Doubt

[mangueken]

I've been reading a great book by Jennifer Michael Hecht called "Doubt - a history". She works her way through the major philosophers and religions showing how doubt and doubters have thought through various times and places. Interesting how doubt doesn't necessarily mean lack of religion. Nor does any religion escape from it's share of doubters. Hope you enjoy.

pg. 109
"He said [Buddha] that to ask where the soul goes after death is like extinguishing a campfire and then asking whether the fire went east or west when it left. 'The question is not put rightly.' Was there a God? Were there gods? The buddha said these are questions 'which do not edify.'

pg. 136 from Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods"
"A god endowed with human limbs but with no use for them? A god transparent and insubstantial, giving no sign of grace or favor to anyone, inactive and indifferent! In the first place such a being could not even exist, and Epicurious knew this, so that he merely paid lip-service to gods whom he had in fact destroyed. And finally, if this is all that a god is, a being untouched by care or love of human kind, then I wave him good-bye."

pg. 178
[Referring to the change that Jesus and Christianity brought to the table]
"Suddenly the question of how much one believed became the central religious issue and one that was going to be tested in most dramatic ways: the world was either going to change or not, and the believer was either going to withstand torture and submit to martyrdom or not."

pg. 228
"[Abu Bakr al-Razi]...saw religious people as having been originally duped by authority figures and explained that they now continued to conceal the truth 'as a result of their being long accustomed to their religious denomination, as days passed and it became a habit. Because they were deluded by the beards of the goats, who sit in ranks in their councils, straining their throats in recounting lies, senseless myths and "so-and-so told us in the name of so-and-so..."'

pg. 426
"The woman [Emily Dickinson]doubted; that was her whole business.
Those - dying then,
Knew where they went -
They went to God's Right Hand -
That hand is amputated now -
And God cannot be found -

The abdication of Belief
Makes the Behaviour small -
Better an ignis fatuus
Than no illume at all-

[NikolaiI]

Skepticism, atheism, and agnosticism all do a service, which is to keep us from dogma. But oftentimes skepticism and atheism can turn into dogmas themselves. Atheists should keep in mind not all religionists are fundamentalists. And not all atheists are not fundamentalists, but neither are they all.

I was reading a wonderful book myself called, I believe, the Life Divine, by Sri Aurobindo. In it he says that attempts to understand spiritual realms can go very awry if they're not based on complete intellectal clarity.

I think it's good to study all religious traditions. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are the three which attract me the most. There are verses in the Bible which have profundity, such as "Be still, and know that I am God." But I thinik it can be limiting, not in a good way, to be fundamentalist about any religion. For instance God is also the Tao, and Brahman.

Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh and Trappist monk Thomas Merton collaborated to establish communion or even unity between their two respective religions. Thich Nhat Hanh's approach was to understand Thomas' view of God, and relate to it from his Buddhist perspective, rather than try to defeat Thomas' theology by way of establishing supremacy.


I am studying a book by Thich Nhat Hanh right now, in my present studies, and I will attempt to read Thomas Merton's works later. Anyway I prefer Thich Nhat Hanh's (as a Buddhist) approach to Christianity, via Thomas Merton, one of collaboration rather than one of conflict, which would come from a fundamentalist, "My way is right and yours is not, even though I haven't, of course, examined your way with reflection and/or devotion". The sacred parts of any religion can't be explained to someone who isn't interested in learning them. This goes without saying. And so the skeptic has a natural enemy against him. His prejudice. I prefer inquiry to doubt, as well as collaboration to dogma.

Doubt is worthwhile, though. Naturally, I doubt the doubters. :D

[mangueken]

Skepticism, atheism, and agnosticism all do a service, which is to keep us from dogma. But oftentimes skepticism and atheism can turn into dogmas themselves. Atheists should keep in mind not all religionists are fundamentalists. And not all atheists are not fundamentalists, but neither are they all.

