Second, skepticism is not, as a global philosophical method, fit for the pursuit of truth. It is epistemologically and pragmatically self-refuting. We should only be skeptical of claims of which we have reason to be skeptical. A strict Cartesian foundationalism that begins from one indubitable fact of consciousness simply will not do.
I never claimed skepticism as a "global philosophical method". I merely said that I am skeptical about this particular claim. That's it. You seem to think that because of that stance, I am advocating that anything apart from Cogito ergo sum is unknowable. A position that advanced the notion that everything should be completely rejected until demonstrably proven true, only to then have those demonstrations called into question until they too could be proven true, etc., etc. is indeed self-refuting and unfit for the pursuit for truth. In this matter, I agree with you. Fortunately, at no point in my post did I claim this philosophy so it is somewhat curious that you chose to argue against it...I would hate to think that anyone who "studied logic would attack a straw man".
As for your assertion that "we should only be skeptical of claims of which we have reason to be skeptical", if the notion of an invisible, all-powerful, world creating, omnipresent, omniscient, Red Sea splitting, demon fighting deity for which we have no evidence for is not one of them then I don't know what is. The extraordinary nature of each of these claims is reason enough to pursue further inquiry, but taken as a whole we should at least pause for a moment before readily accepting them altogether. I am skeptical when Muslims tell me that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse. Why would I not also be skeptical when Christians tell me that Jesus walked on water?
No comments:
Post a Comment