https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/anything-but-human/

Thanks for the link :up:

How do you suppose doubt began? To me, it's as basic to the mind as the cough reflex is to the body - it's part of our defense mechanism, dedicated to prevent harm.

Contrast this primeval instinct of doubt to religious faith where doubt is viewed in a bad light, as an obstacle to the truth when, in truth, doubt is an essential step toward knowing the actual truth by means of activating, as it were, reason/logic.

'How things began' in scientific terms - your terms - comprises tracing efficient and material causes back to its purported beginning.

How things began, in a philosophical sense, is what is the origin or ground of something. 'The origin' in a philosophical sense, is nothing like the first in a series of efficient causes.

So, trying to understand 'doubt' in evolutionary terms, is mistaking the latter for the former. Doubt is an aspect of reason. Humans can doubt, because they can question, they can wonder why they thought something, they can envisage things being different. Trying to understand doubt in an evolutionary sense, is missapplication of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory, seeking the antecedents for physical evolution. Reason is in one sense 'the product of' evolution, in that humans evolved, and are capable of reason. But ascribing reason to being a function of evolution is biological reductionism. That is the basis of the link that I provided, so rather than saying gee thanks for that, see if you can discern why I would post that link in response to your OP.

As regards doubt in religion - I think this is enormously misunderstood. To the Dawkins of the world, religious faith is clinging to a bad hypothesis for no good reason, in the face of all evidence. But it's a shallow caricature of faith. That's why the Dawkins of the world resemble the fundamentalists who provide fodder for their schoolyard atheism.

How things began' in scientific terms - your terms - comprises tracing efficient and material causes back to its purported beginning.

How things began, in a philosophical sense, is what is the origin or ground of something. 'The origin' in a philosophical sense, is nothing like the first in a series of efficient causes. — Wayfarer

Here is the definition of "origin" from Merriam-Webster:
Origin: 1 ANCESTRY, PARENTAGE
2 a :rise, beginning, or derivation from a source
b :the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives
c :something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another

How is this definition different from the philosophical definition?

So, trying to understand 'doubt' in evolutionary terms, is mistaking the latter for the former. Doubt is an aspect of reason. — Wayfarer

This doesn't follow because you haven't even explained what the philosophical definition of "origin" is. There can't be any mistake if there isn't a distinction between the philosophical version of "origin" and the everyday use of "origin". Without explaining what you mean by "origin", I don't see how you can jump to saying that it is a mistake to think about it in terms of cause and effect.

Doubt is an aspect of reason. Humans can doubt, because they can question, they can wonder why they thought something, they can envisage things being different. — Wayfarer

So do newborn infants doubt? Do we doubt from the moment we are conceived? What does it mean to say that humans can doubt?

It seems that you are conflating doubt with imagination. It seems to me that you can only doubt once you have the experience of being wrong. What reason would you have to doubt if you were never wrong in your thinking? Reasons are causes and beliefs are the effects of those causes. The mind is a causal interaction between reasons and beliefs, like being wrong is the reason for believing in doubt.

I know your views on such issues from your previous posts - don't have a name for it though. Anti-reductionism is how I would characterize your position.

That out of the way, imagine evolution is bogus. Even if we were created by a god, until and unless there's a very good reason to doubt (the thought, the very idea, of mistrust in the way the world appears to us) doubt would never be part of our mental landscape. Doubt wouldn't exist without a good reason to do so and this reason can be found in this world - two or more distinct things can be identical in appearance.

I admit that I used a reductionist backdrop (evolutionary theory) to get a handle on the origins of doubt but that's inconsequential insofar as the heart of the issue is concerned which is that the world, how it is, forces us to doubt and this revised attitude of skepticism spills over into other domains of human experience, and of critical importance is the fact that the only available tool we have to solve this problem is reason/logic.

My main concern here is this: is reason infallible? Will logic and rationality guarantee a safe passage to truth?

My main concern here is this: is reason infallible? Will logic and rationality guarantee a safe passage to truth? — TheMadFool

I don't know about guaranteeing, but logic and rationality are the best methods we have in comparison with other methods for "guaranteeing truth", like faith, tradition, authority and revelation.

That out of the way, imagine evolution is bogus. — TheMadFool

H. Sapiens evolved, just as science outlines. But this kind of opposition between evolution v religion is itself a product of culture, not science. It's not one or the other. Plainly humans evolved, but when h. sapiens reaches the stage of development where we can think, reason and speak, then many attributes emerge, and horizons of being become visible, which aren't in scope for evolutionary theory. It was never intended for that purpose, but as science has tended to displace religion as the arbiter of truth, then it assumes the mantle of a kind of creation theory. This doesn't mean 'evolution is bogus'. But it may not have anything to say about the question you're posing.

