Doubt: Someone knows.
Skepticism: No one knows.

:chin: The Doubt-Skepticism paradox!

"Skeptic" is define as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

"Doubt" is define as a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction. — TheQuestion

You literally used doubt to define skepticism, then go on to say they are different. I get what you're trying to say - skepticism is a searching position, determined to sort out truth and falsehood. But doubt can be both - it can be a doctrinal stance of questioning, which is what enables a worldview of skepticism in the first place - or it can be purely emotional and baseless.

As a skeptic, you'll always have some doubt. But having doubt alone does not make you a skeptic.

Humans do what they feel and then rationalize it later. Skepticism is no different. People are skeptical of what they don't feel like studying or believing.

Truth is a bothersome chore to most. To me its the elixir of the gods.

Doubt simpliciter leads to/causes mental torment: Does she love? She's just being kind! She didn't call! She hates me! Oh Gawd! This is more than I can bear!

Skepticism leads to ataraxia (tranquility): Does she even exist? Do I exist? Oh, and "surety brings ruin" as per the Delphic Oracle, no less. By the way would anyone trust the words of a person who's probably a druggie?

"Skeptic" is define as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
"Doubt" is define as a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction. — TheQuestion

Yes. As a young Agnostic I had doubts, instead of convictions, about my childhood religion. But now, as an elderly Skeptic, I am open to new evidence, but not bound by faith to accept un-verifiable beliefs. A Cynic doubts all beliefs of other ("stupid" ; "ignorant") people. So, my worldview is still growing and expanding, because like a shark, a philosophical Mind must keep swimming in order to survive. :joke:

Scepticism =/= being sceptical of something. Just sayin'...

I look at skepticism as a unknown variable in a mathematical problem.

Skepticism is like That variable where the answer changes and is always an unknown.

Our thoughts are compared to an equation you are trying to solve for the unknown.

I am a man of faith but I can still consider myself as a skeptic on particular topics.

Like my recent post on “The theory of the Multiverse and thermodynamics” is an example of me being a skeptic because it contradicts entropy or on some areas of entropy.

But being skeptic doesn’t always having to mean I don’t believe in God it just means I choose to use skepticism to think and solve a particular objective.

I am a man of faith but I can still consider myself as a skeptic on particular topics. — TheQuestion

Yes. The apostle Paul taught that -- in some cases and on some topics -- we should temper Faith with a touch of Skepticism :
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [test] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
He was not talking about Ghost Hunting, but of new trends in popular opinion : especially a packaged belief system. If someone tells you "this pill will open your eyes to true reality", it would be wise to examine the label for a list of ingredients before swallowing. For example, LSD & PCP may show you a psychedelic alternative reality, but an overdose might just expand your mind until it pops.

Unfortunately, like street drugs, most religious doctrines don't come with a warning label. On the surface, they may sound attractive, but inwardly they may be full of "false prophets' or "ravening wolves". So how can we "try" or "test" the bitter pills? Trustingly try it and see what happens? Or use our rational faculties to research the alleged contents? When, long after the age of reason, I did the research, I learned that the book I was taught to take on Faith, was full of false spirits (unverifiable facts) and ravening prophets (those who assure you of "things hoped for". :cool:


hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/hallucinogens

Unfortunately, like street drugs, most religious doctrines don't come with a warning label. On the surface, they may sound attractive, but inwardly they may be full of "false prophets' or "ravening wolves". So how can we "try" or "test" the bitter pills? Trustingly try it and see what happens? Or use our rational faculties to research the alleged contents? When, long after the age of reason, I did the research, I learned that the book I was taught to take on Faith, was full of false spirits (unverifiable facts) and ravening prophets (those who assure you of "things hoped for". :cool: — Gnomon

I don’t see religion as fill with false prophets but as different interpretation of the same story told.

In its very core is the retelling something deeper. I been recently testing my faith with Scientific research and I been oddly having an adverse effect. The more reasoning and fact searching I do the closer I get to God.

Maybe I am just an odd person with odd perspectives but when I research thermodynamics and biblical scripture and articles of cosmology. I see the logic behind there being a God.

And how the Universe is created by the Cyclic theory, the first law of thermodynamics and close system Universe. How I keep all these in mind when I read biblical scripture and I see God’s grace. And how it blows my mind how it mirrors the book of Genesis ch. 1 thru 11.

