Skepticism is the Western philosophical tradition that maintains that human beings can never arrive at any kind of certain knowledge. Originating in Greece in the middle of the fourth century BC, skepticism and its derivatives are based on the following principles:

* There is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge.
* All human knowledge is only probably true, that is, true most of the time, or not true.

Several non-Western cultures have skeptical traditions, particularly Buddhist philosophy, but properly speaking, skepticism refers only to a Greek philosophical tradition and its Greek, Roman, and European derivatives.


The school of Skeptic philosophers were called the "Skeptikoi" in Greece. The word is derived from the Greek verb, "skeptomai," which means "to look carefully, to reflect." The hallmark of the skeptikoi was caution; they refused to be caught in assertions that could be proven false. In fact, the entire system of skeptic philosophy was to present all knowledge as opinion only, that is, to assert nothing as true.


Ancient Greece Socrates
In this, they were firmly planted in a tradition started a century earlier by Socrates. Socrates claimed that he knew one and only one thing: that he knew nothing. So he would never go about making any assertions or opinions whatsoever. Instead, he set about questioning people who claimed to have knowledge, ostensibly for the purpose of learning from them, using a judicial cross-examination, called elenchus . If someone made an assertion, such as, "Virtue means acting in accordance with public morality, " he would keep questioning the speaker until he had forced him into a contradiction. As in a court of law, this contradiction proved that the speaker was lying in some way, in this case, that the speaker did not really know what they claimed to know. If an assertion can be worked into a contradiction, that means that the original assertion was wrong. While Socrates never claimed that knowledge is impossible, still, at his death, he never claimed to have discovered any piece of knowledge whatsoever.


After its introduction into Greek culture at the end of the fourth century BC, skepticism influenced nearly all other Greek philosophies. Both Hellenistic and Roman philosophies took it as a given that certain knowledge was impossible; the focus of Greek and Roman philosophy, then, turned to probable knowledge, that is, knowledge that is true most of the time.

Christianity, however, introduced a dilemma into Greek and Roman philosophies that were primarily based on skeptical principles. In many ways, the philosophy of Christianity, which insisted on an absolute knowledge of the divine and of ethics, did not fit the Greek and Roman skeptical emphasis on probable knowledge. Paul of Tarsus, one of the original founders of Christianity, answered this question simply: the knowledge of the Romans and Greeks, that is, human knowledge, is the knowledge of fools. Knowledge that rejects human reasoning, which, after all, leads to skepticism, is the knowledge of the wise. Christianity at its inception, then, had a strong anti-rational perspective. This did not, however, make the skeptical problem go away. Much of the history of early Christian philosophy is an attempt to paste Greek and Roman philosophical methods and questions onto the new religion; the first thing that had to go was the insistence on skepticism and probable knowledge. So early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Boethius took on the epistemological traditions of Greece and Rome to demonstrate that one could arrive at certain knowledge in matters of Christian religion. Augustine devoted an entire book, "Against the Academics," to proving that human beings can indeed arrive at certain knowledge.

Skepticism, however, was radically reintroduced into Western culture in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The break-up of the Christian church and the bloodshed that followed it led people to seriously question religious and philosophical traditions that had long been unquestioned. Thinkers such as Montaigne in France and Francis Bacon in England took as their starting point the idea that they knew nothing for certain, particularly religious truth. Montaigne would invent an entirely new literary format which he called the essai , or "attempt, trial"; this is the origin of the modern-day essay. The "essay" took as its starting point the idea that the writer doesn't really know what he's talking about. Montaigne would propose an issue, walk around the issue for awhile and consider various alternatives, and then end pretty much where he started: uncertain what conclusion to draw. This is why he called his writings, "attempts" (essais in French), for they were attempts at drawing conclusions rather than finished products.


European Enlightenment René Descartes
Blaise Pascal
The most radical introduction of Greek skeptical traditions back into the Western tradition occurred in the works of Blaise Pascal and René Descartes. Both thinkers refused to accept any piece of knowledge whatsoever as true, and both tried to rebuild a Christian faith based on this radical questioning of truth.

Descartes set about reinventing Western epistemology with a radical perspective: what if nothing were true? How, if you doubted everything, could you find something—anything—that was true. His conclusion, of course, was the famous cogito : Cogito ergo sum , or, "I think, therefore I am." From this base he built up a series of other true propositions, including the existence of God. In many ways, Descartes was trying to accomplish the same thing that Augustine, Boethius, and other early Christian thinkers were attempting: how do you address the possibility, firmly entrenched in the Western tradition, that there may be no such thing as certain knowledge? How do you reconcile that with religious faith? For that was Descartes' ultimate goal: to prove the existence of God and the validity of the Christian religion.

