Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

Thank you for this! I shall print it and save it for my perusal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, absolutely. For me it is a little hard to respond to an abtract person's situation and I tend to personalize, as you've noticed.

But here you have gone to a level I can relate to better and also is in some ways more concrete. I know people like this, I am one.

I think that this kind of doubt experience comes from a voice in the head. The results of this voice triggering your emotions are the intention of what it says. That is its agenda. It would say cabbages are not food if that would work.

React to the forest and not the trees when that doubt attack hits you. What is being done to you? That is the goal. The 'arguments' and 'reasonable doubts' are just tools. (does this mean doubt is always an attack. No. But it will not feel like one when it is not)

Perhaps the skeptic in the OP probably wants his wife to do everything - his rationalization is simply a tool - or he is afraid of acting in the world and it seems easier to come up with an objective reasonable doubt than dealing with his fear and facing his life - again the whole mental exercise is a tool. The often most objective sounding, I suspect, are simply even less aware of their agendas than the rest of us. We do not have to take them at face value.

What do their words actually do? is, I think, an important question. Wittgenstein's idea that the meaning of a word is it's use comes to mind here.

And I damn well bet this guy gets up to take a shit, even though one could 'doubt that this feeling I have in my anus means I gotta go' while staying in his chair as his wife straightens up the house and shakes her head. And feels superior to her for being so gullible.

With actual physical Eses, a real person we encounter, they are not maintaining their extreme skepticism, unless, perhaps you find them in a mental institution or jail. You can by what they aim their skepticism at and what they don't that they in fact choose when to doubt (by some criteria that they accept as true).

If someone burst into our bedroom and started to tell us stuff about us or the universe - perhaps in a tone of voice that was not kind - our reaction would probably be terror or anger. We would want them out of the bedroom. We would not engage in the debate with that person who is not respecting us on a fundamental level.

Yet when a voice insinuates things about us or our ability to know, we often tend not to respond in a holistic way - to the tone, to the intrusion, to the vibe that does not say this is a loving message, or a compassionate one - we give that message respect.

In very much the same ways people who have been abused often put up with pretty bad treatment before finally moving back.

I think these doubt sessions do not simply begin from one of our thoughts arising like an insight, but come in a voice with a tone. And we go along with it because we are scared about what would happen if we trusted ourselves.

Doubt is seen as making less of a claim.
I think that is BS.
This rule does not work and introspection on the part of those who believe it would, I believe, uncover a whole mess of certainties.
Does this mean that fundamental Christians are right?
No, I believe introspection on their part would uncover a lot of doubt. In fact the religion seems to use doubt of self as a foundation. How these doubters of themselves and their own intutions think they can decide that the entire Bible is the word of God is entirely beyond me. For such a decision is a claim to an incredible intuition. How do sinners, who must always be on guard for their sinful urges and must follow authority for some many decisions have such incredible intuitions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a wonderful thread!

Yes, I noticed. But for an OP, I prefer to take a more abstract, more general approach so as to ellicit a greater variety and depth of responses.

Oh yes. There is an agenda behind extreme skepticism.

Mhm. I think that's because deep down we doubt our ability to know - and this doubt can be perfectly justified. But it's our Achilles' heel, our vulnerable spot. And that's how it is possible that we fall prey to someone declaring their cognitive/moral/spiritual superiority.

So extreme skepticism can be a way to defend ourselves - albeit a misguided and not very effective way.

Like when some atheists keep demanding evidence from theists for their claims - even though atheists actually know that the path of evidentiary support is necessarily insufficient.

Well, not in the case if the Calvinist doctrine is true.

But as for others forms of Christianity -

Exactly!

And the other thing is that if one truly believes oneself to be essentially "sinful", "bad", "evil" or "imperfect" - then on this account, one will have to dismiss all one's good decisions and actions, one will have to consider them done by someone else or to be accidental. And if this is so, then one's can't rightfully say one chose to believe in God (who is good). A person who is truly essentially "sinful", "bad", "evil" or "imperfect" would not choose something good, other than by accident.

To this, the Christian apologist would probably answer that a human, despite being essentially "sinful", "bad", "evil" or "imperfect", does have the inherent ability to choose for God. But then this is something that has to be believe apriori.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

- So in order to avoid the pits of skepticism, one must check what is it that one holds to be a certainty. And then inspect each of those (presumed) certainties whether they are really true or rational or helpful.