Ever heard the expression the 'four f's' of evolutionary theory?' 'In evolutionary biology, people often speak of the four Fs which are said to be the four basic and most primal drives (motivations or instincts) that animals (including humans) are evolutionarily adapted to have, follow, and achieve: fighting, fleeing, feeding and fornicating).' So, where does 'reason' and 'doubt' fit into the picture? As a subsidiary! Something that helps you perform one of the Fs. If you manage to procreate, then - job done! You've fulfilled everything evolution intended! Great job!

So I'm afraid trying to rationalise 'doubt' in evolutionary terms doesn't really cast any light.

is reason infallible? — TheMadFool

The conditions for answering the question are contained by it, which makes it superfluous.

I don't know about guaranteeing, but logic and rationality are the best methods we have in comparison with other methods for "guaranteeing truth", like faith, tradition, authority and revelation. — Harry Hindu

These other "methods" you mention still leave room for doubt, quite unlike the clout reason has in matters doubtful. Once reason settles a matter, the case is closed as it were. No one challenges logic - it has the final word on everything under the sun. All roads lead to Rome.

H. Sapiens evolved, just as science outlines. But this kind of opposition between evolution v religion is itself a product of culture, not science. It's not one or the other. Plainly humans evolved, but when h. sapiens reaches the stage of development where we can think, reason and speak, then many attributes emerge, and horizons of being become visible, which aren't in scope for evolutionary theory. It was never intended for that purpose, but as science has tended to displace religion as the arbiter of truth, then it assumes the mantle of a kind of creation theory. This doesn't mean 'evolution is bogus'. But it may not have anything to say about the question you're posing.

Ever heard the expression the 'four f's' of evolutionary theory?' 'In evolutionary biology, people often speak of the four Fs which are said to be the four basic and most primal drives (motivations or instincts) that animals (including humans) are evolutionarily adapted to have, follow, and achieve: fighting, fleeing, feeding and fornicating).' So, where does 'reason' and 'doubt' fit into the picture? As a subsidiary! Something that helps you perform one of the Fs. If you manage to procreate, then - job done! You've fulfilled everything evolution intended! Great job!

So I'm afraid trying to rationalise 'doubt' in evolutionary terms doesn't really cast any light. — Wayfarer

So, you're saying that a creature that lacks, never developed, the ability to doubt will be as successful, will survive equally well, as another that has a skeptical attitude toward the world? That doesn't sound right? The essence of Critical Thinking, the much needed but least provided lesson for living well, is a healthy dose of skepticism and to clear up matters, recommends being rational/logical :chin:

The conditions for answering the question are contained by it, which makes it superfluous. — Mww

If you don't mind, please elaborate. Thanks

Contrast this primeval instinct of doubt to religious faith where doubt is viewed in a bad light — TheMadFool

FYI, there's more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than on atheist forums. :-)

FYI, there's more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than on atheist forums. :-) — Hippyhead

Could you give us an example, sounds interesting.

FYI, there's more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than on atheist forums. :-) — Hippyhead

That's one of the things that should keep us up at night. Skepticism is, quite literally, as essential as the air we breathe but then once reason steps in we, suddenly, stop...doubting. It's like always remembering to lock your doors at night but the day you have a cop staying over, you stop caring. Is a person above suspicion just because s/he has a police badge? Are we out of the woods yet? Is reason, even perfectly wielded, beyond doubt?

sounds about right to me.

Why not call it "possibility" or clarifying the unknown?
Doubt is such a misused concept.

How did doubt begin? What are its origins? — TheMadFool

Certainty is the default conclusion. Doubt began with greater intelligence and the exploration of alternative possibilities.

Certainty is the default conclusion. Doubt began with greater intelligence and the exploration of alternative possibilities. — A Seagull

Yes, and no. Wittgenstein did try to explain our doubting. Doubting is innate.

So, you're saying that a creature that lacks, never developed, the ability to doubt will be as successful, will survive equally well, as another that has a skeptical attitude toward the world? — TheMadFool

I'm saying there are considerations other than survival. Don't you see how rationalising every human capacity in terms of its fit for survival basically amounts to a form of utilitarianism? This is where evolutionary theory, when taken as a philosophy, which it isn't, flattens out the very qualities which delineate the human condition from that of creatures. Aristotle described man as ‘the rational animal’, but reason is much more than just a biological adaptation.

