The sorrows of scepticism | Thornton, R. 1876.
JTVI 10(39):234-250. CELD ID 15172Abstract In three papers, which I have had the honour of reading at different times before this Institute, I have endeavoured to discuss, or raise a discussion on, the Scepticism of the present day in various aspects. In touching on the Logic of Scepticism; I have called attention to the illogical character of the reasoning process by which most, if not all, sceptical conclusions are deduced from their premises. Those who employ these arguments have generally proceeded as if it were their object to produce action rather than to attain to truth. Far be it from me to say that hose great men of science who have unhappily identified themselves with the cause. of Scepticism have knowingly ignored truth, or even permitted themselves for a moment wittingly to deflect from the course that they have adopted to lead to its attainment. But the sceptic, in general, I maintain, has, intentionally or unintentionally, so shaped his arguments as to appear to aim rather at inducing men to quit their profession of Christianity than at demonstrating the truth of his own principles; he has been content with the rhetorical enthymeme or example, where the subject-matter demanded the syllogism or the induction. In short, I have urged that the processes of sceptical thinking appear to violate the formal laws of thought. In treating of the Credulity of Scepticism I have endeavoured to point out that in the assumption of premises the sceptic has generally made a far greater demand upon faith than rational believers in Christianity have done. He has demanded absolute assent to propositions of very low probability, and has deduced conclusions which are, either directly or by implication, more startling than those which they were intended to contravene: while blaming those who accept statements on authority, he has himself been a blind worshipper of authority, taking on trust as much at least as Christians do; but with this difference, that the authority to which he defers is, by his own admission, merely human; theirs, on the other hand, they maintain to be Divine. In a word, I demurred to the material part of sceptical logic.
|