Remember a while back I asked myself "What does it mean to have peace in regards to theists and theism?" and came up with a number of answers? I then inspected each of those answers in detail, checked whether they are true and reasonable or not, whether they apply for all cases or not.
What was at first a big, solid block of a negative feeling toward theists and theism, I could now break down into many parts - and the big, solid block disappeared, and only some helpful negative feelings and stances remained.
An analytical approach can be useful like that.

 

And I noticed that. I think our preferences seem to have found a way to interact. (to do a bit of reifying)




Oh yes. There is an agenda behind extreme skepticism.

I used to have a real weakness for people who presented themselves as certain - and this could be theists or rationalists or whomever. I assumed (now where was doubt when I needed it) that they must have the same depth of ecological self-scrutiny I had, and if they were presenting as certain they must really know even though it felt bad and perhaps even they feel unpleasant in that moment or in general,

Yes, good point, even if you are implying I implied it. I think extreme skepticism is very similar to overeating or being anti-social because you think others will hate you, etc.

I truly enjoyed this sentence and I have not even gotten close to really thinking about it.

I think it would hold for Calvinists. Predestination and the whole doing the religion anyway thing must sit on top of a lot of doubt. If my claim here seems unjustified I could mull on it a bit and try to figure out why I used the verb 'must'.

But as for others forms of Christianity -



Exactly!

Yes, you've said what I meant with less jumps.

Choosing for God and the incredibly complicated belief system of Fundamental Christianity - it has a metaphyics (or several), several ethical systems that sit uneasily with each other, and a host of behaviors, including also a giving over, generally, of authority to a local preacher - out of the many possible offshoots of Christianity, let alone congregations - another bold intuitive move and an incredibly important one since this pastor or reverend will interpret the Bible for them....and so on.
I could see the quite, simple person with the cottage in the woods with a kind of private simple belief in God, but Fundamental Christianty - despite all the bumpkin, simpleton critique aimed at it by athiests - is like a vast Baroque set of ongoing intuitive choices.

I am not sure that little rant holds water,

and makes me wonder how they can be so sure God didn't open other door for other people, like the pious Muslim youth whose entire county and his parents are Muslims.

 

My approach has been more to react holistically - to the whole impact of - the skepticism. How does it make me feel? What is it doing? Once I allow myself to experience the emotions it is triggering it does not have a hook on me if its agenda is bad or one to be outgrown. If I don't have the courage to feel my fear, than my fear aligns with the doubt. 'Maybe it is safer to stifle myself or to pretend I do not have a clear response to things' or whatever. Once I move into the fear and just spend time with it the fear gets its needs met from me, directly and does not have to appease the scary authority.

 

Perhaps the Calvinist doctrine simply is true and some people are elect - and they then don't have the sort of doubts that the non-elect have.

I suppose some Christians just don't see it that way - and are unable to relate to those who struggle to believe in God.

 

But all in all - Extreme skepticism is the firm belief that endlessly mulling things over in one's mind is better than anything else.

 

interesting psychological twist
i particularly like this bit

scary! ghostly scary
gotta frame

 

that got a good laugh from me. Given my discussion on the other thread, Hamlet comes to mind again. At least he mulled with panache.

This was very well put.

I suppose one could have an extreme skepticism epipheny, doubt everything from then on and not mull.

Just a flash 'Oh, I have no way of knowing that' when confronted with this or that.

 

I am quite sure there were some Calvinists who were sure. In fact I see people in many different belief systems who seem quite sure of themselves and I read no contradictory messages in their communication. I think these people are actually not very deep or broad. They are stick figures. We always have this assumption that the volume of people is the same. That we are containers holding each the same amount of ____________. I am not sure this is true. I am skeptical.

But my guess is that the bulk of the congregation had doubt. And I believe they were told - when the question arose as to why one should act pious and do good, etc. if the choice had already been made - that they should align their behavior with their desitiny. (Teenagers are a lot like Calvinists). I can only imagine that most people walked around in terror. They were being told they must be extremely moral - and have a great deal of self-control also in the culture of Calvinism - or they would be punished - but that even if they do everything right they may go to hell. Talk about the production of anxiety.

edit: I think I get your point on second read. I simply am not concerned about whether Calvinists are right or right in any way that affects me. I could go intellectual and say, perhaps, they are elect. But I don't.

