As a rationalist I use a limited โMethodological Skepticismโ maxim: a proverbial saying, a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct) skepticism standard of demanding everything be open to change or challenge if wrong and that includes all scientific believed truths, thus is called โscientificโ skepticism.
I am going to teach you, if interested, of course. But it is amazing and you will feel mentally empowered.
I do hope to make you skilled at axiological thinking as it will make everything clearer when you think or analyze anything. It is both easy and hard. Easy once learned to apply to anything but hard to learn as it is a hidden role in most thinking but people do it like guessing not like rationalism like I and other axiological thinkers do.
Most ideas have a web of axiological assumptions giving it meaning. But are those assumptions reasonable axiological assumptions or just empty unjustified axiological value claims that can not be established? If they are unjustified then the reasoned response is to reject it until it is justified. If it is not justified it lacks a reason for support.
Claiming truth without any available justification, to me, is an axiological assumption error. Or an axiological presumption failure. Thus bad thinking. Axiological assumptions are the value you believe a truth claim holds and why you support it. Remove it and it is no longer reasonable. I show people how ideas lack reason by using axiological thinking all the time. You know it is because I just want to pass along my thoughts, and help if I can.
Some may say of their claim of the skeptic label: โI use the word skepticism is much more in line with the way one uses the idea of reasoned beliefs. Also, as in the way scientific skepticism is discussed, wherein people focus on and attempt to use a scientific evidence-based approach to things, which I prefer to the โdoubtโ approach. We can definitely talk more on this next time we chat though and maybe we can gain some clarity between where each of us stands.โ โ Cory Johnston
Always think, would you actually, be intellectually honest, and in control of your ego, to change, if shown wrong?
โScientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humansโ ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of oneโs beliefs.โ ref
Methodological skepticism, Scientific skepticism, and Cartesian doubt
โMethodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of oneโs beliefs. Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge.โ ref, ref
โScientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humansโ ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism.โ ref
โCartesian doubt is a form of methodological skepticism associated with the writings and methodology of Renรฉ Descartes (March 31, 1596โFeb 11, 1650). Cartesian doubt is also known as Cartesian skepticism, methodic doubt, methodological skepticism, universal doubt, systematic doubt, or hyperbolic doubt.โ ref
โCartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of oneโs beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. Additionally, Descartesโ method has been seen by many as the root of the modern scientific method. This method of doubt was largely popularized in Western philosophy by Renรฉ Descartes, who sought to doubt the truth of all beliefs in order to determine which he could be certain were true. It is the basis for Descartesโ statement, โCogito ergo sumโ (I think, therefore I am). A fuller version of his phrase: โdubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sumโ translates to โI doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist.โ Sum translated as โI existโ (per various Latin to English dictionaries) presents a much larger and clearer meaning to the phrase.โ ref
โCartesian doubt is methodological. It uses doubt as a route to certain knowledge by identifying what canโt be doubted. The fallibility of sense data, in particular, is a subject of Cartesian doubt.โ ref
โThere are several interpretations as to the objective of Descartesโ skepticism. Prominent among these is a foundationalist account, which claims that Descartesโ skepticism aims to eliminate all belief that it is possible to doubt, thus leaving only basic beliefs (also known as foundational beliefs). From these indubitable basic beliefs, Descartes then attempts to derive further knowledge. Itโs an archetypal and significant example that epitomizes the Continental Rational schools of philosophy.โ ref
Cartesian doubt Technique
โDescartesโ method of hyperbolic doubt included:
- Accepting only information you know is true
- Breaking down these truths into smaller units
- Solving the simple problems first
- Making complete lists of further problemsโ ref
โHyperbolic doubt means having the tendency to doubt, since it is an extreme or exaggerated form of doubt. Knowledge in the Cartesian sense means to know something beyond not merely all reasonable doubt, but all possible doubt. In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes resolved to systematically doubt that any of his beliefs were true, in order to build, from the ground up, a belief system consisting of only certainly true beliefs; his end goalโor at least a major oneโwas to find an undoubtable basis for the sciences. Consider Descartesโ opening lines of the Meditations:
โSeveral years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundationโฆโDescartes, Meditation I, 1641โณ ref
Descartesโ method Cartesian doubt
โRenรฉ Descartes, the originator of Cartesian doubt, put all beliefs, ideas, thoughts, and matter in doubt. He showed that his grounds, or reasoning, for any knowledge could just as well be false. Sensory experience, the primary mode of knowledge, is often erroneous and therefore must be doubted. For instance, what one is seeing may very well be a hallucination. There is nothing that proves it cannot be. In short, if there is any way a belief can be disproved, then its grounds are insufficient. From this, Descartes proposed two arguments, the dream, and the demon.โ ref
The dream argument
โDescartes, knowing that the context of our dreams, while possibly unbelievable, are often lifelike, hypothesized that humans can only believe that they are awake. There are no sufficient grounds to distinguish a dream experience from a waking experience. For instance, Subject A sits at the computer, typing this article. Just as much evidence exists to indicate that the act of composing this article is reality as there is evidence to demonstrate the opposite. Descartes conceded that we live in a world that can create such ideas as dreams.โ ref
However, by the end of The Meditations, he concludes that we can distinguish dream from reality at least in retrospect:
โBut when I distinctly see where things come from and where and when they come to me, and when I can connect my perceptions of them with my whole life without a break then I can be certain that when I encounter these things I am not asleep but awake.โโDescartes: Selected Philosophical Writings.โ ref
The Evil Demon
โDescartes reasoned that our very own experience may very well be controlled by an evil demon of sorts. This demon is as clever and deceitful as he is powerful. He could have created a superficial world that we may think we live in. As a result of this doubt, sometimes termed the Malicious Demon Hypothesis, Descartes found that he was unable to trust even the simplest of his perceptions.โ ref
โIn Meditation I, Descartes stated that if one were mad, even briefly, the insanity might have driven man into believing that what we thought was true could be merely our minds deceiving us. He also stated that there could be โsome malicious, powerful, cunning demonโ that had deceived us, preventing us from judging correctly.โ ref
โDescartes argued that all his senses were lying, and since your senses can easily fool you, his idea of an infinitely powerful being must be trueโsince that idea could have only been put there by an infinitely powerful being who would have no reason for deceit.โ ref
I think, therefore I am
โWhile methodic doubt has a nature, one need not hold that knowledge is impossible to apply the method of doubt. Indeed, Descartesโ attempt to apply the method of doubt to the existence of himself spawned the proof of his famous saying, โCogito, ergo sumโ (I think, therefore I am). That is, Descartes tried to doubt his own existence, but found that even his doubting showed that he existed, since he could not doubt if he did not exist.โ ref
Skeptical movement
โThe skeptical movement (British spelling: sceptical movement) is a modern social movement based on the idea of scientific skepticism (also called rational skepticism). Scientific skepticism involves the application of skeptical philosophy, critical-thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims[definition needed] (except those that directly impact the practice of science). The movement has the goal of investigating claims made on fringe topics and determining whether they are supported by empirical research and are reproducible, as part of a methodological norm pursuing โthe extension of certified knowledgeโ. The process followed is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry.โ ref
โRoots of the movement date at least from the 19th century, when people started publicly raising questions regarding the unquestioned acceptance of claims about spiritism, of various widely-held superstitions, and of pseudoscience. Publications such as those of the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (1881) also targeted medical quackery.โ ref
โUsing as a template the Belgian organization founded in 1949, Comitรฉ Para, Americans Paul Kurtz, and Marcello Truzzi founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), in Amherst, New York, in 1976. Now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), this organization has inspired others to form similar groups worldwide.
Skeptical movement Historical roots
โAccording to skeptic author Daniel Loxton, โskepticism is a story without a beginning or an end.โ His 2013 article in Skeptic magazine โWhy Is There a Skeptical Movementโ claims a history of two millennia of paranormal skepticism. He is of the opinion that the practice, problems, and central concepts extend all the way to antiquity and refers to a debunking tale as told in some versions of the Old Testament, where the Prophet Daniel exposes a tale of a โlivingโ statue as a scam.โ ref
โAccording to Loxton, throughout history, there are further examples of individuals practicing critical inquiry and writing books or performing publicly against particular frauds and popular superstitions, including people like Lucian of Samosata (2nd century), Michel de Montaigne (16th century), Thomas Ady and Thomas Browne (17th century), Antoine Lavoisier and Benjamin Franklin (18th century), many different philosophers, scientists and magicians throughout the 19th and early 20th century up until and after Harry Houdini. However, skeptics banding together in societies that research the paranormal and fringe science is a modern phenomenon. Two early important works influential to the skeptical movement were Daniel Webster Heringโs Foibles and Fallacies of Science (1924) and D. H. Rawcliffeโs The Psychology of the Occult.โ ref
โLoxton mentions the Belgian Comitรฉ Para (1949) as the oldest โbroad mandateโ skeptical organization. Although it was preceded by the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (VtdK) (1881), which is therefore considered the oldest skeptical organization by others, the VtdK only focuses on fighting quackery, and thus has a โnarrow mandateโ. The Comitรฉ Para was partly formed as a response to a predatory industry of bogus psychics who were exploiting the grieving relatives of people who had gone missing during the Second World War. In contrast, Michael Shermer traces the origins of the modern scientific skeptical movement to Martin Gardnerโs 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.โ ref
โIn 1968, the French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS) was founded. AFIS strives to promote science against those who deny its cultural value, abuse it for criminal purposes, or as a cover for quackery. According to AFIS, science itself cannot solve humanityโs problems, nor can one solve them without using the scientific method. It maintains that people should be informed about scientific and technical advancements and the problems it helps to solve. Its magazine, Science et pseudo-sciences, attempts to distribute scientific information in a language that everyone can understand.โ ref
CSICOP and contemporary skepticism
โIn 1976, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) since November 2006, was founded in the United States. Some see this as the โbirth of modern skepticismโ, however, founder Paul Kurtz actually modeled it after the Comitรฉ Para, including its name. Kurtzโ motive was being โdismayed โฆ by the rising tide of belief in the paranormal and the lack of adequate scientific examinations of these claims.โ ref
โKurtz was an atheist and had also founded the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. While he saw both aspects as being covered in the skeptical movement, he had recommended CSICOP to focus on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims and to leave religious aspects to others. Despite not being the oldest, CSICOP was โthe first successful, broad-mandate North American skeptical organization of the contemporary periodโ, popularized the usage of the terms โskepticโ, โskepticalโ and โskepticismโ by its magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, and directly inspired the foundation of many other skeptical organizations throughout the world, especially in Europe.โ ref
โThese included Australian Skeptics (1980), Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Sweden, 1982), New Zealand Skeptics (1986), GWUP (Austria, Germany and Switzerland, 1987), Skepsis r.y. (Finland, 1987), Stichting Skepsis (Netherlands, 1987), CICAP (Italy, 1989), and SKEPP (Dutch-speaking Belgium, 1990).โ ref
โBesides scientists such as astronomers, stage magicians like James Randi were important in investigating charlatans and exposing their trickery. In 1996 Randi formed the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and created the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, where anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities, under mutually agreed-upon controlled circumstances, could claim the prize. After Randiโs retirement in 2015, the Paranormal Challenge was officially terminated by the JREF with the prize unclaimed:โ ref
โEffective 9/1/2015 the JREF has made major changes including converting to a grant making foundation and no longer accepting applications for the Million Dollar Prize from the general public.โ ref
โOther influential second-generation American organizations were The Skeptics Society (founded in 1992 by Michael Shermer), the New England Skeptical Society (originating in 1996) and the Independent Investigations Group (formed in 2000 by James Underdown).โ ref
Skeptical movement After 1989
โAfter the Revolutions of 1989, Eastern Europe saw a surge in quackery and paranormal beliefs that were no longer restrained by the generally secular Communist regimes or the Iron curtain and its information barriers. The foundation of many new skeptical organizations was as well intending to protect consumers. These included the Czech Skepticsโ Club Sisyfos (1995), the Hungarian Skeptic Society (2006), the Polish Sceptics Club (2010), and the Russian-speaking Skeptic Society (2013). The Austrian Skeptical Society in Vienna (founded in 2002) deals with issues such as Johann Granderโs โvitalized waterโ and the use of dowsing at the Austrian Parliament.โ ref
โThe European Skeptics Congress (ESC) has been held throughout Europe since 1989, from 1994 onwards co-ordinated by the European Council of Skeptical Organizations. In the United States, The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) hosted by the JREF in Las Vegas had been the most important skeptical conference since 2003, with two spin-off conferences in London, UK (2009 and 2010) and one in Sydney, Australia (2010). Since 2010, the Merseyside Skeptics Society and Greater Manchester Skeptics jointly organized Question, Explore, Discover (QED) in Manchester, UK. World Skeptics Congresses have been held so far, namely in Buffalo, New York (1996), Heidelberg, Germany (1998), Sydney, Australia (2000), Burbank, California (2002), Abano Terme, Italy (2004), and Berlin, Germany (2012).โ ref
โIn 1991, the Center for Inquiry, a US think-tank, brought the CSICOP[83] and the Council for Secular Humanism[84] (CSH) under one umbrella. In January 2016, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science announced its merger with the Center for Inquiry.โ ref
Notable skeptical projects
Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia
โIn 2010, as a form of skeptical outreach to the general population, Susan Gerbic launched the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. In 2017, Gerbic (who was made a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in 2018) and her GSoW team received an award from the James Randi Educational Foundation which โis given to the person or organization that best represents the spirit of the foundation by encouraging critical questions and seeking unbiased, fact-based answers. We are pleased to recognize Susanโs efforts to enlist and train a team of editors who continually improve Wikipedia as a public resource for rationality and scientific thought.โ ref
โIn July 2018, Wired reported that the GSoW team had grown to more than 120 volunteer editors from around the world, and they were collectively responsible for creating or improving some of Wikipediaโs most heavily trafficked articles on skeptical topics. As of July 2018, GSoW had created or completely rewritten more than 630 Wikipedia articles in many languages, which together have accumulated over 28 million page visits.โ ref
Notable skeptical media
Books
Main article: List of books about skepticism
- The Demon-Haunted World
- Why People Believe Weird Things
- Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
- The Skepticsโ Guide to the Universe
Magazines
Main article: List of skeptical magazines
- Skeptic (US)
- Skeptical Inquirer
- The Skeptic (UK)
Television programs
Podcasts
Main article: List of skeptical podcasts
- The Skepticsโ Guide to the Universe
- Skepticality
- The Skeptic Zone
- Skeptoid
- Point of Inquiry
- For Good Reason
Are you Skeptical about your support for skepticism?
