Abraham Anderson on the folly of universal doubt

[Reformed Covenanter]

64. Is universal doubt necessary in order to knowledge and sound conviction of natural theology, as some have taught? Ans. No; it is useless, impossible, sinful, and dangerous.

65. Wherein useless? Ans. Doubt gives no light, removes no bias of mind or affections, and does not dispose the mind to a thorough investigation.

66. Why or wherein impossible? Ans. We cannot at plea sure remove all convictions.

67. How is it sinful? Ans. It rejects the love, fear, reverence, obedience, and worship, due to God, for the time, and trifles with light and evidences already received.

68. How is it dangerous? Ans. It trifles with light and conviction, refuses duty for the time, and God may judicially harden and blind us; Isa. vi. 9, 10; xliv. 18, 19.

For the reference, see:

Abraham Anderson on the folly of universal doubt

64. Is universal doubt necessary in order to knowledge and sound conviction of natural theology, as some have taught? Ans. No; it is useless, impossible, sinful, and dangerous. 65. Wherein useless?…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[RamistThomist]

As Esther Lightcap Meek said, "If philosophy was birthed in Plato, the cradle was skepticism."

To be fair, skepticism and doubt aren't quite the same thing, but you get the point.

 

[jwright82]

64. Is universal doubt necessary in order to knowledge and sound conviction of natural theology, as some have taught? Ans. No; it is useless, impossible, sinful, and dangerous.

65. Wherein useless? Ans. Doubt gives no light, removes no bias of mind or affections, and does not dispose the mind to a thorough investigation.

66. Why or wherein impossible? Ans. We cannot at plea sure remove all convictions.

67. How is it sinful? Ans. It rejects the love, fear, reverence, obedience, and worship, due to God, for the time, and trifles with light and evidences already received.

68. How is it dangerous? Ans. It trifles with light and conviction, refuses duty for the time, and God may judicially harden and blind us; Isa. vi. 9, 10; xliv. 18, 19.

For the reference, see:

Abraham Anderson on the folly of universal doubt

64. Is universal doubt necessary in order to knowledge and sound conviction of natural theology, as some have taught? Ans. No; it is useless, impossible, sinful, and dangerous. 65. Wherein useless?…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Universal doubt seems like an impossibility, how can you doubt everything in theory. Universal doubt in practice, the kind internet Atheist's love to throw around, still comes with an awful lot of presuppositional baggage. They love to posture themselves as being the arbiters of reason.

I love a certian YouTube channel, the name escapes me, that is quite good on most historical stuff. But anything religious or outside the ordinary is discarded with a possible explanation, lacking any evidence of said explanation, as if that settles it. I would love to sit and talk with this guy to show him how flimsy his POV really is. My point is not that they're wrong per se on some stuff only they haven't done their philosophical homework to prove their point.