The great thing about atheism is that it requires no belief. Whenever a believer is faced with an atheist: that person should remember that the atheist not only doesn't believe in any of the other gods that the believer doesn't accept as true but he also doesn't believe in the god or miracles of that particular believer speaking to him. Nothing more, nothing less.


Doubt is worthwhile, though. Naturally, I doubt the doubters. :D

Somewhere between Socrates and the Scholastics, doubting the doubter has already been done. Even though you say you prefer the eastern religions, you still follow the Christian tradtion of putting doubt on the side of belief. One of the quotes above summarizes the point quite well.
But does that answer the questions put to the natural world? If it does for you, our discussion will be difficult. If it doesn't it means we have to delve deeper into the conversation. In my opinion, there is no sure, easy answer; not in the sense of 2+ 2 = 4. However, the skeptics and doubters seem to provide the most logical solution, live for now the best you can rather than bet for a better unprovable "heaven" in the future.
But even if you want o hedge your bets, how do you rationalize, Hinduism over Buddism? Or Judaism over Christianity or either of those over Islamic beliefs? Or any of those against each other? And here I'm only speaking of the major religions that exist today: I leave out the minor relgions that exist around the world as well as those religions that don't exist anymore. I also leave out which sect among each of any religion yours or anyone's beliefs
should be invested.
The fact that the world is closer together today than any other previous time in history is one of the great contributing factors to doubt. I'm hardly presenting a new argument. With this interaction of culturally based religions we doubters ask who is right.
A) one of the religions is right; the others are false
B) none of them are right and religion is a human creation based on primitive feelings which we still carry.
C) God exists but what could we possibly know of this great entity: thus our religions and our religious leader are based on falsehoods.
D) None of the ancient religious texts reflect what God (or we) consider morally correct today which means God also changes.
E) If God changes than he is not perfect.
F) Or all those ancient texts do reflect a divine truth and our morals today are wrong.

Where does that leave us in terms of slavery? In relation to equality for women? The treating of our children as "humans in potential"? Or any scientific endeavor?

These are the questions of doubt that any religion has yet to answer.

[mono]

I say, even as a skeptic, that doubt has categories of intellectualism, logic, absurdity (referring to the philosophy bordering nihilism, not stupidity), and strawman-like looseness. We have all encountered the confused teenager, fueled by angst and desperate deviance, caked in face make-up, who preaches fragile logic, doffing all religion, but has never heard of Kant. Equally, we have seen the types who never step outside the comfort zone of his/her religion, question nothing outside the preferred religious texts, and turns the other cheek to anything that raises doubt.
As a born and raised Catholic, I began questioning things seriously at about age 9; part of it seemed angst-driven, as I have never attended a Mass since, yet I continued reading The Bible, alongside The Koran, Buddhist teachings, the Tao-Te Ching, The Analects, The Necronomicon, and the Bhagavad Gita. Once I discovered Kant, Emerson, Hume, Cicero, Montaigne, and Berkeley, branching into my own thought, even composing some of my own essays, from about age 18, I have declared myself a skeptic; whether in speech or on these forums, I never discuss my own beliefs, but, instead, speak of what I have learned, what others have taught me, and what I have read. Even the most peaceful of conversations with the most open-minded individuals turns into absurdity, struggles, and an attempt to sway; there appears no purpose of discussing beliefs.
One of the most powerful things I have read came from the Sufi poet Rumi. I cannot recall the name of the poem, and I am not currently at home, otherwise I would find the poem (maybe later), but it told of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant; the elephant represented objective reality. One blind man would touch and remain near the tusk, another the ear, another near the abdomen . . . you get the idea. Humanity has restrictions and biases upon the senses; reason can only take steps so far; faith seems limitless, but can appear as 'castles in the sky.' Notably, William James demonstrated these ideas well in The Varieties of Religious Experiences.
Doubt seems what 'keeps the ball rolling,' so to speak. All of philosophy and religion, to me, seems like multiple conversations over millenia. The more beliefs and theories we establish, the more people will question and attempt to prove or disprove them.