I ask as a rationalist that uses a limited (Methodological skepticism maxim: a proverbial saying, a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct) skepticism standard of demanding everything be open to change or challenge if wrong and that includes all scientific believed truths, thus is called โscientificโ skepticism.
So have you been skeptical about your support for skepticism? What do you think about your answer, is it emotional or reasoned? How would I know it was reasoned if you claimed it was reasoned? You need a good justification, right? Are you skeptical of the justification of your answer?
Think, would you actually, be intellectually honest, and in control of your ego, to change, if shown wrong?
โPhilosophical skepticism is interesting because there are intriguing arguments for it despite its initial implausibility.โ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Skepticism
โPhilosophical skepticism is interesting because there are intriguing arguments for it despite its initial implausibility. Many contemporary epistemological positions can be fruitfully presented as responding to some aspect of those arguments. For example, questions regarding principles of epistemic closure and transmission are closely related to the discussion of what we will call Cartesian Skepticism, as are views according to which we are entitled to dismiss skeptical hypotheses even though we do not have evidence against them. The traditional issue of the structure of knowledge and justification, engendering Foundationalism, Coherentism, and Infinitism, can be seen as resulting from one main argument for what we will call Pyrrhonian Skepticism.โ ref
โSkepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, Australian, and New Zealand English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma. Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience. It is often applied within restricted domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or the supernatural.โ ref
โSkepticism has also inspired a number of contemporary social movements. Religious skepticism advocates for doubt concerning basic religious principles, such as immortality, providence, and revelation. Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.โ ref
โIn ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or skepticism (UK) (Greek: โฯฮบฮญฯฯฮฟฮผฮฑฮนโ skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for; see also spelling differences) can refer to:
an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular subject; the doctrine that true knowledge or some particular knowledge is uncertain; the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (MerriamโWebster).โ ref
โIn philosophy, skepticism can refer to:
a mode of inquiry that emphasizes critical scrutiny, caution, and intellectual rigor; a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing; a set of claims about the limitations of human knowledge and the proper response to such limitations.โ ref
Here is how I see it as plain as I can say it, the atheist/non-theist use of the term Skeptic or Skepticism movement, now a term use of skepticism/skeptic heard all over is not asserting nor assuming a โstandard academic philosophy thinking on the term skeptic. The atheist movement has thus made up the term Skeptic or Skepticism movement and not even fully established its coherent meaning, rather it is offered loosely and/or personally, sometimes disconnected theories on what it may involve as a label in the non-theist arena. It is the support of an agnostic trying to be a pseudo-intellectual, to me.
Knowledge, Justification, and Skepticism
โPhilosophically interesting forms of skepticism claim that we do not know propositions which we ordinarily think we do know. We should distinguish such skepticism from the ordinary kind, the claim that we do not know propositions which we would gladly grant not to know. Thus, it is a form of ordinary skepticism to say that we do not know that there are an even number of stars in the Milky Way, but it is a form of philosophical skepticism to say that we do not know that the sun will come out tomorrow. Even though our interest is in philosophical skepticism, we can start our inquiry by thinking about ordinary skepticism.โ ref
โWhy do we readily grant, then, that we donโt know that there are an even number of stars in the Milky Way? To begin with, the vast majority of us do not even believe that proposition, and it is widely acknowledged that knowledge requires belief. But even those who believe it do not know it, even if they luck out and it is true. They do not know it because they are not justified in believing it, and knowledge requires justification. Of course, they are not justified in disbelieving that proposition either. Belief and disbelief are two of the so-called doxastic attitudes that we can adopt towards a proposition. We can also, of course, not even consider a proposition, and thus not adopt any doxastic attitude towards it. But most philosophers would hold that in addition to belief and disbelief there is a third possible doxastic attitude that we can adopt towards a proposition: we can suspend judgment (or withhold assent) with respect to it. Suspension of judgment is thus a bona fide doxastic attitude alongside belief and disbelief, and is not to be equated with the failure to adopt any doxastic attitude. Because it is a genuine doxastic attitude, suspension of judgment (just like belief and disbelief, and unlike the failure to form any doxastic attitude) can itself be justified or unjustified. For instance, we would ordinarily think that suspension of judgment is not justified with respect to the proposition that Paris is the Capital of France, but it is with respect to the proposition that there are an even number of stars in the Milky Way.โ ref
โSome arguments for philosophical skepticism target knowledge directly, not concerning themselves with justification. For instance, some argue that we do not know certain propositions because our beliefs in them are not sensitive (in a sense to be explained below), and they claim that sensitivity is a condition on knowledgeโbut perhaps not on justified belief. We will examine the bearing of the sensitivity condition on skeptical arguments assuming that it applies to justification. But even if an argument for philosophical skepticism targets our knowledge in a certain area while remaining silent about whether we have justified beliefs in that area, that argument will still indirectly target our justification as well. For, if the argument succeeds, then it provides us with knowledge (or at least justified belief) that we do not know a certain proposition p. And it is plausible to hold that if we know (or justifiably believe) that we do not know a proposition p, then we are not even justified in believing p.โ ref
โIn what follows, then, we identify skepticism with respect to a field of propositions F as the claim that the only justified attitude with respect to propositions in F is suspension of judgment. Philosophical skepticism, then, differs from ordinary skepticism at least regarding the field of propositions to which it is claimed to apply. But even within the realm of philosophical skepticism we can make an interesting distinction by appealing to the scope of the thesis.โ ref
2. Two Basic Forms of Philosophical Skepticism
โOne interesting distinction between kinds of philosophical skepticism pertains to the question whether they iterate. Thus, consider skepticism about the future: the claim that the only justified attitude with respect to propositions about the future is suspension of judgment. That kind of philosophical skepticism overlaps partly with ordinary skepticism about the future. We should all grant, for instance, that we should suspend judgment with respect to the proposition that the flip of this fair coin in the next second will come up heads, but most of us think that we should believe, not suspend judgment with respect to, the proposition that the sun will come out tomorrow. Being a skeptic with respect to the first-order proposition that the sun will come out tomorrow (that is to say, holding that the only justified attitude with respect to that proposition is suspension of judgment) can be combined with any of the three doxastic attitudes with respect to the second-order proposition that the only justified attitude with respect to the proposition that the sun will come out tomorrow is to suspend judgment. Generalizing, whenever the skeptic holds that the only justified attitude with respect to a field of propositions F is to suspend judgment, we can ask them which attitude is justified with respect to the proposition that the only justified attitude with respect to any proposition in F is suspension of judgment. Perhaps the most straightforward answer here is that the only justified attitude with respect to that second-order proposition is belief. After all, isnโt skepticism with respect to F precisely the belief that we should suspend judgment with respect to any proposition in F? We will call this combination of viewsโthe view that we should suspend judgment with respect to any proposition in F and believe the proposition that we should suspend judgment with respect to any proposition in FโโCartesian Skepticismโ, because of the skeptical arguments investigated by Descartes and his critics in the mid-seventeenth century. Other philosophers, following an ancient tradition, refer to this view as โAcademic Skepticismโ (see the entry on ancient skepticism).โ ref
โBut some skeptics are skeptics regarding second- (and higher-) order propositions as well as regarding first-order propositions. Following the same ancient tradition, we will call that kind of skepticism โPyrrhonian Skepticismโ. Without any claim to historical accuracy, we will take Pyrrhonian Skepticism to be absolute skepticismโthe thesis that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to any proposition p. Is Pyrrhonian Skepticism so understood self-refuting? It is certainly formally consistent: no contradiction follows just from the propositions that the only justified attitude with respect to the proposition that p is suspension of judgment and that the only justified attitude with respect to the proposition that the only justified attitude with respect to the proposition that p is suspension of judgment is suspension of judgment (say that three times fast!). But consider the principle that whenever someone is committed to a proposition p they are also (perhaps implicitly) committed to the proposition that belief is the (or at least a) justified attitude towards p. Call this the โCommitment Iteration Principleโ. If the Commitment Iteration Principle holds, then Pyrrhonian Skepticism is indeed self-refuting. For Pyrrhonian skeptics are committed to the claim that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to some proposition p. By the Commitment Iteration Principle, they are then committed to the claim that belief is a justified attitude with respect to the proposition that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to p. Therefore, if they are in addition committed to the claim that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to that very same proposition, they are committed to an inconsistent set of propositions. But Pyrrhonian skeptics need not hold the Commitment Iteration Principle. Indeed, they are committed to thinking that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to the Commitment Iteration Principle itself (and also with respect to analogous principles which may make trouble for Pyrrhonian Skepticism). Of course, Pyrrhonian Skepticism will not be acceptable to anyone who does hold the Commitment Iteration Principleโbut neither will Pyrrhonian Skepticism be acceptable to anyone who holds that we should not suspend judgment with respect to some proposition. It is not clear, then, that the charge of self-refutation represents an independent indictment of Pyrrhonian Skepticism. In any case, contemporary philosophers find Pyrrhonian Skepticism interesting not because they take seriously the possibility of its truth, but rather because there are interesting arguments in its favor, the responses to which shape the contours of many contemporary epistemological theories.โ ref
โWe have distinguished between Cartesian and Pyrrhonian Skepticism, but we have characterized both views in terms of a generic field of propositions F. In the case of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, F includes every proposition, but we can generate different versions of Cartesian Skepticism by varying F. A prominent version of Cartesian Skepticism is external-world skepticismโi.e., Cartesian Skepticism with respect to any proposition about the โexternal worldโ (not about the subjectโs own mind).โ ref
As a rationalist, I know that disbelieving or believing requires justification. If you are right to use belief or skepticism, you made a presumed rational conclusion that it was warranted or justified. As one most likely believes that there are times skepticism or belief is no longer reasonable, thus to continue in either unjustified belief or skepticism similar to denialism, and certainly, not rationalism. One is this appealing always to reason and not faith nor wishful beliefs and not doubt nor skepticism either as they are not justifications in themselves nor are they reason establishers of sound conclusion generation, but a tool at best that is not effective on its own.
I can take down any college professor with ease on this and have many times. You all in the atheist movement have been thought wrong for years and I am not telling you the hard truth, you all need to change and end the error called the skepticโs movement it is not fully reasoned. It is atheist unintellectual propaganda masquerading as reason.
I donโt say this to attack you or any skeptic itโs just like an anarchist to a capitalist you see the problems they willfully deny. All thought appeals to reason, period, or it is not reasoned.
I showed Matt Dillahunty a little about how I can think in my video with him, where he stops me, saying something like โDamien, I just host a show, people donโt think as deep as you Damien.โ Yes, but then they stop listing to me, and I think, how odd, you just realized I am a way better deeper thinker than you have experienced and the response is to not take my advice when you get I understand that which you donโt. And then say you value critical thinking but not rethink your now unjustified thinking and understanding I may have the new thinking???
It is not that I care what you call yourself, rather, I care about you as a thinker, wanting you like a thinking master.
You must first desire to be a free thinker always flowing with what is true over what is favored, so do you favor a label so much it is your thinking burden? If I was shown that skepticism was first or superior I would change today and call myself that but I know that will never happen and I hope others see this as well. It is hard to see past old programming we have become emotionally invested inโฆ I am always first a truth seeker, shouldnโt we all???
Matt Dillahunty video with Damien: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T7eJK-uD0M&t=2321s
That is the video, I am talking about, check it out.
Rationalism, check it out?
Think, do you not feel the need to be as accurate as much as possible? But what if you supported something on inaccurate information, would you not want to update to the new accurate truth? If you didnโt, what would that mean? Think did you make your support for skepticism in a skeptical way or a reasoned one? Or was it emotional, how about it, could it be different than what you currently believe?
