With regards to gravity (which is technically another theory that is not yet actually proven 100%) I am going to live my life as if it is proven. I am not going to hold a coin out ni the air and have any expectation that it will do anything OTHER than fall directly to the ground.

I don’t have any doubts about gravity, either theoretical or practical, if one understands that when I use the term “gravity” here it means what it would to the average person. It is one thing to say that the scientific explanation of a particular phenomenon is an unproved theory, its another thing to entertain a doubt about an observable fact and its predictability.

Of course, there might be reasons why in one case or another gravity does not have its ordinary effect, but I have no doubt, theoretical or practical, that if I drop a coin it will fall. I don’t need “to live my life as if it is proven,” while theoretically entertaining a doubt. I don’t think skepticism in this respect is helpful at all.

If you agree with this as I have stated it, then I don’t think your use of the example of gravity is helpful to your advocacy of skepticism.

. . . it seems as if you believed I was of the mind set that “nothing can be certain, and how do we even know what reality is”. And while this is true on a theoretical debate kind of way, I live my life as if things are “certain enough”. I’ve had really odd debates with friends over these subjects, mostly as a running gag, but in my daily life I accept that things are as they seem.

Indeed, that is exactly what I surmised, and I don’t think a merely theoretical debate on this point should be considered insignificant, even if one acts as though things were true in spite of the fact that they remain in doubt. This is precisely why I have brought up the more fundamental issues that seem to underlie your blog question.

Epistemological skepticism historically has called into question the external world, the ability to have any confidence that our ideas correspond to anything in reality, the principle of non-contradiction and the very self. Not much left.

In my view, it does no good to argue that these are merely theoretical doubts, that skeptics continue to act “on the best evidence” that common sense may be safely followed, while reserving judgment theoretically. This is a fundamental philosophical point of view and would by necessity become a first principle of logic and moral discretion.

Great insights! Everything is a struggle nowadays.

I think we could argue forever about who is most to blame, men or women? We all bear the burden, and finger pointing is generally an exercise in self-indulgence.

I have to admit, while I try to point out the things that need to be changed with respect to both sexes, I do believe that a higher responsibility belongs to the man as head of the family. It is generally men, who, for whatever reason, abandon their families. They may feel as though they have no choice, given the behavior of the woman, but the responsibility lies heavier with them.

Wit the elf for example, I can not PROVE that it does not exist, but I am not going to live my life as if there is a chance that it does (i.e. I’m not going to leave it snacks, etc).

With regards to gravity (which is technically another theory that is not yet actually proven 100%) I am going to live my life as if it is proven. I am not going to hold a coin out ni the air and have any expectation that it will do anything OTHER than fall directly to the ground.

While I think a skepticism approach to life is a good, valuable, and necessary outlook, I also believe that once enough evidence is put forth (or a lack of evidence) then one can make a perfectly reasonable assertion that something does or does not exist, and live their life under this assumption until new evidence comes forth that challenges that belief.

While by definition very few things can ever be “proven” 100%, we can live our lives with “good enough” evidence to support our knowledge and as new evidence comes to light, reevaluate certain aspects if need be.

From reading your replies, I think you would agree with this philosophy. I don’t think we are as far off as you first believed, it seems as if you believed I was of the mind set that “nothing can be certain, and how do we even know what reality is”. And while this is true on a theoretical debate kind of way, I live my life as if things are “certain enough”. I’ve had really odd debates with friends over these subjects, mostly as a running gag, but in my daily life I accept that things are as they seem.

I believe we should always be reasonable, and as I said above, our

conclusions should be based on evidence rather than assumptions. . . we should weigh the value of a conclusion proportionally to the matter in hand and the weight of the evidence. . .

Evidence that might be lead to more than one conclusion, or a parvity of evidence will inspire me to be skeptical of a conclusion thus drawn. Furthermore, if evidence is based on the testimony of a witness, I will want to know the value of that person’s testimony as a witness and give that testimony the value due to it–no less and no more.

If you wish to speak of elves, then I will discuss the question in context, or perhaps I will dismiss it altogether as too foolish to even discuss; however, if that is “skepticism,” then it is only in the sense that the matter at hand warrants it. On the face of any consideration of the matter, the evidence, reasonably considered, warrants dismissal.

The proposition that skepticism should become a habit of mind has far reaching consequences that need to be examined. The very word “skepticism” implies that you might be advocating for a philosophical or epistemological doubt about the possibility of firm conclusions.

We return to more fundamental questions which are implied in your advocacy of skepticism. If you do believe it should be a fundamental habit of mind, then more important than any discussion of God or faith are questions about the nature of truth, or perhaps the possibility of it, the nature of certitude and its value, and what constitutes true knowledge as opposed to mere belief.

Obviously this argument is complete and utter bunk, and by DEFAULT you should be skeptical unless there is evidence to support my “elf theory”.

The same should go for any unusual claim, such as “natural medicines”, cryptological animals, alien visitations, ghosts, etc…

By default, if something seems to be outside the realm of the normal natural order of the way we understand the world to work, we should ALWAYS be skeptical…

I understand your point, and am well aware of the subjective certitude of people of different faiths, as you might imagine. Nevertheless, it is one thing to suggest that conclusions should be based on evidence rather than assumptions, and that we should weigh the value of a conclusion proportionally to the matter in hand and the weight of the evidence, it is quite another to suggest that skepticism should be a habit of mind.

I believe the mind is meant to arrive at conclusions, and that it is a good thing that it should. I believe that there is such a thing as truth and the mind is fundamentally ordered to it and capable of finding it.

Perhaps, it is only a matter of definition. Perhaps you only mean that one should hesitate before drawing a conclusion. If, on the other hand, your skepticism is a epistemological assertion, then that is a much different matter.

My blog’s banner changes quite often (in fact it just changed today when I posted the new article “Skeptical quotes of the moment” to reflect one of the many quotes from this post).

While the quotes I choose often are a good reflection of some aspect that I agree with, they are not necessarily a reflection of my entire believe system, or a reflection of the “purpose” of my blog.

My last few posts, and the next few I have already begun to write are based in large part on topics (such as fast food being bad for you, suv’s being bad for the environment, etc) that need a dose of skepticism.

The post I have invited you to also is one that skepticism can be a major factor in, but it is not my primary focus on this post. My focus on this post is for people to give a description of why they came to their own personal beliefs, either because of or despite the evidence. This has lead to a number of “side” discussions, but the overall goal of this post is for people to understand that just because you have “faith” in your religion does not automatically make it right. There are many different religions, and people following ALL OF THEM are just as convinced that their religion is correct, and for many of the same reasons.

Thank you for the invitation and the respectful inquiry.

From your blog’s banner:

“Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about “debunking” as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.”

Based on your laud of skepticism, and your particular definition of it, I really think the the presuppositions to your question, namely, those concerning the possibility of certitude and how that might be defined, and in general the nature and scope of knowledge as opposed to belief (of any kind), are much more preliminary questions that need to be discussed before any dialog concerning the relative differences of religious faith can be fruitfully conducted.

Mind you, I only proceed in this fashion because your question has a context, and that context is a philosophical defense of something you call skepticism.

Thank you again.

I am asking in all sincerity, because I do actually want to understand differing view points, and since you seem certain of your faith, I feel your input would be relevant.

Thank you in advance.