Ancient Greek Skepticism
Although all skeptics in some way cast doubt on our ability to gain knowledge of the world, the term “skeptic” actually covers a wide range of attitudes and positions. There are skeptical elements in the views of many Greek philosophers, but the term “ancient skeptic” is generally applied either to a member of Plato’s Academy during its skeptical period (c. 273 B.C.E to 1st century B.C.E.) or to a follower of Pyrrho (c. 365 to 270 B.C.E.). Pyrrhonian skepticism flourished from Aenesidemus’ revival (1st century B.C.E.) to Sextus Empiricus, who lived sometime in the 2nd or 3rd centuries C.E. Thus the two main varieties of ancient skepticism: Academic and Pyrrhonian.
The term “skeptic” derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration. What leads most skeptics to begin to examine and then eventually to be at a loss as to what one should believe, if anything, is the fact of widespread and seemingly endless disagreement regarding issues of fundamental importance. Many of the arguments of the ancient skeptics were developed in response to the positive views of their contemporaries, especially the Stoics and Epicureans, but these arguments have been highly influential for subsequent philosophers and will continue to be of great interest as long as there is widespread disagreement regarding important philosophical issues.
Nearly every variety of ancient skepticism includes a thesis about our epistemic limitations and a thesis about suspending judgment. The two most frequently made objections to skepticism target these theses. The first is that the skeptic’s commitment to our epistemic limitations is inconsistent. He cannot consistently claim to know, for example, that knowledge is not possible; neither can he consistently claim that we should suspend judgment regarding all matters insofar as this claim is itself a judgment. Either such claims will refute themselves, since they fall under their own scope, or the skeptic will have to make an apparently arbitrary exemption. The second sort of objection is that the alleged epistemic limitations and/or the suggestion that we should suspend judgment would make life unlivable. For, the business of day-to-day life requires that we make choices and this requires making judgments. Similarly, one might point out that our apparent success in interacting with the world and each other entails that we must know some things. Some responses by ancient skeptics to these objections are considered in the following discussion.
(Hankinson [1995] is a comprehensive and detailed examination of ancient skeptical views. See Schmitt [1972] and Popkin [1979] for discussion of the historical impact of ancient skepticism, beginning with its rediscovery in the 16th Century, and Fogelin [1994] for an assessment of Pyrrhonian skepticism in light of contemporary epistemology. The differences between ancient and modern forms of skepticism has been a controversial topic in recent years-see especially, Annas [1986], [1996], Burnyeat [1984], and Bett [1993].)
.................................................. .................................................. ........................
Agnostic - Agnostos
The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.
Agnostic - Sitting on the Fence
By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to "sit on the fence," many agnostics are "practical atheists," in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability.
Agnostic - Evidence For God?
Can the agnostic know whether or not God exists? Is such knowledge obtainable by mere men? Modern scientific endeavor seems to indicate that such knowledge is obtainable to the objective observer. Let's examine the facts objectively…
Design necessitates a designer. This is a fundamental axiom. Thus, design detection methodology is a prerequisite for many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI (the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence). In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity but not specification; a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it is meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it is meaningful). You can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities," 1998.)
When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the presence of intelligent design. Common sense demands a Designer. Let's take the e-coli bacterial flagellum for example. The e-coli bacterial flagellum is what propels e-coli bacteria through their microscopic world. It consists of about 40 different protein parts (which come into focus when magnified 50,000 times using electron micrographs), including a stator, rotor, drive shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not simply convenient that we've given these parts these specific names - that's truly their function. The bacterial flagellum is a microscopic outboard motor! These microscopic outboard motors are absolutely amazing - a marvel of engineering. They can run at an incredible 100,000 rpm. Nevertheless, they can stop on a microscopic dime. In fact, it takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift gears and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the other direction! The flagellar motor is water-cooled and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it gets feedback from its environment! ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)
The point is, if you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, any machine, any toy or model, you would recognize it as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect any outboard motor, much less one this incredible, would ever be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. That is absurd. Outboard motors are the product of intelligent design. (Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.)
The term "Irreducible Complexity" was first coined by Michael Behe in describing these molecular machines. Each mechanical part is absolutely necessary for the whole to function. Thus there is no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Not only does common sense demand a Designer, there is no plausible naturalistic explanation to explain away the necessity of a Designer.
The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate well-designed molecular machines. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.)
.................................................. .................................................. .................
Nihilism has been present in Western culture for many centuries, but no century has been so permeated by nihilism as has our own. With perceptive insight Alexander Salzhenitsyn recently observed that Western democracy is in its “last decline,” has no ethical foundation, and consists only of “parties, and social classes engaged in a conflict of interests, just interests, nothing higher.” Solzhenitsyn's observation can hardly be brushed aside. His words describe a nihilism that is prominent in more than Western democracy, Nihilism reaches as far back as Ecclesiastes in our Old Testament and Nargarjuna in Buddhism. Perhaps no century has been without it, but in our century it has become pervasive, finding expression not only in a flood of literature but in virtually every phase of our existence. The Nazi holocaust, Vietnam, the “death of God,” and Watergate fall within its scope. It is so pervasive that it merits attention, especially from church historians.
رد مع اقتباس
