Formulating a rational defense of skepticism (a work in progress)
August 31, 2012 at 1:17 am
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2012 at 1:25 am by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
This is my edited version of a paper I wrote when I was an undergrad. I reformatted it to make it more conversational and less focused on the selected topic.
Suggestions welcome:
Skepticism plays an important role in the atheist's worldview. So does reason. However, a coherent worldview can only be formed with the combination of the two. Rational skepticism is the holy grail of the atheist perspective on the world. Here the atheist has to be wary of two extremes, not just one. In being a skeptic, it's almost natural to know not to be too trusting. But how many know that it's equally problematic to be too skeptical?
The problem of uncontrolled skepticism is evident for even the beginner philosopher. No doubt, early in their philosophical life exposed to Descartes' methodological skepticism, the reader of Descartes' work is treated to what appears to be the slow unraveling of a person's sanity, if it were not just an exercise. Yes- here you see, that unreasonable, unmanaged skepticism leads to a sort of insanity. You start to question your own thoughts, your own reasons, your own needs, desires, beliefs, until you don't know what it is you believe any more. This, I believe is where the shrewd theist attacks the skeptic. He might point out that the skeptic's own skepticism is irrational as he takes his own skepticism by faith and fails to doubt it: "Why aren't you a skeptic of your skepticism?" He will ask.
Or he might try a different tack. He might point to the infinite skeptical regress as a reason to dismiss skepticism as a serious position. "But doesn't being skeptical about something mean you have to be skeptical of your skepticism, then be skeptical of your skepticism of your skepticism, then be skeptical of your skepticism of your skepticism of your...."
You get the point.
Evidently, this shows that skepticism on its own is a self-contradictory, irrational position to take. If you are merely a skeptic, you are merely irrational. If you want your skepticism to be rational, it needs to be combined with other axioms of a coherent worldview. These axioms combined with skepticism will give us a worldview that will rescue us from the Cartesian doubt of yore by giving it boundaries. It will give us meaningful beliefs and truths that we don't have to question so that we can live functionally. Among the truths we need to protect from skeptical inquiry are:
1) Do we exist?
2) Is the world around us real?
3) Are our intuitions trustable?
4) Is it justified to reject belief in God?
etc.
----------------------
(I have a list of axioms that I will go into further depth on later. But I want to know specifically if atheists are following me here, and they think there are any other truths that need to be protected in other to preserve a coherent worldview while being a skeptic. Let me know.)
Suggestions welcome:
Skepticism plays an important role in the atheist's worldview. So does reason. However, a coherent worldview can only be formed with the combination of the two. Rational skepticism is the holy grail of the atheist perspective on the world. Here the atheist has to be wary of two extremes, not just one. In being a skeptic, it's almost natural to know not to be too trusting. But how many know that it's equally problematic to be too skeptical?
The problem of uncontrolled skepticism is evident for even the beginner philosopher. No doubt, early in their philosophical life exposed to Descartes' methodological skepticism, the reader of Descartes' work is treated to what appears to be the slow unraveling of a person's sanity, if it were not just an exercise. Yes- here you see, that unreasonable, unmanaged skepticism leads to a sort of insanity. You start to question your own thoughts, your own reasons, your own needs, desires, beliefs, until you don't know what it is you believe any more. This, I believe is where the shrewd theist attacks the skeptic. He might point out that the skeptic's own skepticism is irrational as he takes his own skepticism by faith and fails to doubt it: "Why aren't you a skeptic of your skepticism?" He will ask.
Or he might try a different tack. He might point to the infinite skeptical regress as a reason to dismiss skepticism as a serious position. "But doesn't being skeptical about something mean you have to be skeptical of your skepticism, then be skeptical of your skepticism of your skepticism, then be skeptical of your skepticism of your skepticism of your...."
You get the point.
Evidently, this shows that skepticism on its own is a self-contradictory, irrational position to take. If you are merely a skeptic, you are merely irrational. If you want your skepticism to be rational, it needs to be combined with other axioms of a coherent worldview. These axioms combined with skepticism will give us a worldview that will rescue us from the Cartesian doubt of yore by giving it boundaries. It will give us meaningful beliefs and truths that we don't have to question so that we can live functionally. Among the truths we need to protect from skeptical inquiry are:
1) Do we exist?
2) Is the world around us real?
3) Are our intuitions trustable?
4) Is it justified to reject belief in God?
etc.
----------------------
(I have a list of axioms that I will go into further depth on later. But I want to know specifically if atheists are following me here, and they think there are any other truths that need to be protected in other to preserve a coherent worldview while being a skeptic. Let me know.)
