Believing what I read - a Skeptic's course

by jgnat 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  BurnTheShips: can I question the questioning? Can I be skeptical about skepticism?

  Sure. Since I am a natural skeptic, I'm up to the challenge. What are the flaws of skepticism?

  hmike: It's not only fashionable; it seems to be necessary for our survival.

  
  

  *rant* Then, please tell me, where are the skeptics? I despair. I find the post-Nixon generation to rather be cynical than skeptical. They disbelieve without question. Where are the researchers, the analysts, the socratic questioning, the earnest search for meaning? Knowledge has been reduced to the sound byte. If your message cannot be conveyed in sixty seconds, it is not heard. *rant over*

  drew, that book is going on to my "Must Read" list.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Jgnat.

  Unbridled skepticism destroys truth. Without truth there can be no knowledge. Therefore skepticism destroys knowledge. You can't ever be more than a partial or selective skeptic, which could be considered hypocritical.

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Jgnat

  I am not advocating unbridled credulity either.

  Just sayin'

  Burn
• 

  AWAKE&WATCHING

  This is why I love JWD. Kudos to you all.
• 

  jgnat

  Burn the ships, if we are going to question skepticism, we are going to apply a skeptic's rigor. Instead, you've provided a long string of declarative statements. I'll take the first one, and let's follow it to ground.

  Unbridled skepticism destroys truth.

  What is "unbridled" skepticism? Would an "unbridled" skeptic challenge ALL statements, regardless of degree or utility? I agree an "unbridled" skeptic would find it difficult to navigate through a single day without difficulty, such as the notable example here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/35001/1.ashx

  What other problems might an "unbridled" skeptic encounter?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Skepticism is self denying. Hence "Can I be skeptical about skepticism?".
• 

  jgnat

  BurnTheShips, you are weaseling out of reason. Do you realize you've replaced one declarative statement with another? Are you willing to go through this exercise with me?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Would an "unbridled" skeptic challenge ALL statements, regardless of degree or utility?

  Yes. That is what I meant by "unbridled". Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism even valid. Can we question the questioning?

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  BurnTheShips, you are weaseling out of reason. Do you realize you've replaced one declarative statement with another? Are you willing to go through this exercise with me?

  I don't see how. Maybe you should spell it out for me.

  Burn
• 

  jgnat

  Do you see what I am doing? I am running the first declaration to ground, testing it and being as sure as I can be before I move on. This is what a skeptic does.

  So before we consider if an "unbridled" skeptic would also turn on itself, let's continue on if "unbridled" skepticism is practical or do-able in daily life.

  In the example I provided, an "unbridled" skeptic would manage to eat, though with some difficulty.

  There are a few things in life that are automatic, like breathing. That is even if I question the utility of breathing, it will happen anyways. If I try and stop breathing, I will black out and my automatic systems would take over and I would start breathing again. So I could question the necessity of breathing all I want; I have no choice in the matter. I will still breathe. The same with gravity and a very short list of other things.

  I would like to explore this thought further, but perhaps you will lose patience with me.

  So let's consider the next concept. Will an "unbridled" skeptic by necessity, question the need to question everything? Most likely yes. In the utilitarian examples provided above, the skeptic may decide to accept a short list of "givens". This will allow him to eat, sleep, walk, and get through his day. Does it naturally follow then that all questioning is useless? No.