Doubt has always been linked to the search for knowledge and has arisen with immediate empirical perceptions of things around us. They are not what they seem. For the ancients, doubt was placed within the broader horizon of “confidence,” but for us moderns, “doubt” is the ground from which we begin our search for knowledge due to our need for “certainty.” » about things and what they are. Modern philosophy and science find their foundations in the thought of René Descartes: “I think, therefore I am”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayDescartes' philosophy grounds what we call the subject or object distinction by beginning with a doubt or distrust in his observations about how things appear, in what we would call “simple facts.” Descartes believed that all physical things can be doubted as to their "what" and "how", but what could not be doubted was that human thought was motivated by desire for "certainty", and this desire is satisfied by the principle of reason realizing itself in the calculating mathematical relations of the human subject concerning the things which are found in the ways of knowledge. Thanks to Descartes, the orientation or paradigm changed by placing human beings at the center of the things that are and determining in their thinking what things are. Rather than nature establishing the standard for "what" something is, its perfection or completeness, human beings come to determine what something is in their calculations of the relationships between themselves and the objects they see in areas of knowledge, such as natural sciences and religious knowledge system. The question we need to consider is: "To what extent does the lack of knowledge in the natural sciences of the religious knowledge system confuse the belief in the given field of knowledge?" The role that doubt plays here is knowing whether the choices are good or not and whether or not we should trust the authorities who can provide us with guidance on making those choices: whether those authorities are parents, teachers , doctors or scientists. In many cases, it is important to rely on “experts” to make choices because they have the “experience” and “know-how” that we may not have. In many cases, the choices made result from trust in “authorities” who are not “good,” whether doctors or politicians. The natural sciences involve falsification in the process of knowledge construction. One could say that this is a matter of doubt. However, conversely, many people, especially scientists, talk about increasing knowledge as a process of "proving" things or finding "scientific evidence" that is believed to increase confidence and not diminish it. This introduces doubt as we see how something we previously thought was factually correct was actually wrong, and in turn, what we currently believe to be correct will also be changed in the future. For example, in the field of psychology, data augmentation is supposed to increase the accuracy of the model, but it could at the same time demonstrate that the fundamental principles of the model are inaccurate. At the same time, when models are wrong, the new “erroneous” result can significantly increase the accuracy of the model. Another example would be that ofWebsites that say "Studies show..." or "Scientists have proven..." are not officially supported by other information; however, people are still willing to accept the idea. This is because with the latest technology we have, people forget that there is a process that goes along with seeking knowledge. Even with the amount of information we have, it is through our own reasoning and intuition that we can determine whether the information is right or not. With the new knowledge we have gained, this would still create a sense of doubt among individuals due to the fact that not everyone has prior knowledge to support the next. Returning to the idea of ​​knowing little is preferable for an individual to do so as long as contradictions between the different acquired knowledge are avoided. However, what is the limit of knowledge to know whether knowledge is little or more than necessary? Ultimately, we can only believe that it is our judgment whether or not to believe the given knowledge and how we use it in the natural sciences. Religious knowledge systems, however, constitute an area of ​​knowledge that contrasts with the natural sciences, in which they further challenge knowledge of which we were once certain. With the religious knowledge system, knowledge does not come from a certain source, but rather from other personal knowledge that then became shared knowledge over time. It could be argued that people who have little knowledge of belief systems opposed to their own have a high level of confidence in their own religious beliefs, and that as knowledge of alternative belief systems increases, doubt in their own religious beliefs increases. However, we must take into consideration how some people might use their religious belief as a lens to build knowledge of other belief systems in order to reveal the weaknesses of those belief systems, and thus strengthen their confidence in their own religious belief systems. . An example of this could be the intersection between Christianity and politics in the United States, associated with conservative belief systems. One case we could consider is the controversy over the topic of abortion in the United States. Looking at this case from a religious perspective, it is considered wrong to kill a baby before it even has a chance to live. As a result, God will punish a woman for this, regardless of her reason. However, regardless of the religious aspect, women should have the right to resort to abortion for personal reasons. These reasons may include that the baby was forced on the mother or that the mother was not prepared or had the experience of having one. Between these two circumstances, which one do we consider following despite knowing both? There is doubt between the two ways. Furthermore, the knowledge one gains through the natural sciences directly contradicts the religious system, in that, along with the natural sciences, they provide "evidence" for every subject. As with the religious knowledge system, an individual's beliefs are neither directly proven nor supported, but rather it is the accumulation of the beliefs of many others that make them plausible in the first place. As a result, with additional “personal knowledge” that has been included in this specific knowledge, it only increases the doubt about the knowledge even more. Unlike the natural sciences, in.