The Nature of Scepticism

Then why do we bother with evidence of any kind at all?What purpose does it serve?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Not to be ironic, but you probably shouldn't try to lecture on knowledge and methods to arrive at it when you are ignorant of how many algebraic postulates there are (the very methods you are giving examples of are wrong.)If you are ignorant of what the actual axioms are, or if you exclude some to fit in with a preconcieved notion (in this case a numerological bias) you cannot use them to derive truth.

If "Truth" is a black box that we can't unlock, it's worthless. The only way we can know what is real and actually exists is by observing it. An "ideal" of what it might be is worthless.

Right.And all this you ask for was resolved when the Scientific Method was devised in the 18th century.
Scientists thens began gathering facts about Reality which everyone (willing to set up the exact same laboratory conditions) would observe.

We gather the evidence in order to describe the ever unfolding Reality and avoid the insanity of living in some fantasy based upon ideas that are not true.

The Father of modern Philosophy, Rene Descartes said yes.He accepted the one axiom that he existed, then used his seven senses to verify the existence of other things.
This was the essence of the Scientific Method we use today.

Creationists aren't going to like that comment!

I can accept "Cogito ergo sum" as a starting point for inquiry. I don't however think it should be immune from critical analysis or unquestioningly accepted as axiomatic (both Hume and Nietzsche to name but two found it wanting).But if for pragmatic purposes of starting inquiry somewhere that you want to call that an "axiom" I am not going to overly object.So is "Cogito ergo sum" the only axiom you are putting forward? The one axiom that you think underpins all methods of knowledge acquisition?Or are you suggesting that every proposed method of knowledge acquisition has it's onw specific axioms?

The only way to observe Christ as being real...more than a 3 dimensional concept...is to observe those who claim to have Christ in them.Edited by Phat, :

I suppose there is a huge difference between questioning myself and doubting myself.Im remaking my videos on Blog TV and continually deleting old videos and making newer ones that more accurately reflect my belief.My belief is basically the same as it was when I "Got Saved" (Coming into communion with the Creator of all seen and unseen)But as far as my understanding...it always evolves.Edited by Phat, : clarificationEdited by Phat, :

I know.
And look at what has happened to their church attendance.
They have buil a fantasy world inside their congregations that requires their members to argue and support lies.This is compounded by the hypocrisy of preaching self control over one's sexual behavior and urges, (as evidenced within the RCC, but equally as wide spread in every religious group including the Rabbi and minsiters of the denominatioinal Protestants, they attack the very science that coukd support their medieval bible teachings simply because their loyalty to their oparticukar Faith has always taught Genesis that way).The saving grace of the church lies in it long history of Charity, and they better build upon that record by establishing a rational and sane relationship with Science and academic facts.

quote:

---

This is compounded by the hypocrisy of preaching self control over one's sexual behavior and urges, (as evidenced within the RCC, but equally as wide spread in every religious group including the Rabbi and ministers of the denominational Protestants, they attack the very science that could support their medieval bible teachings simply because their loyalty to their particular Faith has always taught Genesis that way).

---

Lets get real for a moment. Sexual behavior is human. Humans can control what they choose to do...within reason. The issue is not gay or straight. The issue is not promiscuity...apart from commitment. Quite frankly, we were never meant to be polygamists. The issue is male and female. The problem with sexual pleasure devoid of personal responsibility is a matter of idolatry. The sin of any sexual obsession or habit is one of idolatry. Bowing down to the human rather than the Divine. Is anyone skeptical of this truth?Edited by Phat, : clarification

1) We need to more clearly recognize that an axiom is something that can not be proven, and some people (as you mentioned above) might refuse to accept that axiom as valid.We see this with the YECs who refuse to accept the science Axiom of a First Cause.
Hence, YECs can and do deny Science the foundation for its claim of natural Cause and Effect in every case.They are then able to assert supernatural "causes," always challenging Science on the singular example of the old "Chicken and the Egg" conundrum about the First Cause.With that clear, we can understand that a Postulate or an Axiom is always constructed and inherent in every academic discipline.Therefore, in every case, an initial agreement is always required of the one side by those people who intend to use arguments based upon the disciplines to which they will refer as their proofs and evidence.2) Though each discipline of academics sets forth its own initial postulates, I do think they are all founded upon the singular observation of Descartes.Essentially, Descartes was saying that, he would rely upon his seven senses as sources of external information which created ideas inside his head, but not original to himself.
He was forced by his own axiom to concede that some external OTHER source also thinks, exists.He saw the incoming signals as thoughts (messages) reaching into his mind.
But they were not in themselves sourced by his own mind.Essentially, Descartes was recognizing "The Other." (Jean Paul Sartre: "Existentialism )He was asserting that he was not alone, as he previously had axiomatically claimed.
He was recognizing that "other" entity that, through these incoming bits of information, said to him, "I am."
He was recognizing that he was inside, like in a fenced garden, (Eden?), and Reality, that Other thing which he now could prove (to himself) did exist too.Descartes had said, "I think, hence I exist."
But thereafter, from that axiom, it followed that thinking was coming unbidden from some other source that he had to acknowledge for the same reason: "'It' thinks inside my head, so it also exists," (that other external reality).3) Of course, I have no evidence that he did this because the Church reacted to his publishing of the book, "The Rules of the Mind" by buying up every single copy Rene had managed to publish on his own.I suspect that the Vatican might some day agree wit me on this and release those writings, but it is certain that if I am saying what Rene said, they would have silenced him thereafter had he not died from exhaustion in his service to the Queen, Catherine.

Yes, but the scientific method can only approach "truth". It can devise an image that resembles reality more and more closely but the image can never be reality. Thus, it makes no difference whether "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth" exists at all. It is irrelevant to our understanding of reality.So skepticism is the understanding that Truth, if it even exists, can not be known and therefore we must continuously keep looking for approximate truth.

Unfortunately, those who claim to have Christ in them are often the poorest images. We need to be skeptical of those claims. Yes, there is. It's the difference between looking at your image in the mirror and calling yourself ugly.Honest questioning provides an opportunity for improvement.