The Necessity of Doubt

[Molly Brogan]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them. Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness? Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?

Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected. Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought.

What do YOU think?

[...]

..doubt, to me, is the great equalizer; the default state of philosophical being. Every transcedental question could be answered with, "doubtful". Seen in that light, doubt is a wonderful contamination of the inquisitive mind with honesty and sincerity. Much of which is lacking in our overtly religious societies...

[schrodinger]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them. Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness? Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?

Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected. Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought.

What do YOU think?


Let's not forget Rene Descartes, who said " In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life, to doubt as far as possible all things."

I think the emphasis has to be on that "once" meaning that we cannot go through life in a continuous state of doubting everything, and expect to be contented. Doubt needs to be taken in measured amounts, as does any good medicine.

[Michael]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them. Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness? Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?

Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected. Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought.

What do YOU think?

As long as the questiion remains based in theory the answer will remain there too. The only way to find the answer to the question for oneself is to surrender yourself, live without doubt and see what happens.

[peterh]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them. Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness? Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?

Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected. Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought.

What do YOU think?

there have been times in my life where sometimes i dont have a single shred of fact to go on is doubt not then your best friend

[peterh]

..doubt, to me, is the great equalizer; the default state of philosophical being. Every transcedental question could be answered with, "doubtful". Seen in that light, doubt is a wonderful contamination of the inquisitive mind with honesty and sincerity. Much of which is lacking in our overtly religious societies...

there is no doubt of the divine when knowing comes from the experience

[...]

there is no doubt of the divine when knowing comes from the experience

..yeah, that's what they all say :lol:

[kris]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them.Doubt is a state of suspension. Therein lies its value and its limitations. Its a brake on the mind and can prevent hasty decisions. It can also lead to indecision and lead to lack of progress.Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness?Doubt should always be an option; never a necessity. When doubt is an option, the doubter is in charge. When doubt becomes a necessity, the doubt rules the doubter. Doubt should be our tool, never our master.
Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?From personal example, I have always had doubts about religion. No more. Now the doubt is gone. I have concluded that religion is a form of insanity.
Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected.When Alexander asked Aristotle how he should treat all the people whose lands he was planning to conquer, Aristotle's advice was to treat the conquered people like plants and animals. Apparently doubt did not help Aristotle much in removal of prejudice.
Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.I would call it a analytical treatment rather than doubt.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” .I value all my experiences, not just sense experiences. This attitude places severe limits on ones self -perception. I will leave it to Huxley.
Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought
What do YOU think?Reality does not reveal itself to us easily. Knowledge of reality is not an entitlement. We have to earn it. I have never seen truth change. What is changing is our state of knowledge of the truth.

[akatsuki]

@Kris-That was an excellent response.Like a cracking straight drive to a full length delivery<sorry guys..those who don't get cricket,my apologies>

I agree with Kris,,to sum it up,, it depends entirely on the context..whether wrt time,space,or person..

The argument whether doubt is necessary or not -is really not worth arguing..

One,of the reasons m saying this is because- doubt may arise out of ignorance or out of excess knowledge..Come on guys I think its a personal choice where one wants to stop doubting <see examples below>

Besides I also believe it is something inherent to the chaos/randomness existing in this universe (of which we are a minute "part").

people who accept this super dynamic nature of the universe,are doubtful,because they know one thing for sure that "nothing is constant"..<something in lines with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle> and hence the truth they are perceiving might not be the same after a day/month or after any given span of time.I agree with Kris' statement that " Ihave never seen truth change. What is changing is our state of knowledge of the truth.But again I doubt that whether -"Truth is constant in all cases".. it depends.

For eg.-Today,everyone has the knowledge that "Sun rises in the east",which is the knowledge we have about the truth that its due to rotational motion of the earth in a certain direction.Suppose 10 yrs down the line,if due to some event the earth starts rotating in the opposite direction-our perception/knowledge about truth will change.Everyone would say-"Now the Sun rises in the West"..However the truth is that- the truth which was the basis of our knowledge has also changed..
<I mean this is just an example.. don't get nervous :goodlaugh:>
knowledge is nothing but the conclusions we have derived from some observations with some repeated proof.So in the end it all depends..<please don't start a silly discussion around this statement,if you disagree,i respect you view point;)>

Coming back to our topic-

The remaining ppl who do not accept ever-changing & unpredictable nature of the universe,simply accept whatever they have/perceive as truth..and they are happy with it (may be they accept it as a truth and stop worrying themselves further).We really cant conclude whether this is right or wrong,which brings us back to our topic of discussion-"Doubt-required or not?"..I think that's what is being discussed here.

Lets get at the roots of "Doubt"-:thumbsup:

Doubt arises out of the necessity to know more accurate info..or lets say -"the Absolute"..so once you have that info/data/knowledge or whatever ...you are satisfied..

