The way out of these dilemmas, it seems to me, is provided by the distinction between politics and morality. Even though we as skeptics understand that science is the best way of discovering truth about the physical world, others do not understand this, or at least find discovering truth about the physical world peripheral to other concerns. So long as their actions do not harm others, we must regrettably permit others to act on these beliefs, simply because coercion is unlikely to improve the situation. We can hope to persuade voluntarily, through personal example and through vigorous articulation of why science and critical thinking are important, but skepticism about the defining institutions of politics demands that we not use force against people who believe in faith healing, laetrile, and channeling. These issues are especially difficult today, since the application of a critical perspective to the institution of government distinguishes the politics of a skeptic from both liberalism and conservatism.
Liberals hold an almost religious belief in the effectiveness of government as a social tool.
They tend to regard human society as inherently beset with problems, problems that government is called on to fix. A willingness to question the effectiveness of government as a solver of social problems is not characteristic of modern liberalism. It is therefore difficult to reconcile with the politics of skepticism. But neither is conservatism a friend of critical inquiry. Conservatives maintain an unwillingness to examine assumptions about the effectiveness of government as an inculcator of virtue and a cultivator of values.