I’m asking you to question your own presupposition, which seems to be that everything about human capacities can be understood as a consequence of evolutionary theory. In other words, asking you to doubt what you are taking for granted.

I think your take is that evolution equates with science, which is scientific, rational, doubting, whereas the alternative, which to you means some form of creationism or religious account of human origins, is irrational because of clinging to dogmatic faith.

I have transcribed a copy of Thomas Nagel’s Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, which is germane to this argument.

Wittgenstein did try to explain our doubting. — Caldwell

Really? So what?

Doubting is innate. — Caldwell

Really? Prove it!

Could you give us an example, sounds interesting. — Sir2u

Ok, here ya go. I've spent 20 years on atheist and philosophy forums (which are mostly atheist). Getting atheists to doubt the qualifications of human reason to address the very largest of questions (scope of god claims) is pretty close to impossible. Getting Catholics to doubt the degree to which the Bible is literally true is child's play in comparison.

Really? So what? — A Seagull

I am suggesting you read his writings. And I want to add, read the cartesian doubt.

Really? Prove it! — A Seagull

I can't -- not to you. Doubting is a first-person account. You can do meditation on what doubt is. But don't lay down step by step proof of doubt.

I am suggesting you read his writings. And I want to add, read the cartesian doubt. — Caldwell

well then I suggest you come up with your own arguments, rather than arguing by proxy.

I can't -- not to you. Doubting is a first-person account. You can do meditation on what doubt is. But don't lay down step by step proof of doubt. — Caldwell

Well then it is probably not true.

Getting Catholics to doubt the degree to which the Bible is literally true is child's play in comparison. — Hippyhead

Ever run across this quotation?

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” — St Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

I think Augustine would have given the Discovery Institute pretty short shrift.

My main concern here is this: is reason infallible? Will logic and rationality guarantee a safe passage to truth? — TheMadFool

I’ll answer “no.” Reason and logic came to be as a result of our experience of the world. We infer causation due to our observation of how objects interact with each other and the world, for example. What I’m getting at is that reason or rationality depend on the intelligibility of the world. The issue is that there may be features of the world that are not intelligible; that is they cannot be known by us. They may remain hidden from our perception forever. That is at least a possibility. Also, there are times when we discover things that seem irrational (quantum physics for example), and often find certain questions unanswerable due to the inherent irrationality involved in the question. Questions about the creation of the universe would be an example of the latter, as creating something from nothing seems irrational, as does some sort of infinite regress of creators, as does the existence of some deity. But at times, regardless of how irrational the answer may seem, it may be true nonetheless. We have to accept nature as it is. Trying to force nature to conform to reason will not lead to truth.

Ever run across this quotation? — Wayfarer

No, I hadn't, thanks for sharing Wayfarer. Augustine takes those selling false explanations to task in a quite articulate manner. I can admire his rhetorical skill.

I feel there is a better alternative to all this ideological battle, both within Christianity, and between believers and non-believers. And that is to shift the focus from explanations to experience.

For Christians, this can be the experience of love. Not the ideology of love, the experience.

For atheists, this can be observation of reality. Not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions (ie. explanations) but the experience of observation pursued for it's own value.

In both cases, not the talking of the talk, but the walking of the walk. There's a meeting place for atheists and believers in the walking, but not in the talking.

I'm sure none of this will be new to you, so I'm addressing a larger audience here.

Personally, I spend a lot of time walking the walk, but due to genetic flaws beyond my control :-) I'm also addicted to the talking of the talk. So I have some empathy for my fellow talkers, religious and secular. But if we're going to talk, it seems best to talk about putting talking in to it's rightful place.

Trying to force nature to conform to reason will not lead to truth. — Pinprick

Oh! I like that! :-)

Well then it is probably not true. — A Seagull

Probably.

well then I suggest you come up with your own arguments, rather than arguing by proxy. — A Seagull

I'm not arguing. I'm here contributing to the others' responses.
I'm not interested in arguing in favor of something that's innate. If you yourself do not doubt, I mean in an authentic way, then good for you.

Getting atheists to doubt the qualifications of human reason to address the very largest of questions (scope of god claims) is pretty close to impossible. — Hippyhead

But getting an atheist to doubt the usefulness of the endeavor would be impossible.

Getting Catholics to doubt the degree to which the Bible is literally true is child's play in comparison. — Hippyhead

How many of them have you persuaded to leave the church then?
Not many of them actually believe that the bible is literally true, at least not the ones that have a bit of education.
I know a lot of Catholics and while many of them might not know how to defend their faith, I doubt that many would be convinced enough to walk away from the church.

In my view, doubt is just the scale that represents the difference between belief and truth.

Is doubt innate for humans or did it evolve? To answer the question properly I try to imagine if I was an early human who was without rationality and no a priori Knowledge to draw from.

I'm in existence, but I know nothing about it, One of my senses will create my first thought, most common was hunger, I suspect. Either way, I would act without doubt until the point when what I had experienced to happen before did not happen.

Not yet being able to reason, the memory of the interaction will still be stored in my memory. Before there was a concept of belief and truth, truth was everything I experienced. This is when doubt truly evolved. Before we could rationalize the difference, belief became the concept of "what it is", and truth became the concept of "was supposed to be".

Anyway, my point is, doubt was not innate, it was learned from experience. If you consider the brain/mind duality, the brain is the source of the mind, but the mind has an effect on the brain. The brain uses electrical and biological methods that allow it to create a storage space for experience input.

In the beginning, the mind was just a collection of experienced memories. But each memory changed the structure of the brain as it developed. Through time we evolved a consciousness. If you don't narrow the discussion to Darwinian evolution, then you must accept the fact of evolution as a concept being required because of time.

We will always be subject to the effects of time. Any differences between T1 and T2 can be considered evolutionary since T2 is inherited from T1. Any Social state, from S1 to S2 is evolutionary because S2 inherited the conditions of S1 in order to be able to become S2.

In both cases, time just causes changes everywhere, but it always moves forward, so what ever universe you choose to imagine, was inherited from a previous universe and was therefore evolutionary. The only thing innate in a species is what it has at the start. All else is inherited from there over time.

I hope this informs the conversation in some way, as far as it concerns doubt as innate vs evolutionary.

Ultimately, it's just my view of the situation, conjured from my imagination.

Certainty is the default conclusion. Doubt began with greater intelligence and the exploration of alternative possibilities. — A Seagull

Yes, but suppose the world appears as it really is. Is there cause for doubt? In the transition from stranger to acquaintance to good friend a concomitant reduction in doubt can be seen. This can be chalked up to a parallel progression in how well appearances reflect true reality. Strangers and acquaintances will conceal their true nature, friends won't.

There's also the issue of having to deal with incomplete information. In the example I gave in the OP, what's visible is the greyish, rough, dorsum of the crocodile which closely resembles a floating log. Other animals will only see the crocodile's exposed back - partial/incomplete information. Doubt is inevitable. What is that thing floating toward them? Looks like a log and also like a crocodile's back? I think this is where "exploration of alternative possibilities" comes in.

All in all, the capacity for "exploration of alternative possibilities" is intimately linked to the fact that under most, if not all, circumstances we work with incomplete information, they perfect environment for doubt to thrive in.

Trying to force nature to conform to reason will not lead to truth. — Pinprick

I sympathize with your position but, like it or not, reason has emerged as the final authority on matters of truth. Reason's a time-tested method and has the final say when our goal is to separate fact from fiction. Put differently, we have seem to be under the impression that there's no reason to doubt rationality/logic/reason. My question is, given your position, what does it mean to doubt reason itself?

’m asking you to question your own presupposition, which seems to be that everything about human capacities can be understood as a consequence of evolutionary theory. — Wayfarer

My bad. It was a done as a matter of convenience and I admitted to it in a previous post.

The questiom then is what non-scientific, non-reductionist, explanation for the existence of our doubting nature is there?

If you'll indulge me, doubt arises because of the fact that, most of the time, we deal with incomplete information and being so, the data/information is compatible with more than one hypothesis. For instance, given only a silhouette of canine against the moon, I won't be able to tell if it's a wolf or a dog. Doubt! Is it a dog? Is it a wolf? In essence, the origins of doubt can be found in the world itself - similarities and differences are fundamental to either mistaking one thing for another or thinking the same thing is two different things and that creates the perfect conditions for doubt to establish itself.

As an example of the same thing being mistaken for two different things we can imagine the scenario where you're looking at something you're familiar with, say your friend, from a different angle, for instance from behind; if you've never seen your friend from behind you won't be able to identify your friend in a crowd - you'll think s/he's a different person.

Ultimately, it's just my view of the situation, conjured from my imagination. — Edgy Roy

That's a topic for another discussion. Thank you.