Doubt has always been linked to the search for knowledge and arises with the immediate empirical perceptions of the things that surround us. They are not what they seem. For the ancients, doubt was placed in the broader horizon of "trust", but for us moderns, "doubt" is the ground from which to begin the 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Descartes' philosophy founded what we call the subject or object distinction by beginning with a doubt or distrust in his observations of how things appeared, in what we would call "simple facts." Descartes believed that all physical things could be doubted as to their "what" and their "how", but what could not be doubted was that human thinking was driven by the desire for "certainty", and this desire is satisfied by the principle of reason which is realized in the calculating mathematical relations of the human subject regarding the things that are in the ways of knowing. Through Descartes, the focus or paradigm shifted by placing human beings at the center of the things that are and determining in their thinking what things are. Rather than Nature setting the standard of "what" something is, its perfection or completeness, humans 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 the system of religious knowledge. The question we need to consider is: “To what extent does the lack of knowledge in the natural sciences or religious knowledge system confound one's belief in a given area of ​​knowledge?” The role that doubt plays here is whether or not choices are good choices, and whether or not to trust authorities who can provide us with advice on how to make choices: be they parents, teachers, doctors, or scientists. In many cases, relying on “experts” is important in making choices because they have the “experience” and “know how” that we may not have. In many cases the choices made arise from trust in "authorities" that are not "good", be they medical or political. The natural sciences involve falsification in the process of building knowledge. One could argue that this is consonant with doubt. However, in contrast, many people, especially scientists, talk about increasing knowledge as a process of “proving” things or seeking “scientific evidence” that should increase trust and not decrease it. It introduces doubt when we see how something we previously thought was factually correct was actually wrong, and in turn what we currently consider correct will also have changed in the future. For example, in the field of psychology, an increase in data is supposed to increase the accuracy of the model, but may at the same time demonstrate that the fundamental principles of the model are inaccurate. At the same time, when models get something wrong, the new “wrong” result can significantly increase the accuracy of the model. Another example might include websites that say “studies show…” or “scientists have shown…” are not officially supported by other information; however, people are still willing to accept the idea. It is because with the newer technology we get, people forget that there is a process that comes from the pursuit of knowledge. Even with the amount of information we have, it's through our reasoning and intuitionthat we can determine whether the information is right or not right from the start. With the new knowledge we have gained, it would still create a sense of doubt among individuals due to the fact that not everyone has prior knowledge to support the upcoming one. Returning to the idea of ​​knowing little, it is better for an individual to do so as this avoids contradictions between the various knowledge acquired. But what do we consider the limit of knowledge to know whether knowledge is little or more than necessary? In the end we can only believe that it is up to us to judge whether or not to believe in the given knowledge and how we use it in the natural sciences. Religious knowledge systems, however, serve as an area of ​​knowledge in contrast to the natural sciences, where they provide more doubt to the knowledge we were once certain of. With the system of religious knowledge, knowledge is not given from a certain source but rather comes from one's own personal knowledge which then became shared knowledge in a gradual process. With One claim might be that people who have little knowledge of belief systems that conflict with their own have a high level of confidence in their religious beliefs, and that as knowledge of alternative belief systems grows, doubts about their beliefs grow religious. However, we must take into consideration that some people might use their own religious beliefs 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 belief systems. religious beliefs. . An example of this would be the intersection of Christianity and politics in the United States with associated conservative belief systems. One case we might consider is the controversy over abortion in the United States. Looking at this case from a religious aspect, it is considered wrong to kill a child before he is even given a chance to live. Consequently, God will punish a woman for doing, whatever her reason. However, regardless of the religious aspect, women should have the right to have an abortion for personal reasons. These reasons might include that the baby was forced by the mother or that the mother was not prepared or experienced in having one. Between these two circumstances, which one do we consider to follow despite having knowledge of both. There is doubt between the two in both cases. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from the natural sciences directly contradicts the religious system, as the natural sciences provide “evidence” for every single question. As with the religious knowledge system, an individual's beliefs are neither directly proven nor supported, rather it is the accumulation of the beliefs of many others that make them plausible in the first place. Consequently, by adding additional "personal knowledge" to that specific one, this only further increases the doubt about the knowledge. Unlike the natural sciences, in which we can say that doubt could be reduced by defining its own boundaries in this regard, the system of religious knowledge is more difficult as there are no starting limitations due to the fact that the knowledge given in the first place could be wrong or correct. Consequently, the only way to decrease doubt in the religious knowledge system is to define its own boundaries. However, in doing so, it also limits opportunities to further expand that knowledge. The popular idea of ​​“truth relativism” and perspectivism about how one interprets the “what” and “how” in those things arises, but this is actually a revisiting of the old historical event of questions and debates about what.