[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Curt Steinmetz]

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
> It is a matter of practical experience that you 
> can doubt anything and subsequently investigate if it's true. There are 
> also sceptics like Naagaarjuna who systematically doubt everything. 
> Besides, religious belief is very different from practical belief. It is 
> faith and not presumption. Someone who believes in God has a very 
> different state of mind from someone who believes he sees a good friend 
> in a crowd. Christians think that faith is universal, but it is quite 
> rare in fact. Belief as presumption is a normal human quality.
>
>   

Scepticism is only possible if one has some criterion for truth. "Doubt" 
by itself, without some criterion for truth, is incoherent at best, and 
just plain dishonest at worst.

To "doubt" something is to posit that it is possible to distinguish 
between what is true and what is not. It is not necessary to assume that 
such a distinction is absolute, or, alternatively, that it is absolutely 
knowable by the human mind. But there must be some extent to which 
"truth" can be known, and some criteria for making even a qualified 
judgment in that regard.

The more usual case, though, is for people to arbitrarily "doubt" ideas 
they do not like, and uncritically accept (as "obvious", or whatever) 
ideas that they do like.

A close reading of Plato's Apology can be very helpful in clarifying the 
proper understanding and application of "doubt". Socrates emphasizes the 
limitations of his own knowledge, but there are some very important 
things of which he is completely certain. He has no doubt, whatsoever, 
that there is nothing of any importance that the jury can do to him. He 
is unconcerned for himself. He goes further and makes it clear that his 
lack of concern is especially with regard to what happens to his 
physical body, while he is certain that the jury has no power to harm 
his soul (psyche).

Curt Steinmetz