[mangueken]

I say, even as a skeptic, that doubt has categories of intellectualism, logic, absurdity (referring to the philosophy bordering nihilism, not stupidity), and strawman-like looseness. We have all encountered the confused teenager, fueled by angst and desperate deviance, caked in face make-up, who preaches fragile logic, doffing all religion, but has never heard of Kant. Equally, we have seen the types who never step outside the comfort zone of his/her religion, question nothing outside the preferred religious texts, and turns the other cheek to anything that raises doubt.
As a born and raised Catholic, I began questioning things seriously at about age 9; part of it seemed angst-driven, as I have never attended a Mass since, yet I continued reading The Bible, alongside The Koran, Buddhist teachings, the Tao-Te Ching, The Analects, The Necronomicon, and the Bhagavad Gita. Once I discovered Kant, Emerson, Hume, Cicero, Montaigne, and Berkeley, branching into my own thought, even composing some of my own essays, from about age 18, I have declared myself a skeptic; whether in speech or on these forums, I never discuss my own beliefs, but, instead, speak of what I have learned, what others have taught me, and what I have read. Even the most peaceful of conversations with the most open-minded individuals turns into absurdity, struggles, and an attempt to sway; there appears no purpose of discussing beliefs.
One of the most powerful things I have read came from the Sufi poet Rumi. I cannot recall the name of the poem, and I am not currently at home, otherwise I would find the poem (maybe later), but it told of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant; the elephant represented objective reality. One blind man would touch and remain near the tusk, another the ear, another near the abdomen . . . you get the idea. Humanity has restrictions and biases upon the senses; reason can only take steps so far; faith seems limitless, but can appear as 'castles in the sky.' Notably, William James demonstrated these ideas well in The Varieties of Religious Experiences.
Doubt seems what 'keeps the ball rolling,' so to speak. All of philosophy and religion, to me, seems like multiple conversations over millenia. The more beliefs and theories we establish, the more people will question and attempt to prove or disprove them.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I have read the story you mention but if you could find it and post it in its entirety for others who may not have. I totally agree with you on the point of a conversation over time: a wonderful conversation indeed.

[NikolaiI]

I say, even as a skeptic, that doubt has categories of intellectualism, logic, absurdity (referring to the philosophy bordering nihilism, not stupidity), and strawman-like looseness. We have all encountered the confused teenager, fueled by angst and desperate deviance, caked in face make-up, who preaches fragile logic, doffing all religion, but has never heard of Kant. Equally, we have seen the types who never step outside the comfort zone of his/her religion, question nothing outside the preferred religious texts, and turns the other cheek to anything that raises doubt.
As a born and raised Catholic, I began questioning things seriously at about age 9; part of it seemed angst-driven, as I have never attended a Mass since, yet I continued reading The Bible, alongside The Koran, Buddhist teachings, the Tao-Te Ching, The Analects, The Necronomicon, and the Bhagavad Gita. Once I discovered Kant, Emerson, Hume, Cicero, Montaigne, and Berkeley, branching into my own thought, even composing some of my own essays, from about age 18, I have declared myself a skeptic; whether in speech or on these forums, I never discuss my own beliefs, but, instead, speak of what I have learned, what others have taught me, and what I have read. Even the most peaceful of conversations with the most open-minded individuals turns into absurdity, struggles, and an attempt to sway; there appears no purpose of discussing beliefs.
One of the most powerful things I have read came from the Sufi poet Rumi. I cannot recall the name of the poem, and I am not currently at home, otherwise I would find the poem (maybe later), but it told of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant; the elephant represented objective reality. One blind man would touch and remain near the tusk, another the ear, another near the abdomen . . . you get the idea. Humanity has restrictions and biases upon the senses; reason can only take steps so far; faith seems limitless, but can appear as 'castles in the sky.' Notably, William James demonstrated these ideas well in The Varieties of Religious Experiences.
Doubt seems what 'keeps the ball rolling,' so to speak. All of philosophy and religion, to me, seems like multiple conversations over millenia. The more beliefs and theories we establish, the more people will question and attempt to prove or disprove them.