Could it be that when you first chose the label that you did it out of a limited justification manner that on a deeper reflection may not see it as you do now? Many statements started me thinking and I am always happy to do more thinking. I realized I need to expose the entire movement of not seeing skepticism accurately, thus inspire more rationalists. What is better a label that is unsupported in validity, or let it go even if favored and have been a safe place to feel connected to others like you.
Could the term skeptic be another word in its nomenclature just a label of unity in the atheist movement termed the skeptic movement as a non-philosapy, common use term (like โcoolโ meaning good in some uses and not always meaning that something is freezing) that means nothing but I am some kind of nontheist or extended all woo woo.
So skeptic is a label of group association it seems, to me than any real intellectualism use like philosophy.
I ask you, do you feel more protective of skepticism or truth? Because you welcomed truth in your thinking, right? But did you equally welcome my skepticism comments on skepticism?
If not, why?
I hold everything open to change or changing as I only want the best idea to survive, I welcome you or anyone challenging me on anything. I am always a free thinker, first, I donโt want to stop my betterment out of my stubborn ego not wanting change.
No pressure, I just want you to be an honest free thinkerโฆ
Philosophical Skepticism
โPhilosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek ฯฮบฮญฯฮนฯ skepsis, โinquiryโ) is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence. This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy.โ ref
โIn philosophy, acatalepsy (from the Greek แผฮบฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮทฯฮฏฮฑ โinability to comprehendโ from alpha privative and ฮบฮฑฯฮฑฮปฮฑฮผฮฒฮฌฮฝฮตฮนฮฝ, โto seizeโ) is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing. It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis (i.e., the ability to apprehend). According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Pyrrhonists and Academic Skeptics, no perception could be known to be true. All perceptions were thus acataleptic, i.e. what, if any, conformity between the object and the perception of that object was unknown and, for the Academic Skeptics, could never be known.โ ref
โFor the Academic Skeptics, acatalepsy meant that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to plausibility. For the Pyrrhonists it meant that knowledge was limited to the phantasiai (typically translated as โappearances,โ meaning a personโs sensed experience) and the pathฤ (oneโs feelings). The Pyrrhonists attempted to show, while Academic Skeptics asserted, an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.โ ref
The Academic Skeptics responded to the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis with the following syllogism:
- โThere are true and false impressions (phantasiai)
- False impressions are non-kataleptic
- True impressions are always such that false impressions could appear identical to them
- Among impressions with no perceptible difference between them, it is impossible for some to be kataleptic and others not
- Therefore, there are no kataleptic impressionsโ ref
โAcademic skepticism refers to the skeptical period of ancient Platonism dating from around 266 BC, when Arcesilaus became scholarch of the Platonic Academy, until around 90 BCE or 2,110 years ago, when Antiochus of Ascalon rejected skepticism, although individual philosophers, such as Favorinus and his teacher Plutarch, continued to defend skepticism after this date. Unlike the existing school of skepticism, the Pyrrhonists, they maintained that knowledge of things is impossible. Ideas or notions are never true; nevertheless, there are degrees of plausibility, and hence degrees of belief, which allow one to act. The school was characterized by its attacks on the Stoics, particularly their dogma that convincing impressions led to true knowledge. The most important Academics were Arcesilaus, Carneades, and Philo of Larissa. The most extensive ancient source of information about Academic skepticism is Academica, written by the Academic skeptic philosopher Cicero.โ ref
โEpochรฉ (แผฯฮฟฯฮฎ epokhฤ, โcessationโ) is an ancient Greek term. In Hellenistic philosophy it is a technical term typically translated as โsuspension of judgmentโ but also as โwithholding of assentโ. In the modern philosophy of Phenomenology it refers to a process of setting aside assumptions and beliefs.โ ref
The Pyrrhonists developed the concept of โepochรฉโ to describe the state where all judgments about non-evident matters are suspended in order to induce a state of ataraxia (freedom from worry and anxiety). The Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus gives this definition: โEpochรฉ is a state of the intellect on account of which we neither deny nor affirm anything.โ This concept is similarly employed in Academic Skepticism, but without the objective of ataraxia.โ ref
โIn Stoicism the concept is used to describe the withholding of assent to phantasiai (impressions). For example, Epictetus uses the term in this manner: โIf what philosophers say is true, that in all men action starts from one source, feeling, as in assent it is the feeling that a thing is so, and in denial the feeling that it is not so, yes, by Zeus, and in epochรฉ, the feeling that it is uncertain: so also impulse towards a thing is originated by the feeling that it is fitting, and will to get a thing by the feeling that it is expedient for one, and it is impossible to judge.โ ref
โEpochรฉ plays an implicit role in subsequent philosophical skeptic thought, as in Renรฉ Descartesโ epistemic principle of methodic doubt. The term was popularized in modern philosophy by Edmund Husserl. Husserl elaborates the notion of โbracketingโ or โphenomenological epochรฉโ or โphenomenological reductionโ in Ideas I. Through the systematic procedure of โphenomenological reductionโ, one is thought to be able to suspend judgment regarding the general or naive philosophical belief in the existence of the external world, and thus examine phenomena as they are originally given to consciousness.โ ref
โEpochรฉ plays an important role in Pyrrhonism, the skeptical philosophy named after Pyrrho. Pyrrhonism provides practitioners with techniques for achieving epochรฉ through the use of the Ten Modes of Aenesidemus, the Five Modes of Agrippa, and the Pyrrhonist maxims. Pyrrhonism is mostly known today through the writings of the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus whose surviving works appear to be an encyclopedia of Pyrrhonist arguments for inducing epochรฉ across a breadth of philosophical and other intellectual issues of antiquity.โ ref
โEpochรฉ, or Bracketing in phenomenological research, is described as a process involved in blocking biases and assumptions in order to explain a phenomenon in terms of its own inherent system of meaning. This is a general predisposition one must assume before commencing phenomenological study. This involves systematic steps to โset asideโ various assumptions and beliefs about a phenomenon in order to examine how the phenomenon presents itself in the world of the participant.โ ref
โKnowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge). By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology.โ ref
โThe term โknowledgeโ can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); formal or informal; systematic or particular. The philosopher Plato famously pointed out the need for a distinction between knowledge and true belief in the Theaetetus, leading many to attribute to him a definition of knowledge as โjustified true beliefโ. The difficulties with this definition raised by the Gettier problem have been the subject of extensive debate in epistemology for more than half a century.โ ref
โPhilosophical skepticism begins with the claim that one currently lacks knowledge.โ ref
โSkepticism can be classified according to its scope. Local skepticism involves being skeptical about particular areas of knowledge (e.g. moral skepticism, skepticism about the external world, or skepticism about other minds), whereas radical skepticism claims that one cannot know anythingโincluding that one cannot know about knowing anything.โ ref
โSkepticism can also be classified according to its method. Western philosophy has two basic approaches to skepticism. Cartesian skepticismโnamed somewhat misleadingly after Renรฉ Descartes, who was not a skeptic but used some traditional skeptical arguments in his Meditations to help establish his rationalist approach to knowledgeโattempts to show that any proposed knowledge claim can be doubted. Agrippan skepticism focuses on justification rather than the possibility of doubt. According to this view, none of the ways in which one might attempt to justify a claim are adequate. One can justify a claim based on other claims, but this leads to an infinite regress of justifications. One can use a dogmatic assertion, but this is not a justification. One can use circular reasoning, but this fails to justify the conclusion.โ ref
โPhilosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims. Similarly, scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism in that scientific skepticism is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be pseudoscience, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists.โ ref
Skeptical arguments
โThe ancient Greek Pyrrhonists developed sets of arguments to demonstrate that claims about reality cannot be adequately justified. Two sets of these arguments are well known. The oldest set is known as the ten tropes of Aenesidemus โ although whether he invented the tropes or just systematized them from prior Pyrrhonist works is unknown. The tropes represent reasons for epochรฉ (suspension of judgment).โ ref
These are as follows:
- โDifferent animals manifest different modes of perception;
- Similar differences are seen among individual men;
- For the same man, information perceived with the senses is self-contradictory
- Furthermore, it varies from time to time with physical changes
- In addition, this data differs according to local relations
- Objects are known only indirectly through the medium of air, moisture, etc.
- These objects are in a condition of perpetual change in color, temperature, size, and motion
- All perceptions are relative and interact one upon another
- Our impressions become less critical through repetition and custom
- All men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions.โ ref
Another set are known as the five tropes of Agrippa:
- โDissent โ The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
- Progress ad infinitum โ All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e, the regress argument.
- Relation โ All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
- Assumption โ The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
- Circularity โ The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.โ ref
โAccording to Victor Brochard โthe five tropes can be regarded as the most radical and most precise formulation of philosophical skepticism that has ever been given. In a sense, they are still irresistible today.โ ref
Skeptical scenarios
โA skeptical scenario is a hypothetical situation which can be used in an argument for skepticism about a particular claim or class of claims. Usually, the scenario posits the existence of a deceptive power that deceives our senses and undermines the justification of knowledge otherwise accepted as justified, and is proposed in order to call into question our ordinary claims to knowledge on the grounds that we cannot exclude the possibility of skeptical scenarios being true. Skeptical scenarios have received a great deal of attention in modern Western philosophy.โ ref
โThe first major skeptical scenario in modern Western philosophy appears in Renรฉ Descartesโ Meditations on First Philosophy. At the end of the First Meditation Descartes writes: โI will supposeโฆ that some evil demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me.โ ref
- โThe โevil demon problemโ, also known as โDescartesโ evil demonโ, was first proposed by Renรฉ Descartes. It invokes the possibility of a being who could deliberately mislead one into falsely believing everything that you take to be true.
- The โbrain in a vatโ hypothesis is cast in contemporary scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain kept alive in a vat and fed false sensory signals by a mad scientist. Further, it asserts that since a brain in a vat would have no way of knowing that it was a brain in a vat, you cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
- The โdream argumentโ, proposed by both Renรฉ Descartes and Zhuangzi, supposes reality to be indistinguishable from a dream.
- The โfive minute hypothesisโ, most notably proposed by Bertrand Russell, suggests that we cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago (along with false memories and false evidence suggesting that it not only five minutes old).
