The value of skepticism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The value of skepticism » The value of skepticism

The value of skepticism

Page: 1 2

The value of skepticism

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 03/11/09 - 09:48 AM: Subject: The value of skepticism	#1
Why is doubt better than belief? When the issue is the unknowable, conjecture keeps the mind strong. Blind faith weakens the mind. The believer resides in a delusional world depending on others for support in maintaining his unsupportable position. The support of others allows the believer to bask in the warmth of knowing he is right. The skeptic is never allowed this benefit. He questions opinion and position, relying on wit and reason to lead him to understanding. He maintains his alertness, sharpness and intelligence. He never closes his mind to consideration of the ineffable. This position keeps the world fresh in his eyes.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 03/11/09 - 10:19 AM:	#2
Your post consists of one question, followed by nine assertions that show no trace of doubt. Clearly you are no skeptic.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 03/13/09 - 06:20 AM:	#3
aletheist wrote: Your post consists of one question, followed by nine assertions that show no trace of doubt. Clearly you are no skeptic. My skepticism is aimed at belief in the supernatural, which you would have clearly seen if you had read the post rather than counted the assertions. Edited by noscholar on 03/13/09 - 06:41 AM

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 03/13/09 - 06:50 AM:	#4
noscholar wrote: My skepticism is aimed at belief in the supernatural. Then I would suggest that you are not a skeptic, but a naturalist. A true skeptic would doubt the proposition that nothing supernatural exists just as much as the proposition that something supernatural exists. noscholar wrote: When the issue is the unknowable, conjecture keeps the mind strong. How do you know that the supernatural is unknowable? noscholar wrote: The skeptic is never allowed this benefit. He questions opinion and position, relying on wit and reason to lead him to understanding. In this sense, all of us are skeptics regarding views with which we disagree. The challenge--and, I would submit, one of the most important functions of philosophy--is to be skeptical enough to doubt our own beliefs, as well, and subject them to thoughtful and thorough criticism; especially the underlying assumptions that often go unstated.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5134

Posted 03/13/09 - 01:44 PM:	#5
noscholar wrote: Why is doubt better than belief? It isn't. Both require grounds for warrant. "Doubt without grounds" is as irrational as "belief without grounds", and is (methodologically) inferior to "belief with grounds". Simply put, assuming that a truth-claim requires specifiable truth-conditions in order to determine (i.e. test) the claim's truth-value, lacking truth-conditions (even in principle) is the ground for doubting a truth-claim, and the ground for believing a truth-claim is its determined truth-value (or that of a mutually exclusive, alternative claims). Skipping a number of qualifications, this heuristic informs my philosophical skepticism (i.e. doubting "philosophical statements" (i.e. judgments) as truth-claims). aletheis wrote: A true skeptic would doubt the proposition that nothing supernatural exists just as much as the proposition that something supernatural exists. A Pyrrhonian would doubt that a Dogmatic Skeptic (i.e. Academic / global) is "a true skeptic". noscholar wrote: My skepticism is aimed at belief in the supernatural. Then I would suggest that you are not a skeptic, but a naturalist. Fallacy of false dichotomy. He could be a "solipsist" or "idealist" or (ontological) "nihilist" ... and, where there are more than two options, doubting one belief does not entail another belief.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 03/22/09 - 12:23 PM:	#6
180 Proof wrote: It isn't. Both require grounds for warrant. "Doubt without grounds" is as irrational as "belief without grounds", and is (methodologically) inferior to "belief with grounds". Simply put, assuming that a truth-claim requires specifiable truth-conditions in order to determine (i.e. test) the claim's truth-value, lacking truth-conditions (even in principle) is the ground for doubting a truth-claim, and the ground for believing a truth-claim is its determined truth-value (or that of a mutually exclusive, alternative claims). Skipping a number of qualifications, this heuristic informs my philosophical skepticism (i.e. doubting "philosophical statements" (i.e. judgments) as truth-claims). Thanks for the tutorial. Let me try again. The gist of my concern is that many religious belief systems depend on 'blind faith'-that is, in the existence of a supernatural entity beyond empirical reach. I would argue that claiming to 'know god' often times leads to acknowledgement of 'god's will' as an explanation for and excuse to not concern oneself with questioning (of a philosophical nature). This is, in my opinion, a mind deadening position. Better to doubt, question, live in uncertainty but maintain a fully functioning intellect.

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 319

Posted 03/22/09 - 12:51 PM:	#7
noscholar wrote: The gist of my concern is that many religious belief systems depend on 'blind faith'-that is, in the existence of a supernatural entity beyond empirical reach. Every religion has its "proof" or evidence supporting their God's existence. For instance the various accounts of Jesus' miracles in the New Testament "support" the Christians thesis that Jesus was the Messiah. Also there is an interesting line of Bayesian argumentation that uses the improbability of synchronicity as evidence for the existence of God. Either way, I have never seen blind faith and I think that belief in a God consists in either the adherence to a religious text and or the belief in synchronicity.
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

Heathen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 229

Posted 03/22/09 - 07:24 PM:	#8
noscholar wrote: Thanks for the tutorial. Let me try again. The gist of my concern is that many religious belief systems depend on 'blind faith'-that is, in the existence of a supernatural entity beyond empirical reach. I would argue that claiming to 'know god' often times leads to acknowledgement of 'god's will' as an explanation for and excuse to not concern oneself with questioning (of a philosophical nature). This is, in my opinion, a mind deadening position. Better to doubt, question, live in uncertainty but maintain a fully functioning intellect. 1) religious belief is hardly alone in this 2) skepticism is based on certainties about epistemology, experience, memory and these axioms are believed in in a religious manner by skeptics. an example of this is your assertion that 'it is better to doubt'. This can only be based on intuition. I truly doubt you have done some sort of empirical research to back up this claim and I am skeptical that one could really go about setting up control groups, etc. Why you are not skeptical about this assertion is one question. IOW you are suggesting, it seems, that a lifestyle based on doubt is better than one based on certainty. But this belief itself is presented as certain. So your version of skepticism has merely moved certainty to a slightly more meta position, but the certainty lives on at that level quite solidly. Edited by Heathen on 03/22/09 - 07:34 PM

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 03/22/09 - 07:55 PM:	#9
Heathen wrote: 2) skepticism is based on certainties about epistemology, experience, memory and these axioms are believed in in a religious manner by skeptics. Didn't 180 just state that: A Pyrrhonian would doubt that a Dogmatic Skeptic (i.e. Academic / global) is "a true skeptic".
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 03/26/09 - 05:33 PM:	#10
et cetera wrote: Every religion has its "proof" or evidence supporting their God's existence. For instance the various accounts of Jesus' miracles in the New Testament "support" the Christians thesis that Jesus was the Messiah. Also there is an interesting line of Bayesian argumentation that uses the improbability of synchronicity as evidence for the existence of God. Either way, I have never seen blind faith and I think that belief in a God consists in either the adherence to a religious text and or the belief in synchronicity. Taking any written document as 'proof' of the existence of a supernatural entity I would still call 'blind faith'.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.