Skepticism

How can one know what to believe? What is truth? What is reality? The fact is, we take a lot on faith. We accept a lot, simply because it's common, maybe even mundane within our experience, and it's safe within that familiarity. But, we also choose what to believe (I think more typically) by rejecting that which runs counter to our expectations or experiences. Ideologies, philosophies, foods, memes, brands, people, etc. etc. are all rejected, because they're alien entities within our framework of the familiar.

It takes effort to move beyond rejecting that which runs counter to expectation. Skepticism is required and unfortunately, I don't believe skepticism is an innate human trait. Rather, it must be cultivated in children. Practiced and honed by the individual.
To be clear, skepticism is not simple doubt, it's more than nay-saying or humbuggery. Skepticism transcends doubt, in pursuit of truth. It is the ability to think and to question, to acknowledge ignorance and limitations while continuing to seek. Doubt succumbs to weak evidences and faulty reasoning, but skepticism is not so easily placated.

Dropping the romanticism and the poetics, skepticism is the desire and ability to look critically and impartially at our being and our world. Doubt is the unsettling emotion that suggests something in our accepted reality is wrong. The two are not synonymous; doubt, at it's worst, leads to apologism, and at it's best to skepticism, which expands understanding and leads to personal growth.

There are two traits which set skepticism apart and distinguish it from simple doubt or humbuggery. These are the ability to recognize and eschew presuppositions within an argument or ideology and to evaluate the true merit of a question or premise.

For instance, this question “why are we here?” is asking “for what reason is the human race here?” It's a leading question that presupposes an intent behind the existence of our species. Indeed, when asked by theists, it presupposes God's existence, because intent is a product of consciousness.

Of course, the question “why are we here?” may mean something entirely different, if it's interpreted thus: “for what purpose are we here?” Purpose may not require and therefore may not be synonymous with reason or intent; if purpose is defined as function. A human is born and is more or less helpless in the beginning. In time, the human develops to self-sufficiency, then the human reproduces and cares for a new generation, until that generation can do the same.

Simply put, the purpose of life is to endure, survive and reproduce; this is true of all species. Looking at either interpretation of the question, there's another hidden presupposition; purpose can only be ascribed by an external force, sentience or creator. There's an implied helplessness to the human condition in that interpretation, which I find disheartening. I prefer to think purpose can be self-defined by a conscious entity. We are at once a product of the world and a product of our being.

Still, does question have merit? Maybe, but not much. A question with merit, enriches us through the answer. The question “why are we here?” offers a nice little philosophical exercise but I don't think it enriches life in any other way.

Asking similar questions of oneself are better. For instance “what would I like to do with my life?” enables self-ascribed purpose. “How did the human race come to be?” gives insight into the condition of being alive, being human, residing within the universe, on this planet, what may lay in store for our species, et cetera.

A lot of this comes down to subtlety in the phrasing. Semantics. Which is another hallmark of skepticism and rational discourse: the ability to define words and frame arguments to build true understanding. The meaning of language is relative, rounding errors in definition can be fatal to thought and progress. Clarity is prime.