This was, I thought reading it, obviously come from a great and peaceful consciousness. I share your view that we have to look to all corners of the world to get a complete view of things. Also there are these voices identified as the first voices, the earliest voices of humanity, which strongly emphasized our link to nature. We can only ignore the first voices at our own peril. I wonder why we don't search for them?

[NikolaiI]

The great thing about atheism is that it requires no belief. Whenever a believer is faced with an atheist: that person should remember that the atheist not only doesn't believe in any of the other gods that the believer doesn't accept as true but he also doesn't believe in the god or miracles of that particular believer speaking to him. Nothing more, nothing less.



Somewhere between Socrates and the Scholastics, doubting the doubter has already been done. Even though you say you prefer the eastern religions, you still follow the Christian tradtion of putting doubt on the side of belief. One of the quotes above summarizes the point quite well.
But does that answer the questions put to the natural world? If it does for you, our discussion will be difficult. If it doesn't it means we have to delve deeper into the conversation. In my opinion, there is no sure, easy answer; not in the sense of 2+ 2 = 4. However, the skeptics and doubters seem to provide the most logical solution, live for now the best you can rather than bet for a better unprovable "heaven" in the future.
But even if you want o hedge your bets, how do you rationalize, Hinduism over Buddism? Or Judaism over Christianity or either of those over Islamic beliefs? Or any of those against each other? And here I'm only speaking of the major religions that exist today: I leave out the minor relgions that exist around the world as well as those religions that don't exist anymore. I also leave out which sect among each of any religion yours or anyone's beliefs
should be invested.
The fact that the world is closer together today than any other previous time in history is one of the great contributing factors to doubt. I'm hardly presenting a new argument. With this interaction of culturally based religions we doubters ask who is right.
A) one of the religions is right; the others are false
B) none of them are right and religion is a human creation based on primitive feelings which we still carry.
C) God exists but what could we possibly know of this great entity: thus our religions and our religious leader are based on falsehoods.
D) None of the ancient religious texts reflect what God (or we) consider morally correct today which means God also changes.
E) If God changes than he is not perfect.
F) Or all those ancient texts do reflect a divine truth and our morals today are wrong.

Where does that leave us in terms of slavery? In relation to equality for women? The treating of our children as "humans in potential"? Or any scientific endeavor?

These are the questions of doubt that any religion has yet to answer.

No, it doesn't substitute material knowledge. Material knowledge is good but it can be limiting, and it is harmful if it keeps us from aspiring toward spiritual knowledge. There is negation on the material side as well as the ascetic rejection. The best is a balance and a mix. What Mono said is good, there are wrong views on all sides... it's obviously wrong to assume anything about someone... Virigl was mentioning this in a blog "My whole heart is obviously not captured or understood by these short forum posts." We don't understand the whole person of those who we're discussing with, and yet we judge and try to make them feel bad? It's quite sad. There are enlightened thoughts in everyone. I know this might not be totally on topic but I mention it becuase it's part of my reluctance to even come here, with so much bad feeling. People can't accept maybe others don't need their help to see themselves? I mean bad feeling in condescension... basically calling people blind, etc.

The goal of religion as I see it is balance, peace, evolution of consciousness, freedom from the causes of suffering, causes of karma, birth and death, things like this. That's why a great deal of Buddhist mantras have to do with obstacle breaking, creating positive potential, etc.

But... I apologize for writing about things such as bad feelings on the forums.. I have obviously got the courage to post so here on out, I promise just to post about the topic.

As for material knowledge, there is some verse in the Vedas which says, "His feet are on Earth, who seeks for Heaven," The first part is semi-accurate but the second part I am not remembering 100%, it is something like seeking the higher states, etc., though.

[mono]

Thanks for the acceptance, mangueken and NikolaiI. Mangueken, I found that poem by Rumi, translated by Coleman Barks; I apologize, as I had it wrong - it does not involve blind men, but people and an elephant in the dark . . .

