Yeah well, just don’t. They weren’t that smart back then.
So you laugh, but what can you possibly have against Scientology! You hate skepticism, so you should be able to swallow anything, lock, stock and barrel. Why not Scientology? Hiw can you see anything wrong with it? What’s the problem? I could see it if you didn’t hate skepticism, but given your complete dismissal of it, why do you reject the opposite pf skepticism? It would seem to be right up your alley. No skeptic I know would ever join Scientology. You would feel feel right at home there with lots of other people who also hate skepticism. Don’t you want to be with people who think the way you do? I don’t get it. If not Scientology, maybe Mormonism. There’s another religion for anti-skeptics. Come to think of it, all religions are anti-skeptic, but some more than others. If they weren’t they’d have no members. So I think your best bet is the most extreme religion there is that draws in other people like you who are extreme anti-skeptics. What’s the downside? Obviously you don’t want to take a chance on joining a religion only to find out there are hated skeptics in it! That would be horrible.
This is about philosophical skepticism and the negation of being able to know anything.
The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed in the word acatalepsia, implying that one cannot possibly know the true nature of things. For any given statement the opposite may be advanced with equal reason. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to suspend one’s judgment (epoche). As Timon expresses it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, these results are applied to life in general. Since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, or “freedom from worry.”
The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly one must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, one must ask how he is related to these things. Thirdly, one asks what ought to be her attitude towards them. Pyrrho’s answer was that things are indistinguishable, immeasurable, and undecidable and no more this than that, or both this and that, and neither this nor that. Therefore, he said, the senses neither tell truths nor do they lie. Therefore one knows nothing. One only knows how things appear to him, but of their inner substance people remain ignorant.
The impossibility of knowing, even in regard to one’s own ignorance or doubt, should lead the wise one to withdraw into himself. He should avoid the stress and the emotions that naturally accompany vain imagination. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its ethical results may be compared with the ideal tranquility proposed by the Stoics and the Epicureans.
An alternate interpretation is that Pyrrho was not strictly speaking a skeptic according to the skeptic’s own standards—even though he was considered to be a skeptic in antiquity—but that he rather was a negative dogmatist. Having a view of how things are in the world makes Pyrrho a dogmatist; denying the possibility of knowledge makes his dogma negative.