May is all subjective but through my own eyes I see the correlation granted not identical word to word but I still see the spirit especially when I star into the cosmos.

I see the Universe as God’s canvas and energy that exist is his paint on a palette and gravity as his paint brush.

With each stroke of his brush he makes galaxies, stars, the cosmos and reality.

And like the sand mandala in traditional Buddhist fashion the Universe will be re-created again in God’s image. In “the Cyclic theory”.

But like I said it is just my way of seeing it.

But being skeptic doesn’t always having to mean I don’t believe in God it just means I choose to use skepticism to think and solve a particular objective. — TheQuestion

Of course, I have met many Christian skeptics. Most people use skepticism in daily life, it's just that they are selective (and often inconsistent ) in how they apply their skepticism.

Hence this:

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin


Personally my definition of a skeptic is someone who requires good evidence before they believe something. Skepticism isn't denialism.

Statements like these below for instance -

I see the Universe as God’s canvas and energy that exist is his paint on a palette and gravity as his paint brush.

With each stroke of his brush he makes galaxies, stars, the cosmos and reality.

And like the sand mandala in traditional Buddhist fashion the Universe will be re-created again in God’s image. In “the Cyclic theory”. — TheQuestion

- say nothing about the world and simply describe the writer's imaginative use of words.

I personally have no reason to believe in god/s - none of the reasons presented have been convincing.

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin — Tom Storm

Yet none of the people who believe "there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe" do so because George Carlin told them so. He's just making misleading hyperbole.

Maybe I am just an odd person with odd perspectives but when I research thermodynamics and biblical scripture and articles of cosmology. I see the logic behind there being a God. — TheQuestion

I too see a role for "a God" when I contemplate the logic of our physical world. Unfortunately, it's not the God-of-the-Bible that I learned about in my religious upbringing. After the age of reason, my own skeptical review of the "Holy Book" led me to doubt that it is the word of God. Ironically, it was my education in Science that eventually convinced me that the ancient Greeks were correct in their conclusion, that a First Cause is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing". But the humanoid deity of most popular religions -- while useful for tribal cohesion -- is a poor model for a Cosmic Creator. On the other hand, the philosophical thinkers of most world religions have agreed, in general, on a creative Principle, that is not subject to the emotional outbursts of a sky-king with a fragile ego. Blaise Pascal dismissively called such an abstraction "the god of philosophers", which paled in comparison to "the God of Faith".

Some examples of philosophical god-concepts are : Greek Logos, Hindu Brahman, Chinese Tao, and the Jewish Alpha & Omega. These all are attempts to explain the existence of a Real Temporal & Spatial world in view of the Ideal concept of Eternity & Infinity. Most of them see signs of ideal Cosmic Order, within an imperfect & dissipative reality. Even modern Science acknowledges that, despite the ravages of Entropy, the world is organized in such a way that human reason can understand it. And even atheist scientists reluctantly use the ancient notion of divine "Laws" in reference to the orderly principles of Nature that make their pragmatic purposes possible.

These rational god-models may not be as emotionally satisfying as the notion of a super-hero who will save the world. But, they allow reasonable people to label the logical patterns of Nature, upon which they depend in order to survive and thrive, amid randomness & uncertainty. That's not an irrefutable Faith, but it is a reasonable Foundation upon which to build a positive outlook and a successful life. :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Yet none of the people who believe "there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe" do so because George Carlin told them so. He's just making misleading hyperbole. — baker

Are you being too concrete with his one liner? I'd say Carlin is an acute observer of how skepticism is used by people. They accept some claims (without ever thinking to question them) and these are often spectacular claims, like a God or some fulsome conspiracy theory. And yet, in another situation these same folk like to have evidence. As per the paint example. Yes it's hyperbole (he was a comic, after all) but I've certainly observed this inconsistency many times. The beauty of Carlin's quote is that he says it like an aphorism of Nietzsche, by way of the Bronx.

They accept some claims (without ever thinking to question them) and these are often spectacular claims, like a God — Tom Storm

When people are raised into God belief from early on, the issue of questioning the acceptance of the religious claims of their parents becomes moot. Those claims are so fundamental to their identity and outlook on life that they cannot question them. It would be like pulling the rug from under yourself, by yourself.

I did understand this and you are right to highlight this as a difference.