Elephant in the Dark

Some Hindus have an elephant to show.
No one here has ever seen an elephant.
They bring it at night to a dark room.

One by one, we go in the dark and come out
saying how we experience the animal.

One of us happens to touch the trunk.
"A water-pipe kind of creature."

Another, the ear. "A very strong, always moving
back and forth, fan-animal."

Another, the leg. "I find it still,
like a column on a temple."

Another touches the curved back.
"A leathery throne."

Another, the cleverest, feels the tusk.
"A rounded sword make of porcelain."
He's proud of his description.

Each of us touches one place
and understands the whole in that way.

The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are
how the senses explore the reality of the elephant.

If each of us held a candle there,
and if we went in together,
we could see it.

Also there are these voices identified as the first voices, the earliest voices of humanity, which strongly emphasized our link to nature. We can only ignore the first voices at our own peril. I wonder why we don't search for them?
I certainly attempt advocating for the 'first voices' as well, the primary thought, the origins. How can we know of ourselves without knowing our parents? Philosophy without the Greeks? Mathematics without the Persians and Egyptians? There seem an almost infinite number of possibilities for the sustenance and progress of human nature, but only one origin.

No, it doesn't substitute material knowledge. Material knowledge is good but it can be limiting, and it is harmful if it keeps us from aspiring toward spiritual knowledge. There is negation on the material side as well as the ascetic rejection. The best is a balance and a mix.
Well said. Materialism and empiricism, I believe, can only take us so far and the human senses have too many restrictions and inabilities to declare everything true or untrue. Empiricism has one of its roots leading to Natural Science by Democritus and On the Nature of Things by Lucretius, both of which theorize the existence of what we later called atoms. As a medical professional, at times I rely upon proof, measurements, and specifics; as a fan and specialist in neurology, however, a lot of mystery exists. I have posted these thoughts in other areas of the forum, but cognition, movement (except reflexes), and rare sensations (most originate from the periphery) originate from the brain - the most complex thing in the world (and it sits just behind the nose - stolen from The Science of Sleep :D). Most spoken language, for a simple example, comes from Broca's area, which sits in the central region of the left frontal lobe, also somewhat responsible for language comprehension. The thought of what to say begins in Broca's area, the impulse through neurotransmitters travels to the motor cortex of the posterior region of the frontal lobe, bordering the parietal lobe, and from there it travels to the diaphragm, laryngeal muscles, the mouth, and tongue. Undebatable, empirical truth exists that this occurs every time we speak by functional MRI's and PET scans. What no one knows? What begins that very first impulse in Broca's area to generate a thought and speak it? Thus doubt even exists within science as well as religion.

The goal of religion as I see it is balance, peace, evolution of consciousness, freedom from the causes of suffering, causes of karma, birth and death, things like this.
Agreed for the goal; unfortunately the result does not come out the same. Sadly, we see so often a contest, animosity, and war between different religions. Even within religions, one will see violence, such as the Thirty Years' War between Protestants and Catholics. Not to sound too cynical, but peace between religions seems as likely as all religions forming into worshiping what Emerson called the 'Over-Soul,' yet as in Rumi's poem, perhaps we all will one day carry candles together and see the elephant we call objective reality.

[blazeofglory]

These are really illuminating ideas, and of course it takes us away from the world wherein we take things fro granted and never reasoning and logic prevail. I subscribe to the idea unreservedly. Doubt is vital and it leads to science and not to blasphemy.
In point of fact we should inculcate in our babies the habit of observing and they must weigh up all they come across before assimilating and that leads to better education.

[mangueken]

No, it doesn't substitute material knowledge. Material knowledge is good but it can be limiting, and it is harmful if it keeps us from aspiring toward spiritual knowledge. There is negation on the material side as well as the ascetic rejection. The best is a balance and a mix. What Mono said is good, there are wrong views on all sides... it's obviously wrong to assume anything about someone... Virigl was mentioning this in a blog "My whole heart is obviously not captured or understood by these short forum posts." We don't understand the whole person of those who we're discussing with, and yet we judge and try to make them feel bad? It's quite sad. There are enlightened thoughts in everyone. I know this might not be totally on topic but I mention it becuase it's part of my reluctance to even come here, with so much bad feeling. People can't accept maybe others don't need their help to see themselves? I mean bad feeling in condescension... basically calling people blind, etc.

