Final answer:
Fideism emphasizes that the root of unbelief is rebellion and disobedience rather than mere intellectual doubt. It values faith over rational evidence and views challenges to belief as primarily matters of will rather than intellect. This philosophy intersects with skepticism by highlighting the limits of certainty and the role of faith.
Step-by-step explanation:
Fideism sees other methods of apologetics as preoccupied with a byproduct of unbelief, namely intellectual doubt, but it asserts that these methods ignore the root of unbelief: rebellion and disobedience. According to fideistic perspective, the underlying reason it is difficult to believe is not merely due to intellectual skepticism or lack of knowledge, but rather because it is challenging to follow or obey religious tenets. In fideism, faith is considered a voluntary act that might run contrary to rational evidence or arguments. This is reflected in the belief that it is difficult to obey, and therefore, difficult to believe.
Skepticism, as a philosophical stance, acknowledges the limitations of certainty in our knowledge. Skeptics like Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus, and later Hume and Montaigne, pointed out that since perfect certainty is elusive, it may be more reasonable to withhold judgment. Moral skepticism further complicates matters by questioning the objective foundation of moral values, making normative claims hard to substantiate. Ironically, Pascal, a Christian philosopher, argues that attempting to prove God's existence is futile, and that faith should be embraced despite a lack of rational evidence.
Stephen Kotkin's examination of the 'Bolshevik crusade' touches upon the complexities of belief and unbelief, suggesting that both can coexist. This relates to fideism in that if mere display of belief or adherence to a cause can be driven by multiple factors, including obedience and rebellion, it validates the point that the root of belief might stem from other than just intellectual acceptance or rejection.
In philosophy, the Process of Inquiry allows for a transition from doubt to belief. However, fideistic approaches often see such a process as secondary to the primary role of faith. The contrasting position is that skepticism, when used positively, can lead to careful examination and closer approximation to truth without rejecting the possibility of knowledge entirely.
Overall, fideism elevates faith above reason as a response to skepticism, positioning obedience and rebellion as central to the challenges of belief.