- The โsimulated reality hypothesisโ or โMatrix hypothesisโ suggests that everyone, or even the entire universe, might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality.โ ref
Epistemological skepticism
โSkepticism, as an epistemological view, calls into question whether knowledge is possible at all. This is distinct from other known skeptical practices, including Cartesian skepticism, as it targets knowledge in general instead of individual types of knowledge.โ ref
โSkeptics argue that belief in something does not justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this, skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there are basic positions that are self-justified or beyond justification, without reference to others. (One example of such foundationalism may be found in Spinozaโs Ethics.) The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that โbasic positionsโ must exist amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope.โ ref
โAmong other arguments, skeptics use the Mรผnchhausen trilemma and the problem of the criterion to claim that no certain belief can be achieved. This position is known as โglobal skepticismโ or โradical skepticism.โ Foundationalists have used the same trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs.[citation needed] Epistemological nihilism rejects the possibility of human knowledge, but not necessarily knowledge in general.โ ref
โThere are two different categories of epistemological skepticism, which can be referred to as mitigated and unmitigated skepticism. The two forms are contrasting but are still true forms of skepticism. Mitigated skepticism does not accept โstrongโ or โstrictโ knowledge claims but does, however, approve specific weaker ones. These weaker claims can be assigned the title of โvirtual knowledgeโ, but must be to justified belief. Some mitigated skeptics are also fallibilists, arguing that knowledge does not require certainty. Mitigated skeptics hold that knowledge does not require certainty and that many beliefs are, in practice, certain to the point that they can be safely acted upon in order to live significant and meaningful lives. Unmitigated skepticism rejects both claims of virtual knowledge and strong knowledge. Characterizing knowledge as strong, weak, virtual, or genuine can be determined differently depending on a personโs viewpoint as well as their characterization of knowledge. Unmitigated skeptics believe that objective truths are unknowable and that man should live in an isolated environment in order to win mental peace. This is because everything, according to them, is changing and relative. The refusal to make judgments is of uttermost importance since there is no knowledge; only probable opinions.โ ref
Criticism of epistemological skepticism
One of the versions of philosophical skepticism asserts that no truth is knowable, and that truth is at best only probable. A criticism of this version is that there is a contradiction involved in claiming that the proposition that โno truth is knowableโ is knowably true. The here is one-hand argument is another relatively simple criticism that reverses the skepticโs proposals and supports common sense. Thus, if the skeptics are right, they have to admit that they canโt be sure about it. An argument commonly made but limited to science is that the scientific method asserts only probable findings, because the number of cases tested is always limited and because the tests constitute perceptual observations.โ ref
โPierre Le Morvan (2011) has distinguished between three broad philosophical responses to skepticism. The first he calls the โFoil Approach.โ Skepticism is treated as a problem to be solved, or challenge to be met, or threat to be parried; its value, if any, derives from its role as a foil. It clarifies by contrast, and so illuminates what is required for knowledge and justified belief. The second he calls the โBypass Approachโ according to which skepticism is bypassed as a central concern of epistemology. Le Morvan advocates a third approachโhe dubs it the โHealth Approachโโthat explores when skepticism is healthy and when it is not, or when it is virtuous and when it is vicious.โ ref
History of Western skepticism
Ancient Greek skepticism
โAncient Greek skeptics were not โskepticsโ in the contemporary sense of selective, localized doubt. Their concerns were epistemological, noting that truth claims could not be adequately supported, and psychotherapeutic, noting that beliefs caused mental perturbation.โ ref
โThe Western tradition of systematic skepticism goes back at least as far as Pyrrho of Elis (b. circa 360 BCE) and arguably to Xenophanes (b. circa 570 BCE). Parts of skepticism also appear among the โ5th century sophists [who] develop forms of debate which are ancestors of skeptical argumentation. They take pride in arguing in a persuasive fashion for both sides of an issue. In Hellenistic philosophy, Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism were the two schools of skeptical philosophy. Subsequently, the words Academic and Pyrrhonist were often be used to mean skeptic.โ ref
Pyrrhonism
โLike other Hellenistic philosophies, the goal of Pyrrhonism was eudaimonia, which the Pyrrhonists sought through achieving ataraxia (an untroubled state of mind), which they found could be induced by producing a state of epochรฉ (suspension of judgment) regarding non-evident matters. Epochรฉ could be produced by pitting one dogma against another to undermine belief, and by questioning whether a belief could be justified. In support of this questioning Pyrrhonists developed the skeptical arguments cited above (the Ten Modes of Aenesidemus and the Five Modes of Agrippa) demonstrating that beliefs cannot be justified:โ ref
Pyrrho of Elis
According to an account of Pyrrhoโs life by his student Timon of Phlius, Pyrrho extolled a way to become happy and tranquil:
โWhoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?โ Pyrrhoโs answer is that โAs for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmฤta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastous (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantous (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.โ ref
Aenesidemus
โPyrrhonism faded as a movement following the death of Pyrrhoโs student Timon. The Academy became slowly more dogmatic such that in the first century BCE Aenesidemus denounced the Academics as โStoics fighting against Stoics,โ breaking with the Academy to revive Pyrrhonism. Aenesidemusโs best known contribution to skepticism was his now-lost book, Pyrrhonian Discourses, which is only known to us through Photius, Sextus Empiricus, and to a lesser extent Diogenes Laรซrtius. The skeptical arguments most closely associated with Aenesidemus are the ten modes described above designed to induce epoche.โ ref
Sextus Empiricus
โThe works of Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 CE) are the main surviving account of ancient Pyrrhonism. Long before Sextusโ time, the Academy had abandoned skepticism and had been destroyed as a formal institution. Sextus compiled and further developed the Pyrrhonistsโ skeptical arguments, most of which were directed against the Stoics but included arguments against all of the schools of Hellenistic philosophy, including the Academic skeptics.โ ref
โSextus, as the most systematic author of the works by Hellenistic skeptics which have survived, noted that there are at least ten modes of skepticism. These modes may be broken down into three categories: one may be skeptical of the subjective perceiver, of the objective world, and the relation between perceiver and the world. His arguments are as follows.โ ref
โSubjectively, both the powers of the senses and of reasoning may vary among different people. And since knowledge is a product of one or the other, and since neither are reliable, knowledge would seem to be in trouble. For instance, a color-blind person sees the world quite differently from everyone else. Moreover, one cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal, since the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which suggests the ability to โknowโ about some aspects of the environment.โ ref
โSecondly, the personality of the individual might also influence what they observe, since (it is argued) preferences are based on sense-impressions, differences in preferences can be attributed to differences in the way that people are affected by the object. (Empiricus:56)โ ref
โThird, the perceptions of each individual sense seemingly have nothing in common with the other senses: i.e., the color โredโ has little to do with the feeling of touching a red object. This is manifest when our senses โdisagreeโ with each other: for example, a mirage presents certain visible features, but is not responsive to any other kind of sense. In that case, our other senses defeat the impressions of sight. But one may also be lacking enough powers of sense to understand the world in its entirety: if one had an extra sense, then one might know of things in a way that the present five senses are unable to advise us of. Given that our senses can be shown to be unreliable by appealing to other senses, and so our senses may be incomplete (relative to some more perfect sense that one lacks), then it follows that all of our senses may be unreliable. (Empiricus:58)โ ref
โFourth, our circumstances when one perceives anything may be either natural or unnatural, i.e., one may be either in a state of wakefulness or sleep. But it is entirely possible that things in the world really are exactly as they appear to be to those in unnatural states (i.e., if everything were an elaborate dream). (Empiricus:59)โ ref
โOne can have reasons for doubt that are based on the relationship between objective โfactsโ and subjective experience. The positions, distances, and places of objects would seem to affect how they are perceived by the person: for instance, the portico may appear tapered when viewed from one end, but symmetrical when viewed at the other; and these features are different. Because they are different features, to believe the object has both properties at the same time is to believe it has two contradictory properties. Since this is absurd, one must suspend judgment about what properties it possesses due to the contradictory experiences. (Empiricus:63)โ ref
โOne may also observe that the things one perceives are, in a sense, polluted by experience. Any given perceptionโsay, of a chairโwill always be perceived within some context or other (i.e., next to a table, on a mat, etc.) Since this is the case, one often only speaks of ideas as they occur in the context of the other things that are paired with it, and therefore, one can never know of the true nature of the thing, but only how it appears to us in context. (Empiricus: 64)โ ref
Along the same lines, the skeptic may insist that all things are relative, by arguing that:
- โAbsolute appearances either differ from relative appearances, or they do not.
- If absolutes do not differ from relatives, then they are themselves relative.
- But if absolutes do differ from relatives, then they are relative, because all things that differ must differ from something; and to โdifferโ from something is to be relative to something. (Empiricus:67)โ ref
โFinally, one has reason to disbelieve that one knows anything by looking at problems in understanding objects by themselves. Things, when taken individually, may appear to be very different from when they are in mass quantities: for instance, the shavings of a goatโs horn are white when taken alone, yet the horn intact is black.โ ref
Academic skepticism
โPyrrhoโs thinking subsequently influenced the Platonic Academy, arising first in the Academic skepticism of the Middle Academy under Arcesilaus (c. 315 โ 241 BCE) and then the New Academy under Carneades (c. 213โ129 BCE). Clitomachus, a student of Carneades, interpreted his teacherโs philosophy as suggesting an account of knowledge based on truth-likeness. The Roman politician and philosopher, Cicero, was also an adherent of the skepticism of the New Academy, even though a return to a more dogmatic orientation of the school was already beginning to take place.โ ref
Augustine on skepticism
โIn 386 CE, Augustine published Contra Academicos (Against the Academic Skeptics), which argued against claims made by the Academic Skeptics (266 BCE โ 90 BCE) on the following grounds:
- Objection from Error: Through logic, Augustine argues that philosophical skepticism does not lead to happiness like the Academic Skeptics claim. His arguments is summarized as:A wise man lives according to reason, and thus is able to be happy.
One who is searching for knowledge but never finds it is in error.
Imperfection objection: People in error are not happy, because being in error is an imperfection, and people cannot be happy with an imperfection.
Conclusion: One who is still seeking knowledge cannot be happy.โ ref - โError of Non-Assent: Augustineโs argument that suspending belief does not fully prevent one from error. His argument is summarized below. Introduction of the error: Let P be true. If a person fails to believe P due to suspension of belief in order to avoid error, the person is also committing an error.
The Anecdote of the Two Travelers: Travelers A and B are trying to reach the same destination. At a fork in the road, a poor shepherd tells them to go left. Traveler A immediately believes him and reaches the correct destination. Traveler B suspends belief, and instead believes in the advice of a well-dressed townsman to go right, because his advice seems more persuasive. However, the townsman is actually a samardocus (con man) so Traveler B never reaches the correct destination.
The Anecdote of the Adulterer: A man suspends belief that adultery is bad, and commits adultery with another manโs wife because it is persuasive to him. Under Academic Skepticism, this man cannot be charged because he acted on what was persuasive to him without assenting belief.
Conclusion: Suspending belief exposes individuals to an error as defined by the Academic Skeptics.โ ref
Skepticismโs revival in the sixteenth century
โFrancisco Sanchesโs That Nothing is Known (published in 1581 as Quod nihil scitur) is one of the crucial texts of Renaissance skepticism.โ ref
Michel de Montaigne (1533โ1592)
โThe most notable figure of the Skepticism revival in the 1500s, Michel de Montaigne wrote about his studies of Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonism through his Essais. His most notable writings on skepticism occurred in an essay written mostly in 1575โ1576, โApologie de Raimond Sebond,โ when he was reading Sextus Empiricus and trying to translate Raimond Sebondโs writing, including his proof of Christianityโs natural existence. The reception to Montaigneโs translations included some criticisms of Sebondโs proof. Montaigne responded to some of them in Apologie, including a defense for Sebondโs logic that is skeptical in nature and similar to Pyrrhonism.โ ref
His reputation is as follows:
- โCritics claiming Sebondโs arguments are weak show how egoistic humans believe that their logic is superior to othersโ.
- Many animals can be observed to be superior to humans in certain respects. To argue this point, Montaigne even writes about dogs who are logical and creates their own syllogisms to understand the world around them. This was an example used in Sextus Empiricus.
- Since animals also have rationality, the over-glorification of manโs mental capabilities is a trapโmanโs folly. One manโs reason cannot be assuredly better than anotherโs as a result.
