Things are not always what they appear to be. People who recognize this are sometimes said to possess a degree of "healthy skepticism" because they will not be easily convinced of a truth claim until they have a chance to investigate the evidence.

Philosophical skepticism, however, goes much farther than such "healthy skepticism." Philosophical skepticism makes the broad claim that man is completely incapable of obtaining true and reliable knowledge about the world using his natural faculties. His reason and his intellect are simply unreliable.

Such philosophical skepticism is a difficult position to defend. After all, it seems incoherent to argue that reason is unreliable.

Nonetheless, Christians sometimes adopt a stance of philosophical skepticism based on the doctrine of original sin. The argument goes something like this: Since the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the garden of eden, man has been separated from God. He is a fallen and corrupt creature. This means that all of his faculties are utterly corrupt and unreliable. His reason, as one of his faculties, must therefore be unreliable.

But are man's faculties really so utterly corrupted that they are incapable of performing their intended function? Certainly the hand can still grasp tools; certainly the eyes can still see shapes and colors; and certainly the stomach can still digest food. Why, then, should the mind be considered as uniquely in-capable of its proper function? Is the mind -more- corrupt than the hand or the eye or the stomach?

In our reading selection for this week from The Embers and the Stars, Erazim Kohak explores philosophical skepticism from both a historical and a theological perspective. Let's talk about this chapter, titled Shadow of a Doubt.