Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrKrinkles · 09-07-2002, 04:56 PM

This discussion of skepticism is interesting because there are times when Christians become universal skeptics in order to deny knowledge claims they do not like. For example, I have a link on my site to an article entitled <a href="http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html" target="_blank">Why the Christian God is Impossible</a> which details the logical contradictions of the Christian god. I had a Christian tell me that we can never say that God is impossible because we can never really be "100%" sure of anything. He claimed that in order to say that God is impossible, one must have "infallible knowledge." I asked him if he had "infallible knowledge" that he was right. : )

Anyway, in response I scanned and put up a section about universal skepticism from the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D087975124X/internetinfidelsA/102-9407909-0933750" target="_blank">Atheism: The Case Against God</a>. The author, George H. Smith, points out that:

Quote:

Universal doubt is rejected because of its inherent contradiction and presumption of infallibility. Rational doubt arises contextually; that is to say, doubt emerges in specific circumstances when the arguments and evidence offered in support of a proposition are determined to be defective or insufficient. The skeptic cannot bypass the particulars of a knowledge claim and merely assert that, since man is fallible, the knowledge claim deserves to be doubted. To do so is to commit the "infallibilist fallacy."

[The "infallibilst fallacy" is described earlier by Smith as "the equation of epistemological terms, such as 'knowledge' and 'certainty,' with a standard of infallibility, which is completely inappropriate to man and to the science of knowledge in general."]

In order to justify doubt, the skeptic must take issue with the specific argument and evidence offered in support of a knowledge claim. If the proposition in question can withstand scrutiny, it qualifies as knowledge; and if the evidence in favor of the proposition is overwhelming, it rationally qualifies as certain knowledge-man's fallibility notwithstanding.

<a href="http://members.aol.com/bbu83/us.htm#10" target="_blank">Here is the link.</a>

By the way, I saw Phil Fernandez and Dan Barker debate at Bellevue Community College (here in Washington state) about two years ago. One of the things Phil said was that Christianity gives Christians the ability to say that the Holocaust was morally wrong. I got up and asked him what Christians believed the eternal fate of the Jews was. He didn't have time to answer, unfortunately.

Brooks

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

Answerer · 09-07-2002, 07:22 PM

Theists are irrationally consistent, haha.

theyeti · 09-08-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by demrald:
<strong>
Oh, yeah: the point of this post is that "skeptic" can refer to a variety of people with different views, so the argument of the OP is a strawman (as others here have said).
</strong>

Exactly. The quote in the OP seems to be referring to radical skepticism, which is akin to nihilism. The arguments presented there are a fair critique against radical skepticism, but it's not really germane to modern skepticism.

theyeti

Bill Snedden · 09-08-2002, 05:58 PM

I think that the quote from Smith and the differentiation between "radical" or classical skepticism and modern skepticism are right on point. Fernandes' "definition" of skepticism is indeed more closely akin to nihilism than what most skeptics (including myself) would recognize as skepticism.

BTW, I was present at the Lowder-Fernandes debate at Chapel Hill a couple of years ago and was definitely less than impressed by Rev. Fernandes presentation. This article certainly doesn't represent any improvement.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2002, 07:22 PM	#12
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Theists are irrationally consistent, haha.

09-08-2002, 05:58 PM	#14
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	I think that the quote from Smith and the differentiation between "radical" or classical skepticism and modern skepticism are right on point. Fernandes' "definition" of skepticism is indeed more closely akin to nihilism than what most skeptics (including myself) would recognize as skepticism. BTW, I was present at the Lowder-Fernandes debate at Chapel Hill a couple of years ago and was definitely less than impressed by Rev. Fernandes presentation. This article certainly doesn't represent any improvement. Regards, Bill Snedden

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.