Stages of Unbelief. What is Skepticism - Essay Example

? Stages of Unbelief Faith: Rational or irrational? Faith is a belief, which is non-rational in a certain proposition. This is contrary to the evidence of that belief. The error in this case is that any proposition that is not a scientific statement or supported by evidence is purely faith. Therefore, belief in any proposition is an act of faith (Zagzebski 52). What is Skepticism? Skepticism, in philosophical terms, is the point of view, which tackles the philosophical thesis with rational thought and doubtful criticism. According to Gary Gutting in Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism (87), this action leads to thinking and thought, which is based on logic and aimed towards dispute and criticism. Under a narrow view, religious skepticism is considered as that point of view which puts every organized belief or practice, commonly understood as religion, into doubt. This is done through a rational argument on the righteousness, value and ethics of that particular organized religion. Moreover, different philosophers, for example, like Kant, have talked highly about skepticism in their works. Kant has drawn much of his analysis from the works of David Hume, who is regarded as the most formidable skeptic in the history of Western philosophy. Much of Hume’s work on skepticism is drawn from the idea that he endorsed empirical science and considered founding the “science of man” as a heavy project (Thompson n.p.). One, therefore, should understand that when considering skepticism, science would come into debate at a number of times. Since metaphysics is broadly considered to be associated with supernatural, much of Kant’s skepticism draws on the work of metaphysical aspect of philosophy. According to Kant, there are three types of skepticism. These broadly include “veil of perception”, which seeks legitimacy by drawing inference of the external-mind world to one’s own mental representations. Hence, this concerns metaphysics. Humean skepticism elucidates upon the concepts that are not understood by sensible impressions and knowledge of certain ideas which are not proved by logical law nor known from experience. Therefore, again this concerns much of metaphysics, because the concepts that are not understood from the mind are discussed. Pyrrhonian skepticism establishes a balance between opposing arguments, hence having understanding of both the ideas of knowledge, for example, from the ones who believe in religion, and the ones who do not believe in religion (Forster 1). However, Kant and his approach were against skepticism and his Copernican Revolution tried to fight against skepticism. Kant propagated that religion was largely practice, not theory, and not based on facts, and was something private and subjective. Religion equaled ethics, put simply (Catholic Education n.p.). Christopher Scheitle in “Religious and Spiritual Change” (59) propagates that skepticism as a whole can be understood in the light of the insight into the way religious people believe blindly in different existing religions in the world. As argued, religious people never criticize their beliefs, because they have this idea that it is a great sin, a contradiction to their religion and that predominantly, it is a sacrilege (Gutting, pp. 93). This promotes the spread of religious dogma which leaves no room to doubt over a certain aspect or argue over a certain thing. Hence, followers of religion attempt to blindly follow religion and adopt the ideas of a particular religion as a supreme truth of which no violation can be done. However, they disregard the verity that their beliefs can be paradoxical, confusing, disastrous, unnatural and even antiscientific. This usually occurs because these people communicate with their supernatural being in the most irrational ways which makes their religious beliefs and, hence, religion highly questionable, even to themselves and the society (Zagzebski 212). This religious dogma also gives rise to the fervor of sacrificing their lives for the causes of the religion, under particular circumstances. They also have this irrational belief that their actions and utter obedience will result in them being rewarded in heaven. Nevertheless, there are some people who claim to be religious, but not fundamentalists. However, ‘religious people’ disregard this as merely an excuse, as a way out, and this idea proves to be the ignorance of religion by such non-fundamentalists. Such religious individuals also cannot accept the idea that another belief or religion can be better than theirs, or even more correct, even if it is true (Scheitle 125). However, the Copernican Revolution by Kant proposed the ethics of religion which are similar in almost every religion, meaning that no matter which religion one belongs to, an individual is a “good person” (Catholic Education n.p.). Additionally, the faithful people never conduct discussions on certain issues of their faith and religion with other people who may have another religion or perspective. As a further contradiction, many of these faithful are not even aware of the propositions and doctrines of their belief system, because as claims the opposite view, the organized religions just need followers, who will have no doubts and will merely follow like sheep. They also argue that the organized religions seek to instill continuous