I'm glad you participated, even if we never agree. My intention is to flush out as much of a discussion as possible not to belittle the views of others. I think most of my posts on other threads will show this to be true. I say most not all, because I'm not perfect and I'm sure I responded to a few snarky remarks with some of my own snark. But They are certainly the minority of how I talk to people. If there was a simple, correct answer, we'd have nothing to talk about. : )
personally, I have never had a religious or spiritual moment, so it's hard for me to understand the search for one, especially since I don't feel like I'm missing it. However that doesn't prevent me from understanding that others do, or at least understanding that others feel like they do.
Why do some people feel that way and other people don't? Possibly, there is a natural explanation for this difference. I don't know.
Saying this though does not mean that I limit myself to factual or material knowledge. Music, art, literature and even Hubble photographs humble and inspire me: sometimes these things even act like the axe that Kafka talked about that breaks through the ice covering my heart. (a quote my memory just butchered)


The goal of religion as I see it is balance, peace, evolution of consciousness, freedom from the causes of suffering, causes of karma, birth and death, things like this. That's why a great deal of Buddhist mantras have to do with obstacle breaking, creating positive potential, etc.

I'm not sure that the word religion is best used this way. The three major monotheistic religions are not like what you describe, but Buddhism, the Tao, Confucianism and Zen are more like what you describe. However these latter, are more like graceful life philosophies rather than religions.


But... I apologize for writing about things such as bad feelings on the forums.. I have obviously got the courage to post so here on out, I promise just to post about the topic.

Your fine, its the ones who just want to score points that usually the problem. We're allowed a lot of wiggle room while discussing. Real conversations usually shift and evolve into something far away from what got the conversation going in the first place.


As for material knowledge, there is some verse in the Vedas which says, "His feet are on Earth, who seeks for Heaven," The first part is semi-accurate but the second part I am not remembering 100%, it is something like seeking the higher states, etc., though.

Oscar Wild has a quote from one of his plays that says something similar: "we're all standing in the gutter; but some of us are looking up at the stars"
I put it in quotes, but it's from my memory so please forgive me any discrepancies.

[andave_ya]

Hmm - I'm coming to this a bit late but I hope I can add something to the conversation.

In my opinion, doubting is good. It would be really rather stupid to believe, all of a sudden, in a God who is invisible yet omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. I've been raised in a family that has gone to church since I was born, so since I became old enough to really begin understanding the scope of Christianity I've been seeing how well it fits together and how relevant it is today - even the "outdated" morals and genealogies and rules, etc.
That, I believe, is the start.
Then for me came the learning about "faith" which is a vital part in believing an invisible God. For a long time I got irritated when people doubted the sanity of believing people until I realized that it's my FAITH - and according to the Bible faith is the evidence of things hoped for. So as it's a faith it makes sense that not everything makes sense :D.

[mangueken]

I have to admit I find no comfort in some of the ways that you look at life: doubt and skepticism are too strong in me to believe in anything. However, I lack none of the wonder and amazement at our capacity to think about and work through these questions nor do I lack in the ability to amazed at my natural surroundings. It is a wonderful and beautiful ability, no matter whether one thinks they come from mystical (spiritual) sources or completely material sources. If we knew for certain if a spiritual or a material point of view was correct, we would just move on to another area where mystery and doubt await explanation.