- Ignorance is even recommended by religion so that an individual can reach faith through obediently following divine instructions to learn, not by oneโs logic.โ ref
Marin Mersenne (1588โ1648)
โMarin Mersenne was an author, mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. He wrote in defense of science and Christianity against atheists and Pyrrhonists before retiring to encourage the development of science and the โnew philosophy,โ which includes philosophers like Gassendi, Descartes, Galileo, and Hobbes. A major work of his in relation to Skepticism is La Veritรฉ des Sciences, in which he argues that although we may not be able to know the true nature of things, we can still formulate certain laws and rules for sense-perceptions through science.โ ref
โAdditionally, he points out that we do not doubt everything because:
- Humans do agree about some things, for example, an ant is smaller than an elephant
- There are natural laws governing our sense-perceptions, such as optics, which allow us to eliminate inaccuracies
- Man created tools such as rulers and scales to measure things and eliminate doubts such as bent oars, pigeonsโ necks, and round towers.โ ref
โA Pyrrhonist might refute these points by saying that senses deceive, and thus knowledge turns into infinite regress or circular logic. Thus Mersenne argues that this cannot be the case, since commonly agreed upon rules of thumb can be hypothesized and tested over time to ensure that they continue to hold.โ ref
โFurthermore, if everything can be doubted, the doubt can also be doubted, so on and so forth. Thus, according to Mersenne, something has to be true. Finally, Mersenne writes about all the mathematical, physical, and other scientific knowledge that is true by repeated testing, and has practical use value. Notably, Mersenne was one of the few philosophers who accepted Hobbesโ radical ideologyโhe saw it as a new science of man.โ ref
Skepticism in the seventeenth century
Thomas Hobbes (1588โ1679)
โDuring his long stay in Paris, Thomas Hobbes was actively involved in the circle of major skeptics like Gassendi and Mersenne who focus on the study of skepticism and epistemology. Unlike his fellow skeptic friends, Hobbes never treated skepticism as a main topic for discussion in his works. Nonetheless, Hobbes was still labeled as a religious skeptic by his contemporaries for raising doubts about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and his political and psychological explanation of the religions. Although Hobbes himself did not go further to challenge other religious principles, his suspicion for the Mosaic authorship did significant damage to the religious traditions and paved the way for later religious skeptics like Spinoza and Isaac La Peyrรจre to further question some of the fundamental beliefs of the Judeo-Christian religious system. Hobbesโ answer to skepticism and epistemology was innovatively political: he believed that moral knowledge and religious knowledge were in their nature relative, and there was no absolute standard of truth governing them. As a result, it was out of political reasons that certain truth standards about religions and ethics were devised and established in order to form a functioning government and stable society.โ ref
Baruch Spinoza and religious skepticism
โBaruch Spinoza was among the first European philosophers who were religious skeptics. He was quite familiar with the philosophy of Descartes and unprecedentedly extended the application of the Cartesian method to the religious context by analyzing religious texts with it. Spinoza sought to dispute the knowledge-claims of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious system by examining its two foundations: the Scripture and the Miracles. He claimed that all Cartesian knowledge, or the rational knowledge should be accessible to the entire population. Therefore, the Scriptures, aside from those by Jesus, should not be considered the secret knowledge attained from God but just the imagination of the prophets. The Scriptures, as a result of this claim, could not serve as a base for knowledge and were reduced to simple ancient historical texts. Moreover, Spinoza also rejected the possibility for the Miracles by simply asserting that people only considered them miraculous due to their lack of understanding of the nature.โ ref
โBy rejecting the validity of the Scriptures and the Miracles, Spinoza demolished the foundation for religious knowledge-claim and established his understanding of the Cartesian knowledge as the sole authority of knowledge-claims. Despite being deeply-skeptical of the religions, Spinoza was in fact exceedingly anti-skeptical towards reason and rationality. He steadfastly confirmed the legitimacy of reason by associating it with the acknowledgement of God, and thereby skepticism with the rational approach to knowledge was not due to problems with the rational knowledge but from the fundamental lack of understanding of God. Spinozaโs religious skepticism and anti-skepticism with reason thus helped him transform epistemology by separating the theological knowledge-claims and the rational knowledge-claims.โ ref
Pierre Bayle (1647โ1706)
โPierre Bayle was a French philosopher in the late 17th century that was described by Richard Popkin to be a โsuperscepticโ who carried out the sceptic tradition to the extreme. Bayle was born in a Calvinist family in Carla-Bayle, and during the early stage of his life, he converted into Catholicism before returning to Calvinism. This conversion between religions caused him to leave France for the more religiously tolerant Holland where he stayed and worked for the rest of his life.โ ref
โBayle believed that truth cannot be obtained through reason and that all human endeavor to acquire absolute knowledge would inevitably lead to failure. Bayleโs main approach was highly skeptical and destructive: he sought to examine and analyze all existing theories in all fields of human knowledge in order to show the faults in their reasoning and thus the absurdity of the theories themselves. In his magnum opus, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (Historical and Critical Dictionary), Bayle painstakingly identified the logical flaws in several works throughout the history in order to emphasize the absolute futility of rationality. Bayleโs complete nullification of reason led him to conclude that faith is the final and only way to truth.โ ref
โBayleโs real intention behind his extremely destructive works remained controversial. Some described him to be a Fideist, while others speculated him to be a secret Atheist. However, no matter what his original intention was, Bayle did cast significant influence on the upcoming Age of Enlightenment with his destruction of some of the most essential theological ideas and his justification of religious tolerance Atheism in his works.โ ref
Skepticism in the Age of Enlightenment
โDavid Hume was among the most influential proponents of philosophical skepticism during the Age of Enlightenment, and the most notable member of the Scottish Enlightenment. He especially espoused skepticism regarding inductive reasoning, and questioned what the foundation of morality was, creating the Isโought problem.โ ref
Kant on skepticism
โImmanuel Kant (1724โ1804) tried to provide a ground for empirical science against David Humeโs skeptical treatment of the notion of cause and effect. Hume (1711โ1776) argued that for the notion of cause and effect no analysis is possible which is also acceptable to the empiricist program primarily outlined by John Locke (1632โ1704). But, Kantโs attempt to give a ground to knowledge in the empirical sciences at the same time cut off the possibility of knowledge of any other knowledge, especially what Kant called โmetaphysical knowledgeโ. So, for Kant, empirical science was legitimate, but metaphysics and philosophy was mostly illegitimate. The most important exception to this demarcation of the legitimate from the illegitimate was ethics, the principles of which Kant argued can be known by pure reason without appeal to the principles required for empirical knowledge.โ ref
โThus, with respect to metaphysics and philosophy in general (ethics being the exception), Kant was a skeptic. This skepticism as well as the explicit skepticism of G. E. Schulze[38] gave rise to a robust discussion of skepticism in German idealistic philosophy, especially by Hegel. Kantโs idea was that the real world (the noumenon or thing-in-itself) was inaccessible to human reason (though the empirical world of nature can be known to human understanding) and therefore we can never know anything about the ultimate reality of the world. Hegel argued against Kant that although Kant was right that using what Hegel called โfiniteโ concepts of โthe understandingโ precluded knowledge of reality, we were not constrained to use only โfiniteโ concepts and could actually acquire knowledge of reality using โinfinite conceptsโ that arise from self-consciousness.โ ref
Skepticism in the 20th century and contemporary philosophy
โG. E. Moore famously presented the โHere is one handโ argument against skepticism in his 1925 paper, โA Defence of Common Senseโ. Moore claimed that he could prove that the external world exists by simply presenting the following argument while holding up his hands: โHere is one hand; here is another hand; therefore, there are at least two objects; therefore, external-world skepticism failsโ. His argument was developed for the purpose of vindicating common sense and refuting skepticism. Ludwig Wittgenstein later argued in his On Certainty (posthumously published in 1969) that Mooreโs argument rested on the way that ordinary language is used, rather than on anything about knowledge.โ ref
โIn contemporary philosophy, Richard Popkin was a particularly influential scholar on the topic of skepticism. His account of the history of skepticism given in The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle (first edition published as The History of Scepticism From Erasmus to Descartes) was accepted as the standard for contemporary scholarship in the area for decades after its release in 1960. Barry Stroud also published a number of works on philosophical skepticism, most notably his 1984 monograph, The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. From the mid-1990s, Stroud, alongside Richard Fumerton, put forward influential anti-externalist arguments in favor of a position called โmetaepistemological scepticismโ. Other contemporary philosophers known for their work on skepticism include James Pryor, Keith DeRose, and Peter Klein.โ ref
History of skepticism in non-Western philosophy
Ancient Indian skepticism
Ajรฑana
โAjรฑana (literally โnon-knowledgeโ) were the skeptical school of ancient Indian philosophy. It was a ลramaแนa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. They have been recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They held that it was impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it was useless and disadvantageous for final salvation.โ ref
Buddhism
โThe historical Buddha asserted certain doctrines as true, such as the possibility of nirvana; however, he also upheld a form of skepticism with regards to certain questions which he left โun-expoundedโ (avyฤkata) and some he saw as โincomprehensibleโ (acinteyya). Because the Buddha saw these questions (which tend to be of metaphysical topics) as unhelpful on the path and merely leading to confusion and โa thicket of viewsโ, he promoted suspension of judgment towards them. This allowed him to carve out an epistemic middle way between what he saw as the extremes of claiming absolute objectivity (associated with the claims to omniscience of the Jain Mahavira) and extreme skepticism (associated with the Ajรฑana thinker Sanjaya Belatthiputta).โ ref
โLater Buddhist philosophy remained highly skeptical of Indian metaphysical arguments. The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna in particular has been seen as the founder of the Madhyamaka school, which has been in turn compared with Greek Skepticism. Nagarjunaโs statement that he has โno thesisโ (pratijรฑa) has parallels in the statements of Sextus Empiricus of having โno positionโ. Nagarjuna famously opens his magnum opus, the Mulamadhyamakakarika, with the statement that the Buddha claimed that true happiness was found through dispelling โvain thinkingโ (prapaรฑca, also โconceptual proliferationโ).โ ref
โAccording to Richard P. Hayes, the Buddhist philosopher Dignaga is also a kind of skeptic, which is in line with most early Buddhist philosophy. Hayes writes:
โฆin both early Buddhism and in the Skeptics one can find the view put forward that manโs pursuit of happiness, the highest good, is obstructed by his tenacity in holding ungrounded and unnecessary opinions about all manner of things. Much of Buddhist philosophy, I shall argue, can be seen as an attempt to break this habit of holding on to opinions.โ ref
โScholars like Adrian Kuzminski have argued that Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365โ270) might have been influenced by Indian Buddhists during his journey with Alexander the Great.โ ref
Cฤrvฤka philosophy
โThe Cฤrvฤka (Sanskrit: เคเคพเคฐเฅเคตเคพเค) school of materialism, also known as Lokฤyata, is a distinct branch of Indian philosophy. The school is named after Cฤrvฤka, author of the Bฤrhaspatya-sลซtras and was founded in approximately 500 BCE. Cฤrvฤka is classified as a โheterodoxโ (nฤstika) system, characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. This school was also known for being strongly skeptical of the claims of Indian religions, such as reincarnation and karma.โ ref
Jainism
โWhile Jain philosophy claims that is it possible to achieve omniscience, absolute knowledge (Kevala Jnana), at the moment of enlightenment, their theory of anekฤntavฤda or โmany sided-nessโ, also known as the principle of relative pluralism, allows for a practical form of skeptical thought regarding philosophical and religious doctrines (for un-enlightened beings, not all-knowing arihants).โ ref
โAccording to this theory, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. The jain doctrine states that, an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and, as such, they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Anekฤntavฤda is literally the doctrine of non-onesidedness or manifoldness; it is often translated as โnon-absolutismโ. Syฤdvฤda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekฤnta by recommending that epithet โSyฤdโ be attached to every expression.โ ref
โSyฤdvฤda is not only an extension of Anekฤnta ontology, but a separate system of logic capable of standing on its own force. As reality is complex, no single proposition can express the nature of reality fully. Thus the term โsyฤtโ should be prefixed before each proposition giving it a conditional point of view and thus removing any dogmatism in the statement. For Jains, fully enlightened beings are able to see reality from all sides and thus have ultimate knowledge of all things. This idea of omniscience was criticized by Buddhists such as Dharmakirti.โ ref
Ancient Chinese philosophy
Zhuang Zhou (c. 369 โ 286 BCE)
โZhuang Zhou (่ๅญ๏ผโMaster Zhuangโ) was a famous ancient Chinese Taoism philosopher during the Hundred Schools of Thought period. Zhuang Zhou demonstrated his skeptical thinking through several anecdotes in the preeminent work Zhuangzi attributed to him:โ ref
- โThe Debate on the Joy of Fishโ (็ฅ้ญไนๆจ) : In this anecdote, Zhuang Zhou argued with his fellow philosopher Hui Shi whether they knew the fish in the pond were happy or not, and Zhuang Zhou made the famous observation that โYou are not I. How do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?โ (Autumn Floods ็งๆฐด็ฏ, Zhuangzi)
- โThe Butterfly of the Dreamโ(ๅจๅ ฌๅคข่ถ) : The paradox of โButterfly Dreamโ described Zhuang Zhouโs confusion after dreaming himself to be a butterfly: โBut he didnโt know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou.โ (Discussion on Making All Things Equal ้ฝ็ฉ็ฏ, Zhuangzi)โ ref
โThrough these anecdotes in Zhuangzi, Zhuang Zhou indicated his belief in the limitation of language and human communication and the inaccessibility of universal truth. This establishes him as a skeptic. But he was by no means a radical skeptic: he only applied skeptical methods partially, in arguments demonstrating his Taoist beliefs. He held the Taoist beliefs themselves dogmatically.โ ref
Wang Chong (27 โ c.โ100 CE)
โWang Chong (็ๅ ) was the leading figure of the skeptic branch of the Confucianism school in China during the first century AD. He introduced a method of rational critique and applied it to the widespread dogmatism thinking of his age like phenomenology (the main contemporary Confucianism ideology that linked all natural phenomena with human ethics), state-led cults, and popular superstition. His own philosophy incorporated both Taoism and Confucianism thinkings, and it was based on a secular, rational practice of developing hypotheses based on natural events to explain the universe which exemplified a form of naturalism that resembled the philosophical idea of Epicureans like Lucretius.โ ref
Medieval Islamic philosophy
โThe Incoherence of the Philosophers, written by the scholar Al-Ghazali (1058โ1111), marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. His encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God. While he himself was a critic of the philosophers, Ghazali was a master in the art of philosophy and had immensely studied the field. After such a long education in philosophy, as well as a long process of reflection, he had criticized the philosophical method.โ ref
โIn the autobiography Ghazali wrote towards the end of his life, The Deliverance From Error (Al-munqidh min al-แธalฤl), Ghazali recounts how, once a crisis of epistemological skepticism was resolved by โa light which God Most High cast into my breastโฆthe key to most knowledge,โ he studied and mastered the arguments of Kalam, Islamic philosophy, and Ismailism. Though appreciating what was valid in the first two of these, at least, he determined that all three approaches were inadequate and found ultimate value only in the mystical experience and spiritual insight he attained as a result of following Sufi practices. William James, in Varieties of Religious Experience, considered the autobiography an important document for โthe purely literary student who would like to become acquainted with the inwardness of religions other than the Christianโ, comparing it to recorded personal religious confessions and autobiographical literature in the Christian tradition.โ ref
Aztec philosophy
โRecordings of Aztec philosophy suggest that the elite classes believed in an essentially panentheistic worldview, in which teotl represents an unified, underlying universal force. Human beings cannot truly perceive teotl due to its chaotic, constantly changing nature, just the โmasksโ/facets it is manifested as.โ ref
Pseudo-skepticism
โPseudopskepticism (also spelled as pseudo-skepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality, is a form of dogmatism.โ ref
Scientific skepticism
โScientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humansโ ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of oneโs beliefs.โ ref
โThe New Skepticism described by Paul Kurtz in 1992 is scientific skepticism. For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny (as described in Mertonian norms).โ ref
The following quotations relate to scientific skepticism:
โI submit that whatever stereotypes other people may have about skeptics, they are wrong. And waaaay too narrow. You canโt fit what we do into a neat box (or any box). We love science and discovery; we enjoy life, we have all sorts of outside interests. Most of us are good-natured. And we like to get at the truth, as best as possible. Science is by far the best tool for that. โฆ The only requirement is a commetment to science and reason, to evidence, and to the quest for truth.โโKendrick Frazier in Skeptical Inquirerโ ref
โBriefly stated, a skeptic is one who is willing to question any claim to truth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence. The use of skepticism is thus an essential part of objective scientific inquiry and the search for reliable knowledge.โโPaul Kurtz in The New Skepticism, 1992, p. 9โณ ref
โWhat skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important, to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.โโCarl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 197โณ ref
โScience is [โฆ] a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then weโre up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.โโCarl Saganโ ref
โScientific skepticism (is) the practice or project of studying paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the lens of science and critical scholarship, and then sharing the results with the public.โโDaniel Loxtonโ ref
โA skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.โโSteven Novellaโ ref
โSkepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideasโno sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.โโโThe Skeptics Societyโ ref
โThe true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. Itโs the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.โโBrian Dunningโ ref
With regard to the skeptical social movement, Loxton refers to other movements already promoting โhumanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinkingโ beforehand. He saw the demand for the new movementโa movement of people called โskepticsโ โ as based on a lack of interest by the scientific community to address paranormal and fringe-science claims. In line with Kendrick Frazier, he describes the movement as a surrogate in that area for institutional science. The movement set up a distinct field of study, and provided an organizational structure, while โthe long-standing genre of individual skeptical writingโ lacked such a community and background. Skeptical organizations typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.โ ref
โScientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of reality leads to the most reliable empirical knowledge, and suggest that the scientific method is best suited to verifying results. Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability; they discourage accepting claims which rely on faith or anecdotal evidence.โ ref
โSkeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider implausible, dubious, or clearly contradictory to generally-accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds โ rather they argue that one should critically examine claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. From a scientific point of view, skeptics judge ideas on many criteria, including falsifiability, Occamโs Razor, Morganโs Canon, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism, in general, may be deemed part of the scientific method; for instance, an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.โ ref
โThe skeptic spectrum has been characterized as divided into โwetโ and โdryโ skeptics, primarily based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule, in order to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the โwetโ skeptics, preferring slower and more considered engagement, in order to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed. Ron Lindsay has argued that while some non-scientific claims appear to be harmless or โsoft targetsโ, it is important to continue to address them and the underlying habits of thought that lead to them so that we do not โhave a lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled by aliens, and so forth โ and those beliefs are far from harmless.โ ref
โThe skeptical movement has had issues with allegations of sexism. Mary Coulman identified a disparity between women and men in the movement in a 1985 skeptic newsletter. The skeptic movement has generally been made up of men; at a 1987 conference the members there discussed the fact that the attendees were predominantly older white men and a 1991 listing of 50 CSICOP fellows included four women. Following a 2011 conference, Rebecca Watson, a prominent skeptic, raised issues of the way female skeptics are targeted with online harassment including threats of sexual violence by opponents of the movement, and also raised issues of sexism within the movement itself. While she received some support in response to her discussion of sexism within the movement, she later became a target of virulent online harassment, even from fellow skeptics, after posting an online video that discussed her discomfort with being propositioned in a confined space. This became known as โElevatorgateโ, based on Watsonโs discussion about being propositioned in a hotel elevator in the early morning after a skeptic event.โ ref
Debunking and rational inquiry
โThe verb โto debunkโ is used to describe efforts by skeptics to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated, or pretentious. It is closely associated with skeptical investigation or rational inquiry of controversial topics (compare list of topics characterized as pseudoscience) such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.โ ref
โFurther topics that scientifically skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and alternative medicines; the plausibility and existence of supernatural abilities (e.g. tarot reading) or entities (e.g. poltergeists, angels, godsโincluding Zeus); the monsters of cryptozoology (e.g. the Loch Ness monster); as well as creationism/intelligent design, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.โ ref
โSkeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell cautions, however, that โdebunkersโ must be careful to engage paranormal claims seriously and without bias. He explains that open minded investigation is more likely to teach and change minds than debunking.โ ref
โA striking characteristic of the skeptical movement is the fact that while most of the phenomena covered, such as astrology and homeopathy, have been debunked again and again, they stay popular.[6] Frazier reemphasized in 2018 that โ[w]e need independent, evidence-based, science-based critical investigation and inquiry now more than perhaps at any other time in our history.โ ref
โThe scientific skepticism community has traditionally been focused on what people believe rather than why they believeโthere might be psychological, cognitive, or instinctive reasons for belief when there is little evidence for such beliefs. According to Hammer, the bulk of the skeptical movementโs literature works on an implicit model, that belief in the irrational is being based on scientific illiteracy or cognitive illusions. He points to the skeptical discussion about astrology: The skeptical notion of astrology as a โfailed hypothesisโ fails to address basic anthropological assumptions about astrology as a form of ritualized divination. While the anthropological approach attempts to explain the activities of astrologers and their clients, the skeptical movementโs interest in the cultural aspects of such beliefs is muted.โ ref
โAccording to sociologist David J. Hess, the skeptical discourse tends to set science and the skeptical project apart from the social and the economic. From this perspective, he argues that skepticism takes on some aspects of a sacred discourse, as in Emile Durkheimโs Elementary Forms of the Religious LifeโScience, seen as pure and sacred (motivated by values of the mind and reason), is set apart from popular dealings with the paranormal, seen as profane (permeated by the economic and the social); obscuring the confrontation between science and religion. Hess states as well a strong tendency in othering: both skeptics and their opponents see the other as being driven by materialistic philosophy and material gain and assume themselves to have purer motives.โ ref]
Perceived dangers of pseudoscience
โWhile not all pseudoscientific beliefs are necessarily dangerous, some can potentially be harmful. Plato believed that to release others from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing. Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways. Bertrand Russell argued that some individual actions based on beliefs for which there is no evidence of efficacy, can result in destructive actions. James Randi often wrote on the issue of fraud by psychics and faith healers. Unqualified medical practice and alternative medicine can result in serious injury and death. Skeptical activist Tim Farley, who aims to create catalogue of harmful pseudoscientific practices and cases of damage caused by them, estimates documented number of killed or injured to be more than 600,000.[46] Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence (notably in The God Delusion), and considers creationism a threat to biology. Some skeptics, such as the members of The Skepticsโ Guide to the Universe podcast, oppose certain new religious movements because of their cult-like behaviors.โ ref
โLeo Igwe, Junior Fellow at the Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies and past Research Fellow of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), wrote A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa, which received endorsements from multiple public activists in Africa, as well as skeptical endorsers around the world. He is a Nigerian human rights advocate and campaigner against the impacts of child witchcraft accusations. Igwe came into conflict with high-profile witchcraft believers, leading to attacks on himself and his family.โ ref
โIn 2018, Amardeo Sarma provided some perspective on the state of the skeptical movement by addressing โthe essence of contemporary skepticism and [highlighting] the vital nonpartisan and science-based role of skeptics in preventing deception and harm.โ He emphasized the dangers of pseudoscience as a reason for prioritizing skeptical work.โ ref
Pseudoskepticism
โRichard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that โthe bogus skeptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirerโ. Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, and climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as โskepticsโ. This is despite their cherry-picking of evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his 2008 book Donโt Get Fooled Again, the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it โcentres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological positionโ.โ ref
โScientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) fellow in 1991, described what she termed the โworst kind of pseudoskepticismโ:
There are some members of the skepticsโ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion โฆโ ref
โCommenting on the labels โdogmaticโ and โpathologicalโ that the โAssociation for Skeptical Investigationโ puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Bob Carroll of the Skepticโs Dictionary argues that that association โis a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies.โ ref
Bracketing (phenomenology)
โBracketing (German: Einklammerung; also called phenomenological reduction, transcendental reduction or phenomenological epochรฉ) is the preliminary step in the philosophical movement of phenomenology describing an act of suspending judgment about the natural world to instead focus on the analysis of experience. Its earliest conception can be traced back to Immanuel Kant who argued that the only reality that one can know is the one each individual experiences in their mind (or Phenomena). Edmund Husserl, building on the Kantโs ideas, first proposed bracketing in 1913, to help better understand anotherโs phenomena.โ ref
Immanuel Kant
โThough it was formally developed by Edmund Husserl (1859โ1938), phenomenology can be understood as an outgrowth of the influential ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Attempting to resolve some of the key intellectual debates of his era, Kant argued that Noumena (fundamentally unknowable things-in-themselves) must be distinguished from Phenomena (the world as it appears to the mind). Kant, commonly misconceived as arguing that humans cannot have direct access to reality, but only to the contents of their minds, argued rather that what is experienced in the mind is reality to us. Phenomenology grew out of this conception of phenomena and studies the meaning of isolated phenomena as directly connected to our minds. According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, โModern philosophers have used โphenomenonโ to designate what is apprehended before judgment is applied.โ This may not be possible if observation is theory laden.โ ref
Husserl and Epochรฉ
โEdmund Husserl included the ideas of Kant in developing his concept of bracketing, also referred to as epochรฉ. Though Husserl likely began developing the method of bracketing around 1906, his book, Ideas, introduced it when it was published in 1913. Husserl reinterpreted and revitalized the epochรฉ of Pyrrhonism as a permanent way of challenging the dogmatic naivete of life in the โnatural attitudeโ and motivating the transformation to theoria, or the theoretical attitude of the disinterested spectator, which is essential both to modern science and to a genuine transcendental philosophy.โ ref
โBracketing (or epochรฉ) is a preliminary act in the phenomenological analysis, conceived by Husserl as the suspension of the trust in the objectivity of the world. It involves setting aside the question of the real existence of a contemplated object, as well as all other questions about the objectโs physical or objective nature; these questions are left to the natural sciences.โ ref
โFor example, the act of seeing a horse qualifies as an experience, whether one sees the horse in person, in a dream, or in a hallucination. โBracketingโ the horse suspends any judgment about the horse as noumenon, and instead analyses the phenomenon of the horse as constituted in intentional acts.โ ref
โBracketing may also be understood in terms of the phenomenological activity it is supposed to make possible: the โunpackingโ of phenomena, or, in other words, systematically peeling away their symbolic meanings like layers of an onion until only the thing itself as meant and experienced remains. Thus, oneโs subjective intending of the bracketed phenomenon is examined and analyzed in phenomenological purity.โ ref
โAdditionally, Husserl differentiated two types of bracketing which he called universal epochรฉ and local epochรฉ. Universal epochรฉ requires the suspension of assumptions regarding all aspects of existence. Local epochรฉ can be understood as the suspension of assumptions regarding a certain set of particular assumptions, presumably pertaining to whatever is being examined. Husserl viewed universal epochรฉ as stronger than local epochรฉ.โ ref
โTo return to the example of the horse, applying local epochรฉ would include suspending all prior assumptions regarding that particular horse, such as its appearance or temperament. Applying universal epochรฉ in this example would likely mean suspending all assumptions regarding all horses or even all animals or all forms of life in general.โ ref
Ok, I say โReasonโ is my only Master
I understand that you are a good thinker and I will help you become a great thinker. And yes many so-called skepticism followers actually follow my type of skepticism. I use methodological skepticism. But all that is involved is a thinking persuasion that all things must always be open to challenge and change in the search for truth. That is it. A thinking strategy of โfree-thinkingโ called methodological skepticism. So it is a small tool not a deep label of identity for me.
Justification (epistemology)
โJustification (also called epistemic justification) is a concept in epistemology used to describe beliefs that one has good reason for holding. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of warrant (a proper justification for holding a belief), knowledge, rationality, and probability, among others. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone holds a rationally admissible belief (although the term is also sometimes applied to other propositional attitudes such as doubt).โ ref
โDebates surrounding epistemic justification often involve the structure of justification, including whether there are foundational justified beliefs or whether mere coherence is sufficient for a system of beliefs to qualify as justified. Another major subject of debate is the sources of justification, which might include perceptual experience (the evidence of the senses), reason, and authoritative testimony, among others.โ ref
Justification and knowledge
โJustificationโ involves the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on oneโs current evidence. Justification is a property of beliefs insofar as they are held blamelessly. In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold.โ ref
โAccording to Edmund Gettier, many figures in the history of philosophy have treated โjustified true beliefโ as constituting knowledge. It is particularly associated with a theory discussed in Platoโs dialogues Meno and Theaetetus. While in fact, Plato seems to disavow justified true belief as constituting knowledge at the end of Theaetetus, the claim that Plato unquestioningly accepted this view of knowledge stuck.โ ref
โThe subject of justification has played a major role in the value of knowledge as โjustified true beliefโ.[citation needed] Some contemporary epistemologists, such as Jonathan Kvanvig assert that justification isnโt necessary in getting to the truth and avoiding errors. Kvanvig attempts to show that knowledge is no more valuable than true belief, and in the process dismissed the necessity of justification due to justification not being connected to the truth.โ ref
Conceptions of justification
โWilliam P. Alston identifies two conceptions of justification. One conception is โdeontologicalโ justification, which holds that justification evaluates the obligation and responsibility of a person having only true beliefs. This conception implies, for instance, that a person who has made his best effort but is incapable of concluding the correct belief from his evidence is still justified. The deontological conception of justification corresponds to epistemic internalism. Another conception is โtruth-conduciveโ justification, which holds that justification is based on having sufficient evidence or reasons that entails that the belief is at least likely to be true. The truth-conductive conception of justification corresponds to epistemic externalism.โ ref
Theories of justification
โThere are several different views as to what entails justification, mostly focusing on the question โHow sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?โ Different theories of justification require different conditions before a belief can be considered justified. Theories of justification generally include other aspects of epistemology, such as knowledge.โ ref
โNotable theories of justification include:
- Foundationalism โ Basic beliefs justify other, non-basic beliefs.