Unfortunately, it's not the God-of-the-Bible that I learned about in my religious upbringing. After the age of reason, my own skeptical review of the "Holy Book" led me to doubt that it is the word of God. Ironically, it was my education in Science that eventually convinced me that the ancient Greeks were correct in their conclusion, that a First Cause is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing". But the humanoid deity of most popular religions -- while useful for tribal cohesion -- is a poor model for a Cosmic Creator. On the other hand, the philosophical thinkers of most world religions have agreed, in general, on a creative Principle, that is not subject to the emotional outbursts of a sky-king with a fragile ego. Blaise Pascal dismissively called such an abstraction "the god of philosophers", which paled in comparison to "the God of Faith". — Gnomon

I do see the God in the Bible but you can say is subjective through my point of view.

when it comes to religion whether is Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism or Islam. There is a common denominator in all faiths. Even some philosophers would agree with the religious, on this belief.

and I am hesitant to express this thought because it may sound misleading but I am talking about “panpsychism,” the idea that consciousness might be a fundamental ingredient of all matter, right down to the atomic level.

It is the foundation of all religious belief but was never given a name to this idea. Till the 1930’s by Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap.

I don’t agree with everything but I do see this concept manifesting in other faiths including my own.

Many of my Christians brothers and sisters would not agree with me and probably call it heresy but I believe Jesus was trying to describe the Heavenly Father in that way.

When Jesus spoke of the Father in the New Testament it makes sense to me in scripture. And how he spoke of our Heavenly Father in parables in an attempt to explain this concept. That the Father God is all around us, in us and in all creation.


Which is the common denominator in all types of faith.

I guess to make it clear, being faithful is not static thinking but is dynamic. To see God in just one way makes it unrealistic. That is why we don’t have an images of God or idols he is meant to be a multidimensional God.

I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes.

I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes. — TheQuestion

That much is clear. But we can find exactly the same kind of 'preachy' subjective speculative views from Hindus and Islamic believers. Although their views would point to different conclusions. The issue isn't that people have imaginative opinions. We know this. The issue is what evidence do you, or they, have for such views. If none, why should anyone take notice?

Which is the common denominator in all types of faith. — TheQuestion

The common denominator of faith is that it is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for their belief. What can't be justified through an appeal to faith? Slavery... homophobia... capital punishment... clitorectomies. The problem with faith is it is not a reliable pathway to truth.

Doubt: I don't know but that which I don't know is knowable. Ouch! :grimace:

Skepticism: I don't know and that which I don't know is unknowable. Hooray! :cool:

and I am hesitant to express this thought because it may sound misleading but I am talking about “panpsychism,” . . . .
I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes. — TheQuestion

Please don't worry about expressing non-mainstream views on this forum. That's what it's here for. But you can expect some negative feedback, along with the positive. Just let it roll off like water off a freshly waxed duck's derriere. :joke:

I doubt that Jesus was a PanPsychist (all is mind) or PanTheist (all is god), but he was in favor of Monotheism (my god for all men). However in recent years, many philosophically-inclined people have adopted some kind of PanPsychism paradigm. But that worldview pictures amoral Nature as the deity. The impartiality of Nature may seem ideal to some, who are tired of conflicts between "chosen people". But I think a more reasonable god-model would be the Logos, which was characterized by harmony & balance, instead of just an indifferent laissez faire deity.

So my hypothetical non-denominational First Cause is best described as PanEnDeistic ( all-in-god). This is still a nature-god, but one that is infinite & eternal, hence encompassing not just our little selfish world, but all possible worlds. Such a deity cannot be expected to answer partisan prayers, but will treat all creatures impartially, and allow them to develop according their natural and cultural talents. :cool:


Trump’s Top Pastor Delivers What May Be The Most Partisan Prayer In Convention History :
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/trumps-top-pastor-delivers-what-may-be-the-most-partisan-prayer-in-convention-history-6dbfab3552dc/

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Does this verse prove that God will save all people? No, it simply states that God “will have all men to be saved.” The word “will” in Greek is “thelo.” It means “will” (1 Cor. 7:36), or “desire” (Mark 9:35; Phil. 4:17). God desires that all people be saved. But, not all people will be saved.
https://carm.org/universalism/1-tim-24-2-pet-39-and-universalism/

I think is that faith is not a standard definition. I believe in God but how identify with God is different compared to others

I don't believe in deity beings (physical solid being in the sky) either but I still acknowledge that God exist. I understand it is a paradoxical way of thinking.

