Skeptics

Is it accurate to say that skepticism is to not take anything on faith? Then, it would seem that skepticism is self-paralyzing, if nothing else.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of this?

GK Chesterton in Orthodoxy wrote: That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H.G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all—the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.

Ignoring the drivel in the box and just addressing your statement... explain why being skeptical would be paralyzing.

Then, think of all of the technical advancements that from the Age of Enlightenment thru today have been provided by the application of reason and logic to problems. Whether you believe they are for the good or ill of mankind... Does that seem like paralyses?

I would submit that "all religious authority was aimed against" stifling disruptive questions in order to protect religious authority, not to defend against the dreaded evil skeptics who were out to destroy rational thought as this author seems to be painting the situation.

Skepticism does not lead inevitably to paralysis. It is perfectly possible and logical to begin from the premise that reality is real - A is A. Being skeptical of faith-based assertions that are not observable, provable, or demonstrable does NOT inevitably lead to automatic questioning of every thought and observation ever had.

And, frankly, it doesn't matter if what looks blue to you smells like tuna fish to me, as long as our discussion of the object in question reaches a common frame of reference. We don't even need to agree about the object itself, just that it is an object in reality.

I think OP has being skeptical confused with refusing/denying any and everything.

Ultimately, you have to take on faith that observations or at least logic is reliable. Why should it be so?

Everybody has a tenancy to be skeptic to something. Yes, scardeal, even me. Paralyzing? No.

scardeal wrote: Ultimately, you have to take on faith that observations or at least logic is reliable. Why should it be so?

There is no faith in the fact that 1+1=2 or that planes fly. Do you believe that if you drop an apple one day it won't fall to the ground? Why? Because you KNOW what happens when you drop things. Future predictions are based on past success. If you add 1+1 and get 7 you are doing it wrong.

BTW, from wikipedia regarding Skepticism:

Skepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2] The word may characterise a position on a single matter, as in the case of religious skepticism, which is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)",[3] but philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all new information to be well supported by evidence.[4] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[5] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[6] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.[7]

I'm assuming that we mean the bolded by skepticism.

Can the answer beMiata?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: There is no faith in the fact that 1+1=2 or that planes fly. Do you believe that if you drop an apple one day it won't fall to the ground? Why? Because you KNOW what happens when you drop things. Future predictions are based on past success. If you add 1+1 and get 7 you are doing it wrong.

That is, if your senses are reliable, and that the universe is reasonable. As a skeptic, you cannot take that on faith.

DrBoost wrote: Can the answer beMiata?

Of course ;)

I had faith my car would start this morning. So much so that I carried out my morning routine on that belief. I even scheduled the day on the unproven assumption it would start.

None the less when I turned the ignition key this morning I waited until I had absolute proof that the engine was indeed running before I even attempted to start driving it.

Faith does not have to equate folly.

Skepticism does not preclude faith.

scardeal wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Future predictions are based on past success. If you add 1+1 and get 7 you are doing it wrong.

That is, if your senses are reliable, and that the universe is reasonable. As a skeptic, you cannot take that on faith.

Being skeptical does indeed require that all new assertions be based on a substantial amount of observable evidence. However, that does not mean that I have to restart my entire intellectual existence from Ground Zero when I return to consciousness each and every morning. There is enough observed evidence to stipulate that reality is real.

If you want you can go belly-button-gazing as far as you like, certainly, until you do manage to kill your own intellect. But nothing about skepticism as a system of thought requires you to make that pointless pilgrimage.

I respectfully submit that there is a reality-based level of skepticism that does not include questioning every atom of existence every moment of every day... and that using this level of skepticism is a healthy alternative to pure faith. After all, if you never question faith and dogma, your intellect is just as stone dead as it is if you can't manage to stay convinced that because you think, therefore you are.

The main difference is this: a navel-gazer who questions his own existence to the point of paralysis only takes himself out of the equation. But a religion that condemns questioning to the point of paralyzing free thought controls an entire society... I know which one I think is a more evil proposition.

Something to keep in mind with this is that all skeptics are not the same. Assuming this is as much a folly as assuming all Christians, Jews or Muslims are the same because they all worship the same general deity.

What is enough proof for one skeptic might not be enough proof for another skeptic.

I'll bet there's an appropriate place for threads like this.

I think the word that Scardeal is looking for is Axiom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths...."

So yes, he is correct, you could say there is some "faith" in math / science / logic, but I am not sure if there is anyone that would be considered sane would doubt axioms though and it in no way reaches the level of assumtion that faith is commonly attributed to.