- Epistemic coherentism โ Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
- Infinitism โ Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons.
- Foundherentism โ A combination of foundationalism and epistemic coherentism, proposed by Susan Haack
- Internalism โ The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
- Externalism โ Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
- Reformed epistemology โ Beliefs are warranted by proper cognitive function, proposed by Alvin Plantinga.
- Epistemic skepticism โ A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge
- Evidentialism โ Beliefs depend solely on the evidence for them.
- Reliabilism โ A belief is justified if it is the result of a reliable process.โ ref
Criticism of theories of justification
โRobert Fogelin claims to detect a suspicious resemblance between the theories of justification and Agrippaโs five modes leading to the suspension of belief. He concludes that the modern proponents have made no significant progress in responding to the ancient modes of Pyrrhonian skepticism.โ ref
โWilliam P. Alston criticizes the very idea of a theory of justification. He claims: โThere isnโt any unique, epistemically crucial property of beliefs picked out by โjustifiedโ. Epistemologists who suppose the contrary have been chasing a will-oโ-the-wisp. What has really been happening is this. Different epistemologists have been emphasizing, concentrating on, โpushingโ different epistemic desiderata, different features of belief that are positively valuable from the standpoint of the aims of cognition.โ ref
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist
Methodological Rationalism (Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) and Skepticism
When would skepticism NOT be reasonable?
Extreme Skepticism: Solipsism?
Skepticism and or Rationalism Leads to Humanism and Atheism?
Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers
My Methodological Skepticism Style
I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism
Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty
I am an Axiologist Philosopher
I am thus, a โvalue theoristโ type of philosopher. One may ask,
โWhat good is that? Because, Damien, you must understand, I never even heard that word โAxiologyโ before.โ
My response would be, well, every thought or action in your life were either valueized (axiology thinking arena) or made unthinkingly, thus you, knowing it or not, everything was and is involved in the domain of โaxiologyโ, a value theorizing philosophy area of thinking investigation, analysis, confirmation, rejection, optimization, and utilization, etc.
Let me remind you that the part about โWhat goodโ is an axiological question. See how important now?
I want to help the world, so, I strive to be naturally therapeutic, not simply a servant leader, teacher, or life-learner.
Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey
โHow have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.โ ref
My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:
- (Pre-Animism Africa mainly, but also Europe, and Asia at least 300,000 years ago), (Pre-Animism โ Oxford Dictionaries)
- (Animism Africa around 100,000 years ago), (Animism โ Britannica.com)
- (Totemism Europe around 50,000 years ago), (Totemism โ Anthropology)
- (Shamanism Siberia around 30,000 years ago), (Shamanism โ Britannica.com)
- (Paganism Turkey around 12,000 years ago), (Paganism โ BBC Religion)
- (Progressed Organized Religion โInstitutional Religionโ Egypt around 5,000 years ago), (Ancient Egyptian Religion โ Britannica.com)
- (CURRENT โWorldโ RELIGIONS after 4,000 years ago) (Origin of Major Religions โ Sacred Texts)
- (Early Atheistic Doubting at least by 2,600 years ago) (History of Atheism โ Wikipedia)
โReligion is an Evolved Productโ and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wingsโฆ
Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.
Understanding Religion Evolution:
- Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
- Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
- Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
- Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
- Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
- Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
- CURRENT โWorldโ RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
- Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)
โAn Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolutionโ
It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a โdangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),โ and human โimmorality or imperfection of the soulโ which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived โmade from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,โ but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.
Quick Evolution of Religion?
Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago) with CURRENT โWorldโ RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).
Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of โreligionโ as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.
Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: โfirst human worshipโ 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.
I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.
Here are several of my blog posts on history:
- To Find Truth You Must First Look
- (Magdalenian/Iberomaurusian) Connections to the First Paganists of the early Neolithic Near East Dating from around 17,000 to 12,000 Years Ago
- Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
- Possible Clan Leader/Special โMALEโ Ancestor Totem Poles At Least 13,500 years ago?
- Jewish People with DNA at least 13,200 years old, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
- Baltic Reindeer Hunters: Swiderian, Lyngby, Ahrensburgian, and Krasnosillya cultures 12,020 to 11,020 years ago are evidence of powerful migratory waves during the last 13,000 years and a genetic link to Saami and the Finno-Ugric peoples.
- The Rise of Inequality: patriarchy and state hierarchy inequality
- Fertile Crescent 12,500 โ 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system?
- 12,400 โ 11,700 Years Ago โ Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism
- Ritualistic Bird Symbolism at Gobekli Tepe and its โAncestor Cultโ
- Male-Homosexual (female-like) / Trans-woman (female) Seated Figurine from Gobekli Tepe
- Could a 12,000-year-old Bull Geoglyph at Gรถbekli Tepe relate to older Bull and Female Art 25,000 years ago and Later Goddess and the Bull cults like Catal Huyuk?
- Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago.
- Alcohol, where Agriculture and Religion Become one? Such as Gobekli Tepeโs Ritualistic use of Grain as Food and Ritual Drink
- Neolithic Ritual Sites with T-Pillars and other Cultic Pillars
- Paganism: Goddesses around 12,000 years ago then Male Gods after 7,000 years ago
- First Patriarchy: Split of Womenโs Status around 12,000 years ago & First Hierarchy: fall of Womenโs Status around 5,000 years ago.
- Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
- J DNA and the Spread of Agricultural Religion (paganism)
- Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system
- Paganism 12,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Pre-Capitalism)
- Shaman burial in Israel 12,000 years ago and the Shamanism Phenomena
- Need to Mythicized: gods and goddesses
- 12,000 โ 7,000 Years Ago โ Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas)
- 12,000 โ 2,000 Years Ago โ Indigenous-Scandinavians (Nordic)
- Norse did not wear helmets with horns?
- Pre-Pottery Neolithic Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago?
- 10,400 โ 10,100 Years Ago, in Turkey the Nevail Cori Religious Settlement
- 9,000-6,500 Years Old Submerged Pre-Pottery/Pottery Neolithic Ritual Settlements off Israelโs Coast
- Catal Huyuk โfirst religious designed cityโ around 9,500 to 7,700 years ago (Turkey)
- Cultic Hunting at Catal Huyuk โfirst religious designed cityโ
- Special Items and Art as well as Special Elite Burials at Catal Huyuk
- New Rituals and Violence with the appearance of Pottery and People?
- Haplogroup N and its related Uralic Languages and Cultures
- Ainu people, Sรกmi people, Native Americans, the Ancient North Eurasians, and Paganistic-Shamanism with Totemism
- Ideas, Technology and People from Turkey, Europe, to China and Back again 9,000 to 5,000 years ago?
- First Pottery of Europe and the Related Cultures
- 9,000 years old Neolithic Artifacts Judean Desert and Hills Israel
- 9,000-7,000 years-old Sex and Death Rituals: Cult Sites in Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai
- 9,000-8500 year old Horned Female shaman Bad Dรผrrenberg Germany
- Neolithic Jewelry and the Spread of Farming in Europe Emerging out of West Turkey
- 8,600-year-old Tortoise Shells in Neolithic graves in central China have Early Writing and Shamanism
- Swing of the Mace: the rise of Elite, Forced Authority, and Inequality begin to Emerge 8,500 years ago?
- Migrations and Changing Europeans Beginning around 8,000 Years Ago
- My โSteppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesisโ 8,000/7,000 years ago
- Around 8,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Mistress of Animals, โRitualโ Motif
- Pre-Columbian Red-Paint (red ochre) Maritime Archaic Culture 8,000-3,000 years ago
- 7,522-6,522 years ago Linear Pottery culture which I think relates to Arcane Capitalismโs origins
- Arcane Capitalism: Primitive socialism, Primitive capital, Private ownership, Means of production, Market capitalism, Class discrimination, and Petite bourgeoisie (smaller capitalists)
- 7,500-4,750 years old Ritualistic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine
- Roots of a changing early society 7,200-6,700 years ago Jordan and Israel
- Agriculture religion (Paganism) with farming reached Britain between about 7,000 to 6,500 or so years ago and seemingly expressed in things like Western Europeโs Long Barrows
- My Thoughts on Possible Migrations of โRโ DNA and Proto-Indo-European?
- โMilletโ Spreading from China 7,022 years ago to Europe and related Language may have Spread with it leading to Proto-Indo-European
- Proto-Indo-European (PIE), ancestor of Indo-European languages: DNA, Society, Language, and Mythology
- The DnieperโDonets culture and Asian varieties of Millet from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 7,022 years ago
- Kurgan 6,000 years ago/dolmens 7,000 years ago: funeral, ritual, and other?
- 7,020 to 6,020-year-old Proto-Indo-European Homeland of Urheimat or proposed home of their Language and Religion
- Ancient Megaliths: Kurgan, Ziggurat, Pyramid, Menhir, Trilithon, Dolman, Kromlech, and Kromlech of Trilithons
- The Mytheme of Ancient North Eurasian Sacred-Dog belief and similar motifs are found in Indo-European, Native American, and Siberian comparative mythology
- Elite Power Accumulation: Ancient Trade, Tokens, Writing, Wealth, Merchants, and Priest-Kings
- Sacred Mounds, Mountains, Kurgans, and Pyramids may hold deep connections?
- Between 7,000-5,000 Years ago, rise of unequal hierarchy elite, leading to a โbirth of the Stateโ or worship of power, strong new sexism, oppression of non-elites, and the fall of Womenโs equal status
- Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite & their slaves
- Hell and Underworld mythologies starting maybe as far back as 7,000 to 5,000 years ago with the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
- The First Expression of the Male God around 7,000 years ago?
- White (light complexion skin) Bigotry and Sexism started 7,000 years ago?
- Around 7,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Divine Bird (Tutelary and/or Trickster spirit/deity), โRitualโ Motif
- Nekhbet an Ancient Egyptian Vulture Goddess and Tutelary Deity
- 6,720 to 4,920 years old Ritualistic Hongshan Culture of Inner Mongolia with 5,000-year-old Pyramid Mounds and Temples
- First proto-king in the Balkans, Varna culture around 6,500 years ago?
- 6,500โ5,800 years ago in Israel Late Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Period in the Southern Levant Seems to Express Northern Levant Migrations, Cultural and Religious Transfer
- KING OF BEASTS: Master of Animals โRitualโ Motif, around 6,000 years old or olderโฆ
- Around 6000-year-old Shared Idea of the Solid Wheel & the Spoked Wheel-Shaped Ritual Motif
- โThe Ghassulian Star,โ a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan; a Proto-Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna or Star of Venus?
- Religious/Ritual Ideas, including goddesses and gods as well as ritual mounds or pyramids from Northeastern Asia at least 6,000 years old, seemingly filtering to Iran, Iraq, the Mediterranean, Europe, Egypt, and the Americas?
- Maykop (5,720โ5,020 years ago) Caucasus region Bronze Age culture-related to Copper Age farmers from the south, influenced by the Ubaid period and Leyla-Tepe culture, as well as influencing the Kura-Araxes culture
- 5-600-year-old Tomb, Mummy, and First Bearded Male Figurine in a Grave
- Kura-Araxes Cultural 5,520 to 4,470 years old DNA traces to the Canaanites, Arabs, and Jews
- Minoan/Cretan (Keftiu) Civilization and Religion around 5,520 to 3,120 years ago
- Evolution Of Science at least by 5,500 years ago
- 5,500 Years old birth of the State, the rise of Hierarchy, and the fall of Womenโs status
- โJiroft cultureโ 5,100 โ 4,200 years ago and the History of Iran
- Stonehenge: Paganistic Burial and Astrological Ritual Complex, England (5,100-3,600 years ago)
- Around 5,000-year-old Shared Idea of the โTree of Lifeโ Ritual Motif
- Complex rituals for elite, seen from China to Egypt, at least by 5,000 years ago
- Around 5,000 years ago: โBirth of the Stateโ where Religion gets Military Power and Influence
- The Center of the World โAxis Mundiโ and/or โSacred Mountainsโ Mythology Could Relate to the Altai Mountains, Heart of the Steppe
- Progressed organized religion starts, an approximately 5,000-year-old belief system
- Chinaโs Civilization between 5,000-3,000 years ago, was a time of war and class struggle, violent transition from free clans to a Slave or Elite society
- Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation at least by around 5,000 years ago.
- Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Kings and the Rise of the State)
- Ziggurats (multi-platform temples: 4,900 years old) to Pyramids (multi-platform tombs: 4,700 years old)
- Did a 4,520โ4,420-year-old Volcano In Turkey Inspire the Bible God?
