1. Without having read Elbow, let me note that "methodological doubt" may not be the same thing as simple doubt. To doubt as part of a method is indeed to make a decision to act in a certain way. If, for example, I question my existence, or G-d's existence, or if try to calculate the area of triangle based on argument rather than obvious measurement, I thus engage in a thought experiment. For that reason Hegel thought that Descartes, unlike the ancient skeptics, was not seriously doubting, since Descartes all was confident in the truths he doubted [for more on this see Forster, Hegel & Skepticism; see also Kierkegaard, Johannes Climacus: de Omnibus Debutandem Est"
It may be confusing to think of someone engaged in methodological doubt as a skeptic who might be tormented by doubt.
2. Having said that, I believe that one problem with our contemporary culture is that people take "methodological doubt" as a kind of substitute for other kinds of thinking. In the practical realm they don't really take these doubts seriously, but in religion it is common to make such doubt normative.
3. While I am speaking on the subject, let me mention my pamphlet "Forgive Us Father-in-Law" (published by ATID) and mori ve-rabbi zt'l's "Source of Faith" with my commentary (Tradition 47).
4. Lastly, as I get older and analytic philosophers continue to produce worthwhile discussions, it seems useful to me to explore terms that parallel belief but are subtly different: to "adopt" a belief, to "accept" a belief and the like. These are ways of taking a belief seriously even though they may fall short of "believing X."
SC
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2015 07:08PM by mlb.