fear in individuals and forewarn individuals that in case of departure from religion or breaking any code, they will face consequences in the form of heavy punishment. In fact, no matter how unethical the religion may be, these people are to follow these ethics, and if they do not, they will have punishment in after life (Scheitle 127). However, if these people do, they are promised a happy life after death, a life, which connects them to their supernatural being. Such a reward is promised to the good and faithful followers. For this very reason, it is evident that the worldly matters and concern for the problems of life and society do not deal with religious organizations. The reason put forth discusses the idea that science is of no importance to these religious people unless it is of any advantage to them. The irrationality of the followers of religion can also be understood by this belief that everything is ordained by God. For example, if something mysterious and something, which cannot be explained, occurs, these people deem it a miracle. If things happen the way they wanted them to be, then God has rewarded them and listened to their prayers. If things are not happening as they want them to be, they believe it is the will of God, and He knows the best since God is omnipotent and omniscient. Furthermore, for these religious people, logics plays very little role in their thought process. While they may claim to follow logic and apply it, they use it to an extent that it is almost non-existent. Fundamentalists only believe in skepticism when it is convenient for them. However, their faith is so blinding for them that there is no room for argument or skepticism to even take root in their minds properly. They also alter their opinions to suit their views (Zagzebski 233). There is a handful of those faithful who are linked to religion, but their beliefs do not conform to any organized religion which initiates antagonism, disaster, fear, and intolerance, but rather such a religion, which tolerates convictions of other religions (Gutting 102). These faithful have adopted a philosophical and scientific outlook towards life which has no traces of fanaticism. They consider other traditions, cultures and behaviors of other people, as well. For certain questions, which are unanswerable, their answers are based on religious beliefs and theories, and this is done simply because they do not understand such questions completely, or the questions lie beyond the rationales of the world. Therefore, they have come up with answers through a blend of philosophical tendencies, scientific knowledge, as well as world opinions, and of course, religious views. Stages of Skepticism Sandra Upson in “Healthy Skepticism” (123) states that there are three main stages of skepticism. These broadly include theism, also known as deism, agnosticism and atheism. These three stages oppose the religious beliefs of religious individuals around the world. Religious people, throughout times, have fought these stages of skepticism. These stages of skepticism attempt to admit or create a fresh approach towards life in general. They also seek to endorse a new philosophical stand on a certain thing for the society (Upson 59). These individuals, who oppose religious beliefs also try to bring up new ideas which are in confrontation with metaphysical beliefs, questions and doctrines. These have served to keep these religious people in bondage, or as people opposing these religious beliefs understand. These skeptics believe that the beliefs of these religious people seek to promote passiveness in people. They promote submission to a supernatural being, the evidence of who does not exist and also endorse blind submission to a particular religious association. Now, the paper attempts to discuss who is a skeptic? A skeptic can be anyone, irrespective of ethnicity, social class, culture or even political affiliation or approach. However, a real skeptic will be the one who thinks critically most of the time, interprets and analyzes results, and eventually concludes and terminates with the final stages of skepticism, which is known as theism (Upson 59). Fig.1: Flowchart of Stages of Skepticism Before the stages of skepticism begin, when a person actually starts thinking philosophically, people are simply naive realists. Generally, such individuals take everything at face value and objects of the world show these individuals the properties that the objects simply appear to have. However, once people start thinking philosophically, skepticism begins (Theory of Knowledge n.p.). Using common sense with applying logic combines inductive reasoning and skepticism, which is mostly done by such philosophers (Fisher n.p.). The first stage of skepticism is identified as theism or deist (Gutting, pp. 124). This stage promotes that there is some indefinite, superior power, commonly referred to as God, who is a superior power. The difference between these two terminologies is often blurred. Although, they may have no knowledge or experience of this God, they accept such a god axiomatically. In such a belief, they submit themselves into something they consider superior. However, in this belief, there is neither reward nor any punishment. Nevertheless, theists disagree on things. For example, a theist may believe that God intervenes in the matters of universe and humans, but another one may