I speculate that we all have a certain belief in God but not in a standard dogmatic sense. Or in a traditional conceptual way.

Some may say I believe in God but define him as a living Univese or reality.

Some say a Spirit, a ghost or a floating consciousness without a body.

Others may say I believe in God but believe in a being sitting in a thrown in heaven.

Or other may say I believe in God but is conceptual as a model idea.

But the point in me saying this is that faith is not a set of rules to be followed it is an a evolving relationship. How the individual identifies with God is unique to each perspective.

You get to see hints of that when you study Evangelical Theology.

How it is broken up into 4 categories

1. Biblical Theology - Biblical theology is the focus on the specific ways that the discreet and unique authorial voices in Scripture reflect on the larger questions of theology and the relationships of actions and activities between God and human creatures.

2. Historical Theology - Historical theology, likewise, is undertaken within the practices of faith, paying specific attention to all the movements of human history from the perspective of biblically informed views of space and time, accounting for the dynamic movements of dogmatic theology and the practices of the Church.

3. Systematic Theology (Study of Dogmatic practices) - The practices and reflections of systematic theology take up the canonical currents of Biblical theology, appropriating the theological voices of history. It does so with the full consciousness that dogmatic theology serves the Church as the people of God in her efforts to live and act faithfully in relation to her Creator, and Lord and Savior in the power of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic theology’s goal is forming practiced faithfulness.

4. Practical Theology - practical theology begins with the full consciousness that all the practices of the church and Christians are underwritten by theologies; biblical, historical and systematic. The goal of practical theology is to reflect intentionally on present practices and their ingredient theologies in order to critically discern their shape and character so as to deeper faithful practices, correct those which are sinful, and discern with greater clarity how to live out biblical Christian virtues.

To me these are just different flavors of Christian faith and understanding the different philosophical dynamic of faith.

It shows how religion in essence is another branch of Philosophy with the belief in God as the center piece.

Even St. Augustine of Hippo study platoism but adopted it to the Christian faith to better preach to his Congregation.

The common denominator of faith is that it is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for their belief. What can't be justified through an appeal to faith? Slavery... homophobia... capital punishment... clitorectomies. The problem with faith is it is not a reliable pathway to truth. — Tom Storm

Slavery... Homophobia.... Capital punishment

Are just examples of human nature inherit subconscious fears and discriminatory tendencies. That would have arose regardless of the existence of religion or not.

Because human being seek to justify bad behavior through personal interpretation.

I can take scripture and redefined it how I see fit to accomplish a motive. But it won’t mean it will be align with God’s grace.

I have to admit I encountered Churches with very prejudice preaching styles that it makes me have a hard time believing that they are even Christians.

But I feel that is more of a human character flaw than that of religion.

That is where educating yourself about the faith is important. To study Scripture on your own and study the historical background. So when you do encounter that preacher with bigotry ideology you can say.

That is not true “That’s not what Jesus meant”

I feel there are a lot of preachers who take advantage of people who don't study the Bible and don’t meditate on the word. Many go to Church but not once read a page of the Bible and depend on another person to relay the word.

But if the person is corrupt and not align with God's grace you can manipulate a congratulation to think badly.

But if you are well versed in the scripture and knowledgeable of the word, you can identify these vipers like a sore thumb.

Are just examples of human nature inherit subconscious fears and discriminatory tendencies. That would have arose regardless of the existence of religion or not. — TheQuestion

That's missing my actual point. :smile: It doesn't matter how many different ways prejudice might arise. My point is that faith is often used as a justification for prejudice. Hence the question: what can't be justified by an appeal to faith? Answer: nothing. In other words, faith is a terrible pathway to truth.

But if the person is corrupt and not align with God's grace you can manipulate a congratulation to think badly.

But if you are well versed in the scripture and knowledgeable of the word, you can identify these vipers like a sore thumb. — TheQuestion

One man's viper is another's pious believer. That's the whole problem.

I take the view that is highly likely that a sincere Christian could also be a racist, homophobic, judgemental person. After all, it's only a believer's subjective personal opinion about what constitutes the correct interpretation of Scripture. That's all any religion ever has - subjective interpretation. Well, that and the faith that their interpretation is correct even if it supports a hatred of gay people, women or Islamic folk.