Of course you can have beliefs your criteria is not that you can't hold them but that they must be open to doubt. If you don't doubt that this definition of scepticism hinders any interesting correlation between it and religiosity then I'd wonder why.

However that you consider what can be implied more arbitrary seems to acknowledge this is the case. Yes I'm being nitty but you're interested in philosophical discussion and so I'll raise my somewhat technical and nitty objections.

My contention is that it's too simple to be of much value.

However to answer the question in the spirit in which it was intended I think our ability to doubt ourselves is as much a question of cognitive science as it is philosophy. Firstly the approach we take to doubt and the honesty with which we address our beliefs are subject to bias. We all know this it doesn't seem controversial but it also seems that knowing we are subject to bias and countering that bias are not the same thing. I'm sure posters can think of examples.

A useful background read:

skepticism-ancient

From above link:

The Greek word skepsis means investigation. By calling themselves skeptics, the ancient skeptics thus describe themselves as investigators. They also call themselves ‘those who suspend’, thereby signaling that their investigations lead them to suspension of judgment. They do not put forward theories, and they do not deny that knowledge can be found. At its core, ancient skepticism is a way of life devoted to inquiry. It is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything. This gives rise to their most controversial ambition: a life without belief.

Ancient skepticism is, for the most part, a phenomenon of Post-Classical, Hellenistic philosophy.


Also this book is excellent: Ancient-Scepticism-Philosophies-Harald-Thorsrud

I agree with the quote and especially the bolded as far as it goes and a very useful observation. As to the relationship of religiosity in regards to basic skepticism as currently understood, I surmise that there would be tension between them at a basic level in regards to belief systems, seems obvious. What that all means in terms of doubt, withholding belief, and held beliefs and religious feelings is, I think, much more complicated than a simple dichotomy.

I was being a little rhetoric or poetic if you will. The point I was hoping to convey in the SMP thread was about the fact that you have more control over your experience of life than Western-thought would like you to believe. To acknowledge this, after all, means to not only acknowledge that you are more responsible for your happiness, but to also acknowledge that if you haven't been particularly happy, it is a failure on your own behalf: not 'the world' or 'other people' or 'the system' or 'the vacuum' or x, y, z. Externalizing the problem usually doesn't help resolving it.

And there are exceptions of course (mental illness) but these exceptions should never be considered 'the rule'. Something that's hard to do when you work with these exceptions on a weekly basis.

As for the remainder of the posts here, thanks for the input. I can't disagree with much of it, except that I do think there's value in the distinction between those who doubt less and those who doubt more. Whether this value has been acknowledged in the sciences yet or not, I've seen it in my own life. Maybe my own case study is biased beyond my own perception however and I can admit to that possibility.

how many gods are there?

Skepticism is more like a scalpel than a hammer. Actually, it's a forensic multi-tool for ideas and knowledge. And it can analyze itself. That is as fine an analogy as I'll dare.

A lot depends on what specific concept a person is doubting and what their role is as an observer; and what biases they may have- perhaps from their position as an insider, outsider, or bridge-between.

Why wouldn't skepticism of a religious concept have a distinct value and quality compared with a skeptical approach to scientific accuracy in knowledge?

Unless we invent a way to test religious postulation for hubris using a petri-dish...

Try to remember what you did on this day a year ago. Now, try to remember what you did a week ago, then a day ago, then within the last hour. Notice the differences in clarity.

Just about everyone can't remember anything about a random day from a year ago. Similarly, that is the same level of clarity we naturally have about anything involving the metaphysical and God.

We likely have vague recollections about a week ago. However, let's say when we get to this point, there is a gunman telling us our salvation depends on recalling everything we did on that day a week ago. All of a sudden, we will turn those fuzzy memories into certain ones during the interpretation.

Now, let's also pretend that a person who gets to this second stage is unaware of the gunman and the resulting over-interpretation. As far as they know, they went from complete ignorance to full clarity miraculously. Nevertheless, they are still acting as if their life is on the line as far as them being sure even though they aren't conscious of it.

Is the person in this second stage having their life threatened going to be as skeptical as someone in the first stage? What about if the first stage person continuously engages the second stager with carefully crafted arguments? Of course not.

The only way to free someone in that situation is if they become aware that they are being manipulated and that can only be done if they decide to look for themselves.

When it comes to religion, there are many who adopt their religious beliefs via family tradition and are first stagers, so it's not very difficult for them to drop it. But I'm telling you guys, there are some who are 2nd and 3rd stagers and there is no argument that can be made to persuade them.

I realize that you would have to take my word for it that this metaphor is applicable.

People are sheep who respond to social pressure out of self interest, and internalize group beliefs as a result.

You could turn the majority of the most ardent religious people completely to another faith (or none at all) by changing their social environment.

Without a change in the social environment (the thing that created and maintains the religious belief), yeah, arguments are pointless for most people.

Even if all religion and religious ideas were to instantly disappear and everyone believed in materialism and atheism, within a couple of generations religion would sprout up again and things would not be so different than they are now assuming enough exposure. The details would just be different.

Until atheists are able to consider that, they won't be productive in any conversation about religion.

Materialism and atheism are neither anti-thesis to religion (though they might certainly contradict your religious beliefs). You are talking about irreligion, something fairly different.