms of faith and the Bible, being skeptical about truth claims made by the Bible is not a neutral stance.  It's not an objective stance, though it is often portrayed that way.  Being an effective doubter, a sincere skeptic, requires building that attitude and way of thinking.  And if you are actively seeking to bolster your opinion against something, you are not neutral.  

And if you're going to go to that sort of effort, it seems to make sense to recognize that an equal amount of effort could be made in the other direction.  Taking the position that such-and-such-isn't-very-likely requires no more effort than saying there's no-reason-such-and-such-couldn't-be-true.  It's not as sexy, but it's equally true.  If someone can actively build support towards the former, it's quite possible they could actively build support towards the latter without compromising their integrity or intellectual honesty.  Depends entirely on what exactly we're talking about.  

But it's a good thing for everyone involved in the conversation to recognize.  At least, I think it is.