Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Ontology Reading Group FAQ

**Posted by Dennis** 8/25/2018 4:15 am

I can't join the club as of now, however, if it's not a bother, then I'll join after September.

**Posted by Hypatia** 8/25/2018 2:07 pm

John West wrote:
*I think atheist skepticism is the least interesting kind. I'm much more interested in the (historically at least as prominent) skepticism of the mystics and Christians.

This is really interesting. Do you mean the apophatic tradition and skepticism as a sort of unknowing, or something different?

(I am not convinced that atheistic skepticism is skepticism at all. It seems more like a dogmatic scientific pragmatism than anything else.)

No, no problem. In the worst case scenario, you miss a chunk of the reading.

Great. I'm in, then. Though like Dennis, I won't be around in September, but if you're not starting until October, that shouldn't be an issue.

Last edited by Hypatia (8/25/2018 2:07 pm)

**Posted by John West** 8/25/2018 7:57 pm

Hypatia wrote:
Do you mean the apophatic tradition and skepticism as a sort of unknowing, or something different?

It's worth distinguishing two kinds of fideism. The first kind of fideism is blind faith that denies that reason can reach truth or make it plausible, and bases all knowledge on some revealed truth; the second makes faith prior to reason. The first kind of fideism claims that reason has no role in the search for truth; the second claims that all rational propositions are to some degree doubtful prior to accepting something on faith.

I'm mainly interested in the second kind of fideism. (The second kind of fideism includes everyone from those who deny that there can be any relation between faith and reason (e.g. Bayle and Kierkegaard) to those who think that certainty can only be attained after we accept some propositions on faith (e.g. Augustine).)

I haven't looked into mysticism as much, but I'm thinking of views of those like certain Buddhists (who think that we should use skeptical arguments to break the hold discursive reasoning has on us) and Christian mystics.

(Incidentally, the first kind of fideism is considered heresy by the Catholic church.)

**Posted by John West** 8/25/2018 8:02 pm

I am not convinced that atheistic skepticism is skepticism at all. It seems more like a dogmatic scientific pragmatism than anything else.

It's worth distinguishing two senses of skepticism. I tend to use “skepticism” to mean the view of those who suspend judgment about some meaningfully large class of propositions; others sometimes use it to mean a philosophical view that raises doubts about the adequacy of the evidence for any proposition. I'll mark them off from each other with subscripts.

The atheists who call themselves skeptics2 nowadays are the philosophical descendants of Mersenne (whose general view has become what a lot of philosopher's now call the “scientific outlook”). Mersenne developed his view as part of a grand attack on skepticism1 in my sense (cf. La Verité des Sciences, contre les Septiques ou Pyrrhoniens).

**Posted by John West** 8/25/2018 8:10 pm

if you're not starting until October, that shouldn't be an issue.

I don't mind shooting the breeze now and then in off-topic ("Chit-Chat"), but I won't really have time for more involved conversations (like, e.g. the kind that go on in the on topic forums and will at least sometimes go on in the reading group) before October. That I sometimes post in the on topic forums should be taken as a sign that I sometimes lack self-discipline (or that I don't think my post is going to lead to an in-depth conversation, in which case, if it does, I start trying to duck out as soon as I think I can without being too rude).

**Posted by John West** 8/25/2018 8:32 pm

By the way, people reading this shouldn't assume that because I'm interested in some species of fideism and skepticism I'm not interested in all sorts of other philosophy that has nothing to do with either. (I realize that I've been, perhaps, a bit too Socratic on here, lately, and apologize to anyone I've given the wrong impression.)

**Posted by Hypatia** 8/25/2018 9:40 pm

John West wrote:
I'm mainly interested in the second kind of fideism. (The second kind of fideism includes everyone from those who deny that there can be any relation between faith and reason (e.g. Bayle and Kierkegaard) to those who think that certainty can only be attained after we accept some propositions on faith (e.g. Augustine).)

You know, I'm not sure Kierkegaard was really denying any relation between reason and faith--just stressing the ways that the latter transcends the former. Actually, there's an interesting article here about Kierkegaard and the theme of reason leading to offense and then to faith. (Though it being Kierkegaard, who knows what he really meant about anything.)

But yeah, my inclinations are also strongly in favor of fideism in this sense, though the rational side of my brain tends to run for shelter in Aristotelianism.

**Posted by John West** 8/25/2018 11:25 pm

I just think religious skeptics are more interesting than a lot of their atheist counterparts. They tend to make a more concerted effort to live with their skepticism.

There are lots of interesting non-skeptics on both sides. (I have no idea how well atheists live their philosophies in general. I'm not familiar enough with the literature in contemporary ethics.)

**Posted by ficino** 9/03/2018 8:22 am

Just in case this newly announced volume may be of interest to anyone, I'm posting in the reference:

Chiaradonna, Riccardo, Filippo Forcignanò and Franco Trabattoni (ed.).Ancient ontologies: contemporary debates.Discipline filosofiche, XXVIII:I. Macerata: Quodlibet, 2018. 256 p. €20,00 (pb). ISBN 9788822902214.

**Posted by John West** 9/03/2018 5:43 pm

Grazie, Ficino.