Debate:Can atheists call themselves true skeptics?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
1. Skepticism means assuming nothing.   
 
1. Skepticism means assuming nothing.   
2. S is a skeptical hypothesis.  
+
2. ''S'' is a skeptical hypothesis.  
3. S can neither be proven nor disproven.  
+
3. ''S'' can neither be proven nor disproven.  
4. Atheism implies that S is true.  
+
4. Atheism implies that ''S'' is true.  
 
5. Therefore, atheism makes the assumption that S is true.
 
5. Therefore, atheism makes the assumption that S is true.
 
6. Therefore, an atheist is not a true skeptic.   
 
6. Therefore, an atheist is not a true skeptic.   

Revision as of 01:17, 3 January 2008

I know a lot of us here are atheists. I don’t mean that as an insult—I’d be one myself if not for some of the arguments metaphysics and epistemology have in store. I know this site is somewhat lacking in articles about metaphysics (something I mean to correct in the near future) but I’m sure we’re all smart enough to have a reasonable discussion about them.

Now, my question is this: can atheists call themselves “true” skeptics? (That is, true pyrrhonists, who make no assumptions whatsoever and believe only what has absolute certainty.) I say no. In order to have absolute certainty of a belief, it must be proven without any assumptions of any kind, even on the metaphysical level. Atheism, makes many assumptions because it does not take into account the extreme “skeptical hypothesis,” such as solipsism, brain in a vat, etc. (In other words, the fossil record can’t count for proof for atheism because it assumes that reality exists in the form we perceive it.) So, since (as far as I know) the skeptical hypotheses can neither be proven nor disproven, to believe that they are true (necessary to be an atheist) is to make an assumption, and therefore you cannot be an atheist. Try another example: if you say, “well, I am and atheist, and I think it’s common sense that realism and materialism exist,” then (obviously) you are an atheist—but you aren’t a true skeptic because you have made an assumption. (Except for George E. Moore, I think most of us would agree that common sense is subjective, and does not count as actual proof for an idea.)

Now, let me say this in something close to mathematical proof format:

1. Skepticism means assuming nothing. 2. S is a skeptical hypothesis. 3. S can neither be proven nor disproven. 4. Atheism implies that S is true. 5. Therefore, atheism makes the assumption that S is true. 6. Therefore, an atheist is not a true skeptic.

That’s my argument. I welcome any opposition, support, or questions. Seldon 20:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support