[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 17-3-2010 15:58, Curt Steinmetz schreef:
> 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.
>    
The classic sceptical attitude is that it's impossible to decide A or 
not A because there are both arguments for A and not A and it is 
impossible to decide. As Zhuangzi has put it: whether you choose A or 
not A in both cases you're biassed. The locus classicus for scepticism 
is not Plato but Sextus Epirucus.
> 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.
>    
It may be that one wants God to exist, but to defend this position one 
needs arguments. Well, if there are valid arguments for both the 
existence and the nonexistence of God, the believer has a bias and 
scepticism is the only valid position. The fact however that some people 
believe in God doesn't mean that their arguments are valid. Validity is 
a priori, people believing  in something is a posteriori.

erik