Were Nietzsche, Aristotle and Kant skeptics?

Why would not being a theologian make a philosopher a skeptic? They could be religious without being a theologian.. A philosopher who questions the existence of God could be considered skeptical in a narrow sense, but that would not classify them as a skeptic in the general sense.

Hume was a skeptic not because he questioned the existence of God, but because, although he was an empiricist, he questioned the validity of knowledge obtained by induction.

I would not consider the others as skeptics.

Nietzsche’s morality differs from traditional religious morality, but that does not make him a skeptic.

Aristotle was not a skeptic, in either the narrow or general sense. Aristotle thought of God as the Unmoved Mover, who was necessary to keep the world in motion. Early Christian theologians had no trouble adapting Aristotle’s philosophy to Christianity.

I did a search for Kant and skepticism and found this quote. Would that make Kant an anti-skeptic? Kant believed in God. He said that you cannot prove the existence of God by reason but through how we experience the world.

@LostInParadise But Nietzsche questioned everything including Christianity… Isn’t skepticism “any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief” ?

In order to come up with theories one must question the commonly accepted – which is what most philosophers do. Aristotle came up with virtue ethics and Kant with a moral objective

I believe you are asking if one qualifies as a skeptic simply by excluding God from consideration in matters of causation. My answer is no.

@dopeguru , We need some way of limiting the definition of skepticism. Otherwise anybody with a new philosophical idea would be a skeptic. Philosophy, unlike science, has no way of choosing between competing theories. Aristotle had a view of morality and Kant had a different view, and the Utilitarians had yet another view. Does that make them all skeptics?

What makes Hume stand out is his questioning of how we can know anything. Hume would say that if you toss a ball in the air a thousand times and it falls to the ground each time, there is no way of saying for certain that the same thing will happen the next time you throw the ball. The principle of inductive reasoning has no basis for belief. There is no way of knowing for certain any scientific law. Now that is being skeptical.