Although he saw himself as answering old and vexing questions in the Christian tradition, he actually created a radically new way of approaching the world: systematic doubt. The hallmark of Cartesianism is setting up a formal system of doubt, that is, of questioning all propositions and conclusions using a formal system. Once one has arrived at a certain piece of knowledge, that piece of knowledge then becomes the basis for clearing up other doubts. Descartes systematic doubt became the basis of the Enlightenment and modern scientific tradition. One begins with a proposition, or hypothesis, that is in doubt and then tests that proposition until one arrives, more or less, at a certain conclusion. That does not, however, end the story. When confronted by the conclusions of others, one's job is to doubt those conclusions and redo the tests. Once a hypothesis has been tested and retested, then one can conclude that one has arrived at a "scientific truth." That, of course, doesn't end it, for all scientific truths can be doubted sometime in the future. In other words, although scientists speak about certainty and truth all the time, the foundational epistemology is skeptical: doubt anything and everything.

While Socrates never claimed that knowledge is impossible, still, at his death, he never claimed to have discovered any piece of knowledge whatsoever. Do you think there could be a Socratic Christian?

100% truth.

-There is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge.
-All human knowledge is only probably true, that is, true most of the time, or not true.


My religion can not be true and cant be proven you are right. However we need to have faith to obtain a foundation otherwise everything is relevant. I Choose somthing thats not "man"

I think that entirely depends on your definition of “Christian”.

Some people claim that being a Christian means to follow the moral teachings of Christ. If this is the definition of a good Christian then there would be no need for the Christian to claim any absolute truths. All they would need to do is follow the moral values of Christ and this wouldn’t conflict with Socratic philosophy as they aren’t claiming to have any absolute truths.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that to be a Christian means to believe in every word of the bible as though it is the gospel truth. I don’t see how those Christians could possible adhere to a Socratic philosophy because their very mission is to accept that every word of the Bible is truth.

Were I to become a Christian again, I would definitely be a Christian of the first type. In fact, by that definition I suppose I’ve always been a Christian because I certainly have what could only be classified as “Christian morals”.

So I suppose it all depends on how you define a “Christian”.

That is beautiful how you divided it, James.

'Some people claim that being a Christian means to follow the moral teachings of Christ. If this is the definition of a good Christian then there would be no need for the Christian to claim any absolute truths. All they would need to do is follow the moral values of Christ and this wouldn’t conflict with Socratic philosophy as they aren’t claiming to have any absolute truths.'

The above statement is my spiritual outlook. It allows me to accept a higher power which doesn't have to be Jesus Christ. It just has to be something higher than me. It is flexible.

'On the other hand, there are those who believe that to be a Christian means to believe in every word of the bible as though it is the gospel truth. I don’t see how those Christians could possible adhere to a Socratic philosophy because their very mission is to accept that every word of the Bible is truth.'

The above statement is how I was taught growing up. From the chapter of James in the Bible, "Be not only a sayer of the Word but a doer also."

Jesus Christ and Socrates were both martyrs. Jesus Christ according to the Bible said, "If it be thy will let this cup pass away from me but not my will but thine be done." Socrates on the other hand willingly drunk the cup of hemlock. Both Jesus and Socrates were both resolute in their convictions. If you read the death of Socrates and the death of Jesus they are similar. Both died for what they believed in. Both believed they were led by a divine calling. According to what was written about both they were both gadflies because they were both irritating to those around them. Altruism, you got to love it but can you live it?

I have come to the conclusion that to be a real survivor I have to look outside of masochistic behavior and martyrdom. I have found both in Christianism and the Socraticism. I have found them both to be extreme views. I wouldn't make it in either because I would fall short in both.

However, there's still a problem (IMO) with the first type. The "moral teachings of Christ" aren't always in agreement. There are four different views of fasting attributed to Jesus. There are two different views of marriage attributed to Jesus. Also, I can't see how the Beatitudes listed in the Sermon on the Mount could be viewed as a livable, workable code of behavior for a person in the 21st century, but I'm open to suggestions.

Good luck.

everyone falls short. that's what forgiveness and grace are for.