Formulating a rational defense of skepticism (a work in progress)

[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.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Care to explain how one might leverage skepticism against skepticisim? Would that be like "not believing in not believing"? lol.

Why do any of those truths need to be protected?

[idunno]

wouldn't logic also be necessary for a coherent worldview?

[Jackalope]

I'm following you, yes. I've given much thought to the subject in an attempt to be as consistent and rational in my views as possible.

The axioms that I consciously use are these:

A1) Reality exists. (tautological as per the definition of reality)
A2) Reality is observable. (the converse, while not self-refuting, puts one in a rather untenable position)
A3) I exist. (I believe the converse is sufficiently self-refuting to make this a useful and defensible axiom)

A2 does not imply that a particular observer may observe all of reality, of course. The observer must be properly located (spatially, temporally, etc) and be equipped with necessary sensory organs or technology to make an observation.

It's my opinion that pure reason is limited, and that empiricism and reason must be used together to maximize the value of observation. I'll add that individual observation is not necessarily trustworthy and should not be treated as such unless independently and vigorously confirmed, and that it is reasonable to conclude the the probability that an observation reflects reality correlates to the quality of confirmation.

---

wouldn't logic also be necessary for a coherent worldview?

Logic falls under the umbrella of reason, which the OP addressed.

[idunno]

quite right, overlooked that because it wasn't in the list at the bottom (all spelled out for me)

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that I don't believe it's better. I'm simply a skeptical person. It's useful, but I don't have to believe in it's usefulness. What would be irrational about being skeptical with regards to skepticism? I am, my skepticism has no effect on the truth of any given matter presented to me. I might be skeptical of something that is rock solid.

Would I have to rationally justify anything I did if I didn't exist? Whether or not I feel obligated to follow a law has very little to do with whether or not the world is real.............and I don't trust my intuitions..almost as a rule..because surprise, surprise...I seem to have been given a faulty set of intuitions (just like the majority of humanity).

I don't believe in any of these things Vinny, and yet I have a functional existence. I'm very aware of the problems with each of these propositions.

(I find it incredibly unsatisfying that you're attempting to avoid those problems by turning these propositions into axioms. If these things are so integral to your life, your rational justifications, then perhaps you should find a way to more convincingly demonstrate them? Is there any problem that can't be "solved" by simply claiming "It's an axiom"? Sigh.)

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Except that I don't believe it's better. I'm simply a skeptical person. It's useful, but I don't have to believe in it's usefulness. What would be irrational about being skeptical with regards to skepticism? I am, my skepticism has no effect on the truth of any given matter presented to me. I might be skeptical of something that is rock solid.

Would I have to rationally justify anything I did if I didn't exist? Whether or not I feel obligated to follow a law has very little to do with whether or not the world is real.............and I don't trust my intuitions..almost as a rule..because surprise, surprise...I seem to have been given a faulty set of intuitions (just like the majority of humanity).

I don't believe in any of these things Vinny, and yet I have a functional existence. I'm very aware of the problems with each of these propositions

(I find it incredibly unsatisfying that you're attempting to avoid those problems by turning these propositions into axioms. If these things are so integral to your life, your rational justifications, then perhaps you should find a way to more convincingly demonstrate them? Is there any problem that can't be "solved" by simply claiming "It's an axiom"? Sigh.)

So your skepticism is not rational, it's simply a part of your personality. This is a remarkable admission. Refreshingly honest. Every one of us with egos strains to say they are trying to be rational, but you are openly defending your skepticism not on the basis of reason, but on the basis of yourself. C'est beautiful!

So you have to tell us then, why do you do what you do? What motivates you? Is it reason? Is it truth? Or is it hedonism and feelings? The latter is certainly not an inferior choice. In fact it's better than an appeal to reason and truth, because it's honest.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't know Vinny, I don't give it much thought. I don't know I'd go so far as to say my skepticism isn't rational though, simply because it's a part of my nature. Perhaps being reasonable is also a part of my nature. By the by, I was going to ask you this last post. Aren't you expressing skepticism about skepticism? Pretty sure I was defending skepticism on the basis of it's usefulness btw.

I think you jumped the gun on this one, sorry.

[Angrboda]