Why do we want to know more?Cant we be content with whatever info(correct or inaccurate ) we have?:huh:

The answer to the above question , i believe , is NO..because we (at least a major chunk of us, excluding the great sages,sadhus,gurus etc,. who claim to achieve the "state of enlightenment") have this in built restlessness which keeps our mind/body (or whatever) "ticking"..and thats why we keep on searching for the truth..if we get it we try to find more precise & accurate truth..& keep on refining it..

Of course the above is true ,for only those people who have a doubt and want to get it resolved,,we can always set up a limit/threshold where we can stop this process...

Its like someone discovered the value of PI as 3.14.After a few years,some guy/gal doubted the accuracy of this figure and came with his/more more precise version of PI like 3.1428 something something....and so on..
:)
So to conclude it doesn't really matter..

thats it... from my end...would pump my brakes right here.. right now..:)

[schrodinger]

Its like someone discovered the value of PI as 3.14.After a few years,some guy/gal doubted the accuracy of this figure and came with his/more more precise version of PI like 3.1428 something something....and so on..
:)


Yeah right! Why not just call it a nice round "three"? Ignorance is bliss, right?




So to conclude it doesn't really matter..



I doubt that!

[akatsuki]

Yeah right! Why not just call it a nice round "three"? Ignorance is bliss, right?

exacttly ..thats what I am saying..its a personal choice.. you made a generic statement on a very specific example...which is not applicable anywhere and everywhere..;)


I doubt that!


yeah ..thats ok :)..i respect your view..i say that because most of the things tend to infinity (we stop only when we are out of energy)<Now please dont start a separate thread on this statement ..haha :lol:..>whether its an arguement or R&D or lest say an improvement(Kaizen),or anything... we cant conclude to something which is "absolute"..

But just saying "I doubt that"... doesn't prove that "doubt is always necessary" its you personal choice..or may be anyones personal choice..hehe:goodlaugh:

[Gaurdian]

Doubt is the subjective condition that belongs to mind which judges the facts, where the mind is suspended between two or more propositions and is not able to assent to any of them. Is doubt necessary to our attainment of knowledge and aspiration to a higher consciousness? Or is it a limitation to these, leaving us in mistrust, suspicion or uncertainty and without belief? Is doubt necessary? Does it exclude faith?

Aristotle believed doubt to be preliminary to philosophical inquiry and the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected. Bacon believed that the scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of doubts or contrary arguments.

Thomas Huxley gave the name agnosticism to the state: “of being strictly doubtful towards all that lies beyond sense-experience.” Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful, and truth as perpetually changing with the progress of human thought.

What do YOU think?

Doubt comes from something inherently rooted within. Ultimately when you doubt, you doubt yourself in some way. The next step after doubt is proof. There are many things in this universe that we are far from proving. All that lies is speculation and faith.

Faith does not necessarily mean religion. Faith is to believe in something without doubt though you have no proof. For someone of true faith needs not prove anything to anyone. The need to prove is just a testimony of your own doubt.

Just as doubt comes from within, so does truth. So is it necessary to have doubt? From a Philosophical standpoint, doubt is a limitation, one must overcome doubt completely before they can truly embrace the truth. From a Scientific standpoint, doubt is needed to obtain the data that proves a hypothesis, so doubt is a necessary drive of which one still must overcome or succumb.

[lolipop]

I believe that there is a good and bad to doubt. Doubt requires you to ask questions, and if by asking those questions you find facts that support other facts, then you have used doubt wisely.

In order to have a healthy dose of doubt, you have to have the faith that it, whatever "it" may be, is true. Let me ask a question: have you ever seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled your brain? Does that necessarily mean that you have no brain? Of course not. But people have given you their testimony, or proof, that a brain is located within the cranium of every being that performs complex functions. They have also made pictures of these brains, and you do not doubt that what they say is true.

Anyway, you may not be able to see, smell, heard, touch, or taste God, but that should not stop you from believing that He exists. People give their testimonies that He is there, and draw pictures of Christ, which you can say are influenced by His spirit. If you were to not limit your doubt, then you could never believe in anything, and that seems very sad to me.

I hope this makes sense to you. Religion, to me, gives an explanation to everything.

[Thomas Knierim]

Let me ask a question: have you ever seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled your brain?

No, and I don't necessarily have a desire to do so. :) However, I can still be rather sure that there's a brain in this box, because it has been corroborated by repeatable experiment. The same cannot be said for God, which is why this argument comes a cropper.

I am not inclined to take a position in the atheist vs. theist debate, but I am still a fan of sound logic.

The thing with doubt is that the meaning of this word covers a spectrum from critical rational analysis (which is good) to obsessive mistrust and scepticism (which is bad), so we can never meaningfully answer the question whether doubt is good or bad. It always depends.

Cheers, Thomas