believe the opposite. Therefore, theists take a transcendental leap, and they consider it meaningful and legitimate to speak about a superior being in which they believe in. The question; however, arises that why is there so many confusion when they could just instead classify their concepts. However, the reasons could be erratic behavior on part of certain individuals, acquired knowledge, education and upbringing. However, people present a syllogism that since they exist, it is enough for the existence of God. This is in line with the belief of ancient Greeks who stated that if altars exist, then gods exist (Gutting 172). This brings forward the concepts that make people skeptical theists. Such concepts understand that if there is something not based on empirical evidence and only presumed axiomatically, then why believe? Another argument also states that if people do not know something, why should they believe in it? Also, the concepts also argue that why believe in something that is introduced axiomatically? Therefore, even Locke elucidates upon this idea that humans may want something to be true, for example, the existence of God, but there MUST be certain reasons for the beliefs of human beings (Mesa community college n.p.). Agnosticism is the second stage. After allowing one to instill doubt or argument in their belief, faith or religions, questions with logical and meaningful ways about God arise. Sir Thomas Huxley coined this term in his opposition to the term Gnosticism (Zagzebski 233). This means that if asked whether God exists, the expected answer from an agnostic would be that they do not know. However, if they ask if God exists, then their immediate answer would be who or what is that? In conclusion, these different answers could be because this concept of supernatural being has been with them from childhood, from people talking casually about it, so they take it for granted. However, this means that agnostics do not belong to any organized religious group because they have no faith. Agnostics tend to come up with questions that have no answers or cannot be answered. They have the illusion that it is justifiable to analyze and discuss any type of concepts, even a concept like God, which they do not understand, but consider it a meaningful concept with content which is well-defined (Gutting 257). Nevertheless, they admit that they have no empirical understanding or knowledge of the subject. They have tried to search for more answers apart from what their religion has taught them. Atheism, the final stage, is a complete denial of theism from the very foundations, and it is denial of agnosticism, any organized religious group, practice or belief (Gutting 272). According to Berkeley, materialism eventually leads to atheism since materialism completely disregards the notion that the existence of physical bodies is dependent upon spiritual existence. Therefore, the world does not function because of the existence of God (Philosophy pages n.p.). An atheist never believes nor does not believe, but they want more knowledge. They stop at anything they find no answer and claim that they do not believe in anything when asked a question. Scientifically, belief is considered to be possible or plausible. An atheist offers valid reasons (Scheitle 130). Atheists consider the concept of God to be artificial or made up, which means all related questions have more questions, or sub-questions. Discussions regarding faith and religion have no meaning or content and cannot be continued on the basis of logic simply. They may think that they have got answers to important questions; however, they believe that there is no absolute way to make sure that an answer is true or false. Hence, truth cannot be verified. These people cannot be convinced, even with some relative assurance. Sophokles, the poet, who wrote the Tragedy Of Ancient Greeks, said that for a different reason, Oedipus fits perfectly. He believed that whoever believes there is nothing, their life is much easier (Upson 61). Most times, the religious people question the atheists to give proof for non-existence of God. However, these people do not understand or see that they themselves have to prove God does not exist since they came up with this idea themselves. These people also claim that since atheists do not believe in any religion, this could itself be a religion (Zagzebski 252). Moreover, this statement is highly contradictory. If this is considered as a religion which dismisses other religion, then the logical difference between destroying and being integral should also be dismissed. However, this makes the mistake that the concept of God is right but unambiguous. Therefore, this means it is a religious belief for this belief is not open to any criticism or logical analysis. It is subjective and has no set criteria for its truthfulness or denial, hence, based on a pseudo-concept. Such is a characteristic of anti-theism, but atheism deals with the idea whether the question should be answered or dismissed. Therefore, this topic is a cause of continuous debate amongst different philosophers and it has never come to an agreement. While some people draw relations between science and religion, these two ideas have remained poles apart. Works Cited "(4) The Pillars of Unbelief - Kant." Catholic Education Resource Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2012. Read More