- Finlandโs Horned Shaman and Pre-Horned-God at least 4,500 years ago?
- 4,000-year-Old Dolmens in Israel: A Connected Dolmen Religious Phenomenon?
- Creation myths: From chaos, Ex nihilo, Earth-diver, Emergence, World egg, and World parent
- Bronze Age โRitualโ connections of the Bell Beaker culture with the Corded Ware/Single Grave culture, which were related to the Yamnaya culture and Proto-Indo-European Languages/Religions
- Low Gods (Earth/ Tutelary deity), High Gods (Sky/Supreme deity), and Moralistic Gods (Deity enforcement/divine order)
- The exchange of people, ideas, and material-culture including, to me, the new god (Sky Father) and goddess (Earth Mother) religion between the Cucuteni-Trypillians and others which is then spread far and wide
- Koryaks: Indigenous People of the Russian Far East and Big Raven myths also found in Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and other Indigenous People of North America
- 42 Principles Of Maat (Egyptian Goddess of the justice) around 4,400 years ago, 2000 Years Before Ten Commandments
- โHappy Easterโ Well Happy Eostre/Ishter
- 4,320-3,820 years old โShimaoโ (North China) site with Totemistic-Shamanistic Paganism and a Stepped Pyramid
- 4,250 to 3,400 Year old Stonehenge from Russia: Arkaim?
- 4,100-year-old beaker with medicinal & flowering plants in a grave of a woman in Scotland
- Early European Farmer ancestry, Kelif el Boroud people with the Cardial Ware culture, and the Bell Beaker culture Paganists too, spread into North Africa, then to the Canary Islands off West Africa
- Flood Accounts: Gilgamesh epic (4,100 years ago) Noah in Genesis (2,600 years ago)
- Paganism 4,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)
- When was the beginning: TIMELINE OF CURRENT RELIGIONS, which start around 4,000 years ago.
- Early Religions Thought to Express Proto-Monotheistic Systems around 4,000 years ago
- Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old womenโs rights document.
- Single God Religions (Monotheism) = โMan-o-theismโ started around 4,000 years ago with the Great Sky Spirit/God Tiฤn (ๅคฉ)?
- Confucianismโs Tiฤn (Shangdi god 4,000 years old): Supernaturalism, Pantheism or Theism?
- Yes, Your Male God is Ridiculous
- Mythology, a Lunar Deity is a Goddess or God of the Moon
- Sacred Land, Hills, and Mountains: Sami Mythology (Paganistic Shamanism)
- Horse Worship/Sacrifice: mythical union of Ruling Elite/Kingship and the Horse
- The Amorite/Amurru peopleโs God Amurru โLord of the Steppeโ, relates to the Origins of the Bible God?
- Bronze Age Exotic Trade Routes Spread Quite Far as well as Spread Religious Ideas with Them
- Sami and the Northern Indigenous Peoples Landscape, Language, and its Connection to Religion
- Prototype of Ancient Analemmatic Sundials around 3,900-3,150 years ago and a Possible Solar Connection to gods?
- Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (โPaleo-Hebrewโ 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)
- The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions around 3000 years ago?
- Are you aware that there are religions that worship women gods, explain now religion tears women down?
- Animistic, Totemistic, and Paganistic Superstition Origins of bible god and the bibleโs Religion.
- Myths and Folklore: โTrickster gods and goddessesโ
- Jews, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
- An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees
- Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)
- Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?
- DenรฉโYeniseian language, Old Copper Complex, and Pre-Columbian Mound Builders?
- No โdinosaurs and humans didnโt exist together just because some think they are in the bible itselfโ
- Sacred Shit and Sacred Animals?
- Everyone Killed in the Bible Flood? โNephilimโ (giants)?
- Hey, Damien dude, I have a question for you regarding โthe bibleโ Exodus.
- Archaeology Disproves the Bible
- Bible Battle, Just More, Bible Babble
- The Jericho Conquest lie?
- Canaanites and Israelites?
- Accurate Account on how did Christianity Began?
- Letโs talk about Christianity.
- So the 10 commandments isnโt anything to go by either right?
- Misinformed christian
- Debunking Jesus?
- Paulism vs Jesus
- Ok, you seem confused so letโs talk about Buddhism.
- Unacknowledged Buddhism: Gods, Savior, Demons, Rebirth, Heavens, Hells, and Terrorism
- His Foolishness The Dalai Lama
- Yin and Yang is sexist with an ORIGIN around 2,300 years ago?
- I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.
- Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians
- The Pseudohistoric and Pseudoscientific claims about โBakoni Ruinsโ of South Africa
- Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?
- Religion is an Evolved Product
- Was the Value of Ancient Women Different?
- 1000 to 1100 CE, human sacrifice Cahokia Mounds a pre-Columbian Native American site
- Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?
- Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity
- Screw All Religions and Their Toxic lies, they are all fraud
- Forget Religionsโ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated โArchaeology Facts.โ
- Religion Dispersal throughout the World
- I Hate Religion Just as I Hate all Pseudoscience
- Exposing Scientology, Eckankar, Wicca and Other Nonsense?
- Main deity or religious belief systems
- Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Ancient Alien Conspiracy Theorists: Misunderstanding, Rhetoric, Misinformation, Fabrications, and Lies
- Misinformation, Distortion, and Pseudoscience in Talking with a Christian Creationist
- Judging the Lack of Goodness in Gods, Even the Norse God Odin
- Challenging the Belief in God-like Aliens and Gods in General
- A Challenge to Christian use of Torture Devices?
- Yes, Hinduism is a Religion
- Trump is One of the Most Reactionary Forces of Far-right Christian Extremism
- Was the Bull Head a Symbol of God? Yes!
- Primate Death Rituals
- Christian โ โGod and Christianity are objectively trueโ
- Australopithecus afarensis Death Ritual?
- You Claim Global Warming is a Hoax?
- Doubter of Science and Defamer of Atheists?
- I think that sounds like the Bible?
- History of the Antifa (โanti-fascistโ) Movements
- Indianapolis Anti-Blasphemy Laws #Free Soheil Rally
- Damien, you repeat the golden rule in so many forms then you say religion is dogmatic?
- Science is a Trustable Methodology whereas Faith is not Trustable at all!
- Was I ever a believer, before I was an atheist?
- Atheists rise in reason
- Mistrust of science?
- Open to Talking About the Definition of โGodโ? But first, we address Faith.
- โUnited Monarchyโ full of splendor and power โ Saul, David, and Solomon? Most likely not.
- Is there EXODUS ARCHAEOLOGY? The short answer is โno.โ
- Lacking Proof of Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods is Just a Lack of Research?
- Religion and Politics: Faith Beliefs vs. Rational Thinking
- Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
- โThe Hammer of Truthโ -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
- Navigation of a bad argument: Ad Hominem vs. Attack
- Why is it Often Claimed that Gods have a Gender?
- Why are basically all monotheistic religions ones that have a male god?
- Shifting through the Claims in support of Faith
- Dear Mr. AtHope, The 20th Century is an Indictment of Secularism and a Failed Atheist Century
- An Understanding of the Worldwide Statistics and Dynamics of Terrorist Incidents and Suicide Attacks
- Intoxication and Evolution? Addressing and Assessing the โStoned Apeโ or โDrunken Monkeyโ Theories as Catalysts in Human Evolution
- Sacred Menstrual cloth? Inannaโs knot, Isis knot, and maybe Maโatโs feather?
- Damien, why donโt the Hebrews accept the bible stories?
- Dealing with a Troll and Arguing Over Word Meaning
- Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?
- Afrocentrism and African Religions
- Crecganford @crecganford offers history & stories of the people, places, gods, & culture
- Empiricism-Denier?
I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education.
ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref
Low Gods โEarthโ or Tutelary deity and High Gods โSkyโ or Supreme deity
โAn Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the โchthonicโ deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhลซmi, etc. traced to an โEarth Motherโ complementary to the โSky Fatherโ in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.โ ref
โA mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.โ ref
โAny masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as โsky fatherโ deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a โsky fatherโ god with an โearth motherโ goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with โskyโ not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.โ ref
โIn comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a โfatherโ, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of โsky fatherโ may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an โearth motherโ. โSky Fatherโ is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeรปs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Tรฝr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deityโs name, *Dyฤus Phโtแธr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).โ ref
Tutelary deity
โA tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of โtutelaryโ expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.โ ref
โA tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonรกs, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.โ ref
โA tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Mฤori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwanโs term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Mฤori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Mฤori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tลซmatauenga or Tฤne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). โ ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref
Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States
โHistorical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copรกn and Monte Albรกn); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.โ ref
โThe Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.โ ref
โChinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.โ ref
โA tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.โ ref
โA tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:
You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me โฆ . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.โ ref
โTutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.โ ref
โEach town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.โ ref
โThe Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as โtower-crownedโ represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.โ ref
Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)
โA household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity โ typically a goddess โ often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.โ ref
โThe second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.โ ref
โHousehold deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as โhousehold godsโ in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.โ ref
โIn many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:
- Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
- Domovoy (Slavic)
- Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
- Hรบsvรฆttir (Norse)โ ref
โAlthough the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.โ ref
โFor centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Lutherโs Tischreden have numerous โ quite serious โ references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.โ ref
โIn contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, รmile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freudโs Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.โ ref
โWilliam Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II โThe House Spiritโ, Section 1, he states:
The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was โฆ the spirit rule of dead ancestors.โ ref
โIn Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:
It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. โฆ
In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. โฆ [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. โฆ The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. โฆ In [England] โฆ [h]e is the Brownie. โฆ In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.โ ref
Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref
Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was โPaleo-Hebrewโ dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref
Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (โPaleo-Hebrewโ 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)
โJudaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.โ ref
โYahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the malโak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the โoriginalโ god of Israel โIsra-Elโ; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name โIsraelโ, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).โ ref
โEl is a Northwest Semitic word meaning โgodโ or โdeityโ, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, โila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *สil-, meaning โgodโ. Specific deities known as โEl or โIl include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamiaโs Early Dynastic Period. สผฤl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, สผฤl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, สพil mlk is understood to mean โสผฤl the Kingโ but สพil hd as โthe god Hadadโ. The Semitic root สพlh (Arabic สพilฤh, Aramaic สพAlฤh, สพElฤh, Hebrew สพelลah) may be สพl with a parasitic h, and สพl may be an abbreviated form of สพlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning โgodsโ is สพilhm, equivalent to Hebrew สพelลhรฎm โpowersโ. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for โgodโ by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors โ the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source โ were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.โ ref
Jainism around 2,599 โ 2,527 years old. ref
Confucianism around 2,600 โ 2,551 years old. ref
Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 โ 2,483/2,400 years old. ref
Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref
Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref
Islam around 1407โ1385 years old. ref
Sikhism around 548โ478 years old. ref
Bahรกโรญ around 200โ125 years old. ref
Knowledge to Ponder:
Stars/Astrology:
- Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
- The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
- Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the โKurgan phenomenonโ of below-ground โmoundโ stone/wood burial structures and โDolmen phenomenonโ of above-ground stone burial structures.
- Around 6,500โ5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
- โThe Ghassulian Star,โ a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.
โAstrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and someโsuch as the Hindus, Chinese, and the Mayaโdeveloped elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19thโ17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient Greece, Rome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a personโs personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.โ ref
Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref
Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref
Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled โHe who Saw the Deepโ (Sha naqba ฤซmuru) or โSurpassing All Other Kingsโ (Shลซtur eli sharrฤซ) were written. ref
Hinduism:
- 3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
- 3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Judaism:
- around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was โPaleo-Hebrewโ
- around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed
Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths
- Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
- Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianityโs bible.
- Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
- Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
- Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
- The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
- The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
- The poetic and proposed โWisdom booksโ dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
- The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
- Henotheism:
- Exodus 20:23 โYou shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.โ
- Polytheism:
- Judges 10:6 โThen the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.โ
- 1 Corinthians 8:5 โFor even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.โ
- Monotheism:
- Isaiah 43:10 โYou are my witnesses,โ declares the LORD, โand my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the โdefault beliefโ. The Greek word is apistos (a โnotโ and pistos โfaithful,โ), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.
Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:
- Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
- Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
- Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
- Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
- Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the โfather of modern scienceโ possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
- Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
- Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, โIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?โ ref
This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess โValue Conscious/Consciousnessโ to both give a strong moral โaxiologicalโ argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to โAnarchism and Socialismโ (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me โDamien religion and culture are very differentโ
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americansโ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at รatalhรถyรผk but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by โHistory with Cyโ
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
The โAtheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionariesโ
Cory Johnston โญ โถ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanityโs flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: โPromoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.โ http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Cory Johnston โญ โถ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
Damien Marie AtHope (โAt Hopeโ) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Womanโs Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, โAnarcho-Humanist.โ
I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.
To me, the โmale godโ seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism โmale godโ is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the โfemale goddessโ seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism โmale godโ that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.
My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?
Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as โAtโ โHopeโ)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, โautodidactโ Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and โautodidactโ Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com