I am currently at that level

I have, but Descartes did not. He had a good idea, but he missed his own milestone... when he went looking for the most fundamental and indubitable principle on which to base his philosophy, he came up with a tautology: "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). This is a fallacy of presuming the conclusion, as one can determine rather quickly by asking "where did the 'I' in 'I think'" come from? What is it's basis? On what basis can one claim that there is an "I" doing the thinking? Certainly thoughts are observable... there are thoughts, no question about it. But where is this "I"? What's it made out of? What evidence is there that it exists? He sort of missed all those questions. When he got to "I think, therefore I am", he dusted off his hands and walked away from doubt, as if the job were suddenly done and the problem solved. The legacy of that rippled through popular philosophy and out into the world, with centuries of students of logic just watching this obvious fallacy float by and never questioning it. That's not such a tragedy... people believed in "I" before Descartes came along, and they continued after he left. It made no real difference that he came up with this conclusion. But it was a huge missed opportunity -- had he been able to press on with his mission until the "I" had also been deconstructed into its component parts, it's likely he would have invented Buddhism in a Western context, and started a revolution in Western thought that could have made a big difference.

Yes. Blind faith gets you nowhere in a real search for truth. +5

Absolutely. Question, question, question. How else can you ever have a point of view? I cannot believe how many sheep are on this planet blindly following the dictates of others. We are in an insane asylum.

I live by it. +5

I have doubted both God AND Science. I wonder how many atheists can say the same?

I did that back in my college day and when I think about Descartes, It always reminds me of a question that he once posited. Is certainty possible? I believe that certainty is a position that makes us deal with the mundane and practical matters in our existence. Real certainty is always open to philosophical debate.

Indeed I have, and will continue to do so. We should never fear the truth because we are part of it.

I doubt it.

That is not true. I don't doubt my love for my son. I seek truth in all things. That is my truth and needs no doubt to prove it/justify it/sanctify it or make it any truer than true! :)

Consider as you walk down a street, you have presumptions of safety based of what you know of your surroundings and on what you imagine of your surroundings. Around the unforeseen street corner, there is no pack of wild dogs waiting to tear at your flesh for a meal. There are no gangs of teens shooting out the latest chapter of their ongoing turf war. There's no comet falling from the sky to collide into you. There's no sack of money. That said, every day-to-day interaction we have in our respective environments is contingent on what we presume to know and we presume our knowledge of our surroundings is infallible, even if on a conscious level, we know that the world is fragmented and imperfect. After the planes crashed into our buildings, I've stopped accepting and have begun doubting.

Yes, doubt makes for good testing. And yes, I like the advice: trust but verify. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nonetheless in all things we need working hypotheses, expectations, interpretations and/or explanations that make so much sense to us that we accept them as true even as far as putting our lives at stake were we wrong. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e.g. leaping out of a plane with a parachute.

Yes. I wouldn't be myself, if I didn't. . Though sometimes it's difficult or even painful to question some things. Yet others seem to be so completely "sure" that it's tough for them to even cross Your mind it might not be so.

I have , and always do.

huh? yeah right!