Q&A: Skepticism — Where Was It Born?
Skepticism — Where Was It Born?
Question
Hi,
In the past I thought (not based on data, but on personal feeling) that people who advocate absolute logic would have a hard time believing in a higher power. After I discovered that there are many axioms that such people assume (not on the basis of empirical proof!), I realized that my thoughts were mistaken. And not only that, but I also began to suspect that absolute logic leads to belief in a higher power.
In addition, I discovered that great people, who brought about crazy progress in science, and especially in the exact sciences, were believers, and some of them were actually religious.
Introverted people, whom you would hardly notice on the street, let alone make small talk with them.
Examples of such mathematicians (mathematicians specifically, because this is truly an exact science): Carl Friedrich Gauss, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, and of course there are many more (certainly in other fields as well).
The point is not, “They believe, so obviously I should too.”
Rather, I am wondering about skepticism, and why I’m starting to fear that it is a psychological matter, one that became entrenched as a result of critical thinking that lost its boundaries and became irrational.
By “a psychological matter” I mean a genuinely psychological point. Only on the spectrum where it does not cause a person discomfort. (And then it is not categorized as a “mental problem.”)
But psychological skepticism is (apparently) defined when there is discomfort about it. But who said that skepticism that is not accompanied by pain should be considered normal?
Is it normal for a person not to study mathematics because some of it rests on axioms?
Sorry for the long writing; it was important to me to clarify my points.
In your opinion, can skepticism constitute a disturbance that is not necessarily recognized in psychology? And if so, is part of our generation actually coerced?
One more remark that is not really related—sometimes I read an article of yours and I do not really understand some of the points in it directly. But after further reflection, everything becomes clarified and connected. So it is important that you know that. (For you everything probably runs smoothly; for others it is sometimes hard to digest the ideas.)
Thank you!
Answer
Greetings.
Skepticism is a position I do not agree with, but like any position it can stem from many sources. In principle, skepticism that expresses a disturbance is possible, but it may also simply be a position (an incorrect one). Even someone who is not willing to consider his skeptical position is stubborn, but not necessarily mentally disturbed. Especially since a disturbance is not defined objectively, but only where it interferes with a person’s functioning. I do not think one can say objectively, “X is a disturbance.”
All this is unrelated to the question of whether the skeptic is coerced. If it is the result of psychological compulsion (absolute compulsion, not just a tendency), then he is coerced. If he is coerced in his reasoning (because that is genuinely how he thinks), that too is a kind of coercion. Skepticism is a sin only if it stems from an impulse despite knowing that it is not correct.