The question then is what non-scientific, non-reductionist, explanation for the existence of our doubting nature is there? — TheMadFool
That describes doubt but doesn't explain its existence. — TheMadFool
Agreed.Good point. The original question was 'How did doubt begin?'
I do tend to think that the answer to that is implicit in what I said, though. Animals need to make decisions in order to survive. Those that can't just die out. Decision making requires reasoning - like the bird deciding whether it's safe enough to come and get the bread from my hand. Good reasoning, in turn requires an assessment of the probability of the correctness of suppositions - 'How likely is it that I will survive the encounter?'
So doubt evolved right from the beginning of animal life (in the Cambrian or just before) along with other evolved behaviors. Basically it has always been there and animal life would be impossible without it. — Neb
Doubt existed a long time before modern scientific method. Those questions you ask about dogs and wolves were asked in almost exactly the same fashion in ancient India in the form of 'is it a rope or a snake'? That tendency in philosophy was one of the factors that gave rise to scientific method in the first place. Scepticism has been a face of philosophy since it existed, a long time before science sought to explain human nature.
When you say 'our doubting nature', you're treating 'doubt' as a kind of theoretical construct. In realiy 'doubt' is a natural faculty. Seeking 'an explanation of our doubting nature' seems like a contrivance to me. As I said, 'our doubting nature' is a natural collorary of the ability to question. We can envisage things being different, so how can doubt not be possible? We can ask ourselves, 'what if it is not so?' If it's possible to know, then it's possible to doubt. You don't need to rationalise it in terms of evolutionary theory. — Wayfarer
Decision making requires reasoning - like the bird deciding whether it's safe enough to come and get the bread from my hand. — Neb
in fact it's recommended that skepticism be cultivated and generously applied to all situations. — TheMadFool
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? — TheMadFool
FYI, there's more acceptance of doubt in religious communities than on atheist forums. — Hippyhead
It's entirely possible that the ability to doubt exists for no rhyme or reason but the way it has persisted in us must mean that it's useful in some way. — TheMadFool
Your thinking is still muddled. Doubt is not a biological adaptation in the sense that claws and wings are. You’re still treating it like it has to be rationalised biologically in terms of the purpose it serves. — Wayfarer
Ok then, perhaps someone would like to prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon subjects the scale of gods. You see, the thing is, philosophers like to talk about skepticism, but don't actually like to do it that much. That is, philosophers are human too. — Hippyhead
Therefore, if we observe something in nature that defies reason, we must concede that our reason is mistaken. We cannot deny the existence of some phenomenon simply because it’s existence defies reason. Such is the case with quantum physics. Reason would lead you to believe that quantum entanglement is impossible, yet it exists. And to answer your question, that is what it means to doubt reason; questioning it when something is observed that defies it, or when reasoning leads to something contradictory or paradoxical. — Pinprick
Your thinking is still muddled. Doubt is not a biological adaptation in the sense that claws and wings are. You’re still treating it like it has to be rationalised biologically in terms of the purpose it serves.
— Wayfarer
Is the idea of utility so intimately tied to evolutionary biology that we can't think of one without the other? — TheMadFool
Today’s biologists tend to be cautious about labelling any trait an evolutionary adaptation—that is, one that spread through a population because it provided a reproductive advantage. It’s a concept that is easily abused, and often “invoked to resolve problems that do not exist,” the late George Williams, an influential evolutionary biologist, warned. When it comes to studying ourselves, though, such admonitions are hard to heed. So strong is the temptation to explain our minds by evolutionary “Just So Stories,” Stephen Jay Gould argued in 1978, that a lack of hard evidence for them is frequently overlooked (his may well have been the first pejorative use of Kipling’s term). Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and a popular-science writer, who died in 2002, was taking aim mainly at the rising ambitions of sociobiology. He had no argument with its work on bees, wasps, and ants, he said. But linking the behavior of humans to their evolutionary past was fraught with perils, not least because of the difficulty of disentangling culture and biology. Gould saw no prospect that sociobiology would achieve its grandest aim: a “reduction” of the human sciences to Darwinian theory. — Antony Gottlieb
Of course! — Wayfarer
Because it's a fundamental aspect of knowing. — Wayfarer
in fact it's part of the training for a lot of disciplines (including science, law, and many others). — Wayfarer
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.
I think the answer is that truth in that sense is sought for its own sake, for the simple reason that it ought to be the aim of every philosopher. — Wayfarer
How to resolve that (a perceived conflict between science and religion), or address it, is a big question — Wayfarer
Truth can not be contained in any philosophy, because the truth is what's real, and any philosophy any one might come up with is merely a collection of symbols which point very imperfectly to the real. To confuse a philosophy, any philosophy, with the truth is like confusing a highway sign pointing to the next town with the town itself. — Hippyhead
That is well understood in many philosophies — Wayfarer
As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.' That reflects a lot of the confusion. — Wayfarer
The issue in Western philosophy is that it really is at a fork in the road, and the roads don’t lead to the same destination. Scientific culture really is intent on re-defining mankind — Wayfarer
You're right in saying that the spiritual path is a hard path, something I'm all too aware of. — Wayfarer
I never think about ‘what God might consider’. — Wayfarer
It seems thoroughly anthropocentric to think that way. — Wayfarer
the suspension of judgement of what is not evident. — Wayfarer
There’s some truth in that but it’s by no means the whole story. — Wayfarer
given God exists, — TheMadFool
I saw a short video on Pyrrhonian Skepticism - if I understood correctly, it's the most radical version of skepticism, basically total and complete suspension of any and all judgements. — TheMadFool
But it's not the silly parlour game of 'how do you know you know anything?' It's more like meditation: being aware of the content of consciousness without being drawn in by it. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.