Hyperbolic scepticism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2012, 03:05 PM
Hyperbolic scepticism
I watched the start of a response to Qualia Soup's Burden of Proof video by the Cartesian Theist (I think that's how you spell his name) and he said that the response of 'I don't know' is just hyperbolic scepticism because it's up to the person who is looking for answers about the universe to make a rational decision about what caused it.

But I honestly do not know. I mean I'd rather that than saying god did it and possibly slowing down research on the issue. Saying god did does nothing for the issue.

Do you think that people are guilty of hyperbolic scepticism? Or is it still a good thing?

Did you find anything wrong with the video?

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 04:13 PM
RE: Hyperbolic scepticism
The response of "I don't know" is simply a statement of fact. It is the most honest answer that can be given at this time when someone asks for absolute certainty of how the universe was created. Hyperbolic skepticism? Sounds like more smokescreen from the fanatics. The rational decisions are the current theories that best explain the make up of the universe. We operate according to these well grounded theories until a better one comes along. Making up an answer is what is dishonest and vulgar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like arbmouser's post
01-05-2012, 05:02 PM
RE: Hyperbolic scepticism
I think he went on to say that we have a duty to choose the most probable world view and accept it and argue for it (denying any gaps that might exist).

The religious world view seeks to determine what is probable (usually at a young age, and based on a limited knowledge of the world, and highly influenced by parents and peers), accepting it, and then defending it against all reason.

A scientific world view seeks to determine what exists, provisionally accepting it, and then incrementally increasing our knowledge and changing what we accept based on the evidence that we find.

CartesianTheist doesn't want to allow room for people who say "I don't know", or even "I only know provisionally, and I am aware of the gaps in my knowledge". He wants something concrete to argue against. Flipped around, atheists also want to have something concrete to argue against. "What are the properties of your God?" we will ask, as we seek for opportunities to disprove their god.

While we both seek for a concrete model to argue against, the religious world view that claims absolute knowledge absolutely should be able to provide a more concrete and more complete model than the scientific world view that claims only provisional knowledge. However, the reverse is usually true. Science encapsulates an incredible body of knowledge and evidence while religions remain a fragmented black hole of competing and contradictory ideas - none of which have any evidence behind them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: