Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace  Before it seemed as though you were using it in a broader sense, which confused me, since atheists are, in a certain sense, the ultimate skeptics. |
This brings up another interesting point, how do you define atheist? There is a branch of 'fundamental'(in a certain sense) atheism that insists that it is correct and in asserting that god does not exist, becomes what it chastises. I think that Richard Dawkins falls into this camp, asserting that god and belief in god is not only silly, but dangerous(at least that is what I have gotten out of him). He seems to actually think that man holds the keys to unlocking every secret of the universe and can answer the ultimate question of "Why?" and in this belief system he simply creates a new theism where god is the ever elusive answer to our greatest and most tiemless questions.
This is a bastardisation of what atheists like Bertrand Russell believed. just read 'Why I am Not a Christian'. He admits that he cannot deny the possibility of a god as it cannot be proven, but that he chooses not to believe it because it cannot be proven to be so. of course, if you listen to Popper, you find that it is not proven if it is not proven false thus it comes down to faith. There are people out there who think god doesnt exist because evolution exists, I have met one. There are those who think that god is gone because they misunderstand nietszche,again, I have met one; hence an ignorant 'Atheist'. These 'Atheists' are not skeptics in any sense of the word.
Also, on a different note, I do not believe one can ultimately be a skepticist, for without faith that you can move your hand or see what you see you are incapacitated by doubt. Reductionist nihilism at its worst.
At its best, a good dose of skepticism can vitalize a field, just look at Einstein or Descartes or Socrates.