There are people in all beliefs systems who are unable to do this. I think I have been afraid sometimes to be confident because it seemed like I would have to be like them. I don't have this judgement (so strongly at least) any more.

 

When is it good to doubt?
And when is it the wrong choice?

 

uh, simple, when you don't know or it doesn't seem right for you. People who have followed the crowd or not followed the crowd have learned both ways.

 

I actually agree with your assertion that it feels right for you. I think we will meet a lot of skepticism about the trust we are placing in our feelings.

You said this was simple.

If you are about to make a big decision do you feel doubt?
Do you ever doubt your perceptions and later wish you had trusted them more?
Are there certain things you are skeptical about perhaps influenced by experiences you had when you were younger and you can see it is a bit of a problem?
Do you ever have doubts about your ability to do something despite having success with it? For example artists and writers often meet a king of painful doubt that goes all the way to the bone, even though they have made many beautiful things and are considered talented by others. I do not think doubt is simple for them.
These examples were not meant to be complete, but just to raise some areas where many people do not find doubt so simply a tool(?) and also sometime make efforts to change (reduce/increase) the way they use it.

 

We can't see into other people's minds. Some people indeed might be God's elect people - the non-elect have no way of knowing.

I've been pondering this for a long time. What this line of reasoning has revealed for me is that I was harboring great jealousy toward people who believe in God. I found it appaling that I am not given to believe in God, and some are. But the fact is that these negative emotions needn't be justified on the grounds of my lacking something worthy, no - these negative emotions can simply be a form of "the grass is always greener on the other side", as stupid and demeaning as it might be to discover I have been driven by such an inane motive.
I think at least some of the atheist thrust against theists is a form of "the grass is always greener on the other side", the desire to have something simply because one doesn't have it or because it is hard to get it.

And I think some of the extreme skepticism is also due to such inane motives, which, if inspected in broad daylight, a person would be too ashamed to admit to oneself, much less to one's fellow man.

I think anyone pursuing any goal is in some way narrow and shallow.

I can relate to this - the fear of appearing like a fundamentalist.

 

Says a study:

 

Sure we can. Their minds run across the surface of their bodies at the very least.

I would assume that you would want the belief to be correct also.

Yes, I think some of them see theists as being able to relax and accept where they never relax and accept. It's like why we get mad about people who do things we do not allow ourselves to do. They are getting away with something. Or 'we' are since I am some form of theist.

This is something that has always tired me about rationalists. They seem delightfully oblivious to their motives.

I believe you. I don't think it is true, however. It is an ES position and has a defacto goal of not pursuing goals which will lead to a very specific life which also could be seen as narrow and shallow.

 

Lovely. Thank you for that.

The irony of rational empirical studies revealing that it might be best not to think much about complicated things.

And many of our decisions involve a very wide range of factors.

The section on snap judgements is a little bit like synectics.

 

That's an interesting perspective, kinda. I've never seen it that way. The shame, desperation and negativity is something i personally seen with theists more than nontheists. To me, it seemed they needed others to believe more than themselves to justify thier own as well. As a matter of fact, i've experienced this numerous times, they can be quite radical.

I have never harbored jealousy toward those that believe in 'god' because i never found those people interesting, enlightening, or attractive. Actually, i try as much to stay away and especially when they start preaching at me, i feel sucked into dread, descending into their narrow pit. Not a place i view with envy.

For me, if they are 'God's' elect people, I don't care so much for that god or find it appealing from it's elect because they are like an advertisement.

So I always had the opposite view that theists know little more about the afterlife, god ad nauseum than anyone else. Anyone can speculate on a god, make one up, dream and believe in what comforts you etc. I think believing in a god is quite easy to do and not hard at all. It's like believing something is looking out for you at all times, an entity cares specifically about you, it's self-centered and easy. LOL.

 

I was brought up in a Christian society and techincally I was a Christian. But to believe in God was the hardest thing for me. I envied others who spoke so much of God and God's love for them - and I had no experience of God of my own to show for. It was a strong social stigma with much negative consequence.

And to this day, I sometimes suspect that I am lacking something vital, something that Christians and other theists have and I don't.
But, as a side-effect of this, I have an enormous ability to give others the benefit of the doubt.