To put it in a religious context: Believing in God is considered "faith" because you have no real evidence. For God to reach the level of an axiom, he (it?) would have to appear before people, be photographed, interact, do things, real solid evidence etc. Certainly there would be some wild possibility that God did not exist at that point, but a skeptic would be considered ridiculous to deny it.

Zomby woof wrote: I'll bet there's an appropriate place for threads like this.

I was just thinking "Advertiser's Playground". Coincidence?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Zomby woof wrote: I'll bet there's an appropriate place for threads like this.

I was just thinking "Advertiser's Playground". Coincidence?

I feel a little skeptical about that.

N Sperlo wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Zomby woof wrote: I'll bet there's an appropriate place for threads like this.

I was just thinking "Advertiser's Playground". Coincidence?

I feel a little skeptical about that.

From the Wikipedia page on Skepticism you referenced (bolding mine):

Skepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2] The word may characterise a position on a single matter, as in the case of religious skepticism, which is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)",[3] but philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all new information to be well supported by evidence.[4] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[5] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[6] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.

You are confusing philosophical skepticism (being skeptical of everything simply because we can) with being skeptical of things that defy logic and reason. Nobody here has claimed to be a philosophical skeptic.

Bob

"Faith" is sometimes used as a synonym for "confidence," which is fine. It can also mean "Belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven scientifically...", a different meaning entirely.

I have confidence in reason as a useful process to seek the truth. To equate that confidence with religious "faith" is silly. In any event, reason is not a "faith" or a matter of faith. It is a process.

I'm a Nigerian prince in exile. I'm on the run, but I have a great fortune that I need to keep moving around. You could be of assistance to me in helping to transfer my wealth to the U.S. Naturally I am willing to share my wealth with you for assisting me and my family. Just send me your banking info and I will transfer $3 million to you tomorrow with further instructions.

How should we approach this - with faith or skepticism? Will your decision paralyze your thinking for the day?

Science wouldn't exist if skepticism were paralyzing. We'd all stil believe that the sun revolves around the earth if we just accepted everything we were told on faith.

And as chuckles says, there's a big difference between "expectations" based on past experience, and "faith" in something that can't be proven, or more harmfully, something that flies in the face of objective facts.

Skepticism does not preclude making logical inductions or deductions. For example, I do not have to take it on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun rose today, yesterday, the day before that, the day before that... I can induce that it will rise tomorrow. If I wanted more evidence, I could turn to Astronomy and theories of planetary orbits to support why the sun would continue to "rise" in the morning.

An astronomer could study orbits and come to the conclusion that tomorrow the sun will be blacked out from the sky at noon. If I had never seen an eclipse before, I would probably be skeptical of their claim. If they showed me evidence of planetary orbits, I might be inclined to not be so skeptical. If I saw an eclipse, I would no longer be skeptical.

Now, if I saw an eclipse on my own, and someone claimed it had occurred because a great dragon swallowed the sun and then spit it out, I would be skeptical of their claim. If someone claimed it was because the moon got in the way of the sun, I would be inclined to believe them, but remain skeptical without further evidence. When they show me models, calculations, and are able to predict future events, that satisfies my skepticism.

aircooled wrote: To put it in a religious context: Believing in God is considered "faith" because you have no real evidence. For God to reach the level of an axiom, he (it?) would have to appear before people, be photographed, interact, do things, real solid evidence etc. Certainly there would be some wild possibility that God did not exist at that point, but a skeptic would be considered ridiculous to deny it.

Many religious people can point to evidence of why they believe in God. There are documented "miracles". I remain skeptical of these, because there are alternate explanations to how they occurred that make as much or more logical sense given the evidence around. I do not consider the image of Jesus on a piece of toast a miracle.

Now, just because one holds certain religious or mystical beliefs, doesn't mean you can't be skeptical of them. I believe there are paranormal events that occur and that certain locations are "haunted". I am skeptical of the nature of what these phenomena are, because no one has provided sufficient evidence that what they are hypothesizing is the case. It is the difference between some credible evidence, preponderance of the evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems like people are touching on a lot of what I would say in response. I might have a couple of finer points from my perspective, but here's the part that got my attention. I'm not sure whether you're quoting something that's quoting something, or whether you just got the rest of your own words inside the blockquote. In any case:

Scardeal or the article quoting the inner article said: But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason.

There are plenty of holes in the fundamental assertion about paralysis, but I find this cuddly depiction of the inquisitions and crusades to be chilling. A lot.