Such contradictory creatures we are. We want both the certainty and the mystery: we feel upset if someone challenges the aspect we chose. Yet, we await the challenge to prove our point of view and try to convince others on our journey.
It's almost laughable our ability to be so certain about things we know we can't prove. To feel or believe something does not make that thing real but in our minds it is real. We love logic, as long as it supports our personal premise. Evidence (like truth) must prove against what others think as well as support what we are for: unless, of course, it is used against us then we will find only the false and the absence of evidence.
Fear is our shield. A loyal shield, to boot. It protects us both against those things we do not yet understand as well as those thing we understand but cannot accept. But fear is also the sword that will harm us.
How do we protect ourselves from what is protecting us?

[mono]

Hmm - I'm coming to this a bit late but I hope I can add something to the conversation.

In my opinion, doubting is good. It would be really rather stupid to believe, all of a sudden, in a God who is invisible yet omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. I've been raised in a family that has gone to church since I was born, so since I became old enough to really begin understanding the scope of Christianity I've been seeing how well it fits together and how relevant it is today - even the "outdated" morals and genealogies and rules, etc.
That, I believe, is the start.
Then for me came the learning about "faith" which is a vital part in believing an invisible God. For a long time I got irritated when people doubted the sanity of believing people until I realized that it's my FAITH - and according to the Bible faith is the evidence of things hoped for. So as it's a faith it makes sense that not everything makes sense :D.
No, not too late at all. :)
Even not as a fellow believer, I questioned the sanity of few individuals; those I have questioned, it seems for a logical purpose, such as those who delusionally believed themselves as the reincarnate of Jesus Christ, while admitted in a psychiatric institute. Faith seems absolute, and nearly impossible to debate with, but we use it daily. Throughout my 26 years, as long as I can recall, the sun has risen every morning, occasionally at different times, depending on the season. Logic cannot tell me fully whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow morning; certainly it has risen every morning, but my judgment whether it will rise in the morning or not tells me by experience - meteorology and time zones ahead of me will also confirm it, but if the sun will rise in my time zone, I cannot know for sure according to logic. Instead, I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning, and, in fact, I depend upon it.

I have to admit I find no comfort in some of the ways that you look at life: doubt and skepticism are too strong in me to believe in anything. However, I lack none of the wonder and amazement at our capacity to think about and work through these questions nor do I lack in the ability to amazed at my natural surroundings. It is a wonderful and beautiful ability, no matter whether one thinks they come from mystical (spiritual) sources or completely material sources. If we knew for certain if a spiritual or a material point of view was correct, we would just move on to another area where mystery and doubt await explanation.

Such contradictory creatures we are. We want both the certainty and the mystery: we feel upset if someone challenges the aspect we chose. Yet, we await the challenge to prove our point of view and try to convince others on our journey.
It's almost laughable our ability to be so certain about things we know we can't prove. To feel or believe something does not make that thing real but in our minds it is real. We love logic, as long as it supports our personal premise. Evidence (like truth) must prove against what others think as well as support what we are for: unless, of course, it is used against us then we will find only the false and the absence of evidence.
Fear is our shield. A loyal shield, to boot. It protects us both against those things we do not yet understand as well as those thing we understand but cannot accept. But fear is also the sword that will harm us.
How do we protect ourselves from what is protecting us?
Oh, how George Berkeley would have hated skeptics like us, mangueken! He frequently reported his strong dislike towards skeptics in nearly all of his works, calling it an 'unsteady' state of mind, plagued in an ever-changing state of flux and indecisio, even as much as I love him.
Partially too involved in the response to andave ya's contribution, of course we love logic; we can reach ends by thoughts within the reach of human thought, linear reason, knowledge, study, etc. Skeptics like us rely heavily upon logic, but believers rely just as strongly upon faith. Why does the world exist? Skeptics would endlessly attempt to consult logic, what religious and philosophical texts have preached and told, what our own thought thinks, and, even then, we would reach multiple results. An individual representing his/her religion would immediately look to the religious text of choice, and perhaps see to a religious official, such as a minister. Neither way of seeking answer seems wrong, but, instead, subjectively right, yet the logic of a religious individual and that of a non-religious individual will always seek a different truth to a similar question.

[Eugenie]

Pope Benedict said faith and doubt go hand in hand, I am paraphrasing.