Skepticism is the best way to approach religious claims.

[Caliban]

probably other kinds in addition to ...

Types of knowledge

Relative Knowledge
A Posteriori Knowledge
A Priori Knowledge
Dispersed Knowledge
Domain (Expert) Knowledge
Divine knowledge
Empirical Knowledge
Encoded Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
Metaknowledge
Imperative (or Procedural) Knowledge
Descriptive Knowledge
Situated Knowledge
Known Unknowns Knowledge
Unknown Unknown Knowledge

I don't think all of those constitute knowledge or can lead to justified true belief.

 

[eleos1954]

We refer to the Middle Ages as the dark ages because after the fall of the Roman Empire, technology, infrastructure, and republican representation were gone. Education failed and people grew incapable of even maintaining Roman roads. It had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, the Enlightenment and free inquiry allowed people to transcend the dark ages which were lead by hierarchical nobility and the Priesthood.

There were many things going on during the Middle Ages.... not having access to the bible was one of them .... but also were significant things going on due to religious beliefs ...

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/middle-ages

 

[Silmarien]

We refer to the Middle Ages as the dark ages because after the fall of the Roman Empire, technology, infrastructure, and republican representation were gone. Education failed and people grew incapable of even maintaining Roman roads. It had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, the Enlightenment and free inquiry allowed people to transcend the dark ages which were lead by hierarchical nobility and the Priesthood.

To be fair, we call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages because Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century had this myth that the time period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was devoid of intellectual value. This isn't at all true, since you had real intellectual reawakening with the reintroduction of Aristotle in the West in the 12th century, and even before that, monasteries were preserving knowledge from one generation to the next. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but this looks like a pretty decent article on the myth of the Dark Ages and the fact that modern historians don't accept it: Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia

 

[zippy2006]

I have always been under the impression that probably no person in history has actually taken Pascal's Wager, but rather believed for other reasons. I don't think we come to opinions that way. People believe because they are convinced--even if it is bad evidence. For example, I could not take Pascal's wager on a topic like, nuclear disarmament will lead to world peace--it would be uninformed and unnatural. Maybe that's a bad example--short notice-- but I can only believe in things I am convinced are true.

You see Wager-like reasoning on the topic of ecology and climate change all the time. The argument is that a catastrophic event can be avoided if steps A, B, and C are taken, and those steps would make the world a better place even if our foresight of the catastrophic event is mistaken. "What's the worst that could happen? The world would become a healthier place?"

 

[eleos1954]

I don't think all of those constitute knowledge or can lead to justified true belief.

knowl·edge

noun

1. 1.
   facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Many subjects ... many types of knowledge ... many ways of acquiring knowledge

facts can be true or false

All facts are theoretically disputable

therefore in most cases this definition of truth applies ...

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

No one human being has all the facts on a given subject.

 

[Caliban]

To be fair, we call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages because Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century had this myth that the time period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was devoid of intellectual value. This isn't at all true, since you had real intellectual reawakening with the reintroduction of Aristotle in the West in the 12th century, and even before that, monasteries were preserving knowledge from one generation to the next. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but this looks like a pretty decent article on the myth of the Dark Ages and the fact that modern historians don't accept it: Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia

True, but the fact remains that for the vast number of people, access to Aristotle and other thinkers was impossible. It helped people after the Enlightenment to have the label of The Dark Ages as a point of contrast. It's still a helpful meme.

 

[Silmarien]

True, but the fact remains that for the vast number of people, access to Aristotle and other thinkers was impossible. It helped people after the Enlightenment to have the label of The Dark Ages as a point of contrast. It's still a helpful meme.

No, it's propaganda and misinformation. That's the opposite of a helpful meme. The Enlightenment wasn't exactly a wonderful era of equality and free access to information--it was a bit of an ideological free for all, and some of what came out of it, like the hierarchical understanding of race that led to chattel slavery, has been significantly darker than a lot of what came before. Beyond that, if your understanding of "Dark Ages" means a time period where the vast majority of people had no access to education, then everything before the 19th century was the Dark Ages.

 

[Caliban]

No, it's propaganda and misinformation. That's the opposite of a helpful meme. The Enlightenment wasn't exactly a wonderful era of equality and free access to information--it was a bit of an ideological free for all, and some of what came out of it, like the hierarchical understanding of race that led to chattel slavery, has been significantly darker than a lot of what came before. Beyond that, if your understanding of "Dark Ages" means a time period where the vast majority of people had no access to education, then everything before the 19th century was the Dark Ages.

I just see history differently. I don't see religion as a force for good in the world and I see the Enlightenment as the casting off of superstition. Enlightenment thinking lead to progressive change in my opinion. I used to agree with you though.

 

[Caliban]

You see Wager-like reasoning on the topic of ecology and climate change all the time. The argument is that a catastrophic event can be avoided if steps A, B, and C are taken, and those steps would make the world a better place even if our foresight of the catastrophic event is mistaken. "What's the worst that could happen? The world would become a healthier place?"

People might wager on public policy concerning the environment, but it is different with closely help belief. Christians often say they have a relationship with Christ. I don't see how that kind of devotion works with the construct of hedging your bets.

 

[zippy2006]

People might wager on public policy concerning the environment, but it is different with closely help belief. Christians often say they have a relationship with Christ. I don't see how that kind of devotion works with the construct of hedging your bets.

Pascal addresses that.

 

[Caliban]

Pascal addresses that.

Skepticism addresses it too. I don't find Pascals Wager compelling. I am not willing to spend my entire life under an unproven proposition that requires me to set aside my moral compass and intellectual integrity. I understand others see it differently. I used to think Pascals Wager was a valid way of thinking about truth--I just don't anymore.

 

[zippy2006]

Skepticism addresses it too. I don't find Pascals Wager compelling. I am not willing to spend my entire life under an unproven proposition that requires me to set aside my moral compass and intellectual integrity. I understand others see it differently. I used to think Pascals Wager was a valid way of thinking about truth--I just don't anymore.

My point is that if you think Pascal's Wager doesn't address religious practice and relationship, then you simply haven't read it. You can't find something you haven't read uncompelling.

(Not the end of the world; it is perfectly common to see people critique the Wager without reading it.)

Skepticism addresses it too.

I'm not sure it's right to pit the Wager against skepticism. The Wager is itself a form of skepticism.

 

[Caliban]

My point is that if you think Pascal's Wager doesn't address religious practice and relationship, then you simply haven't read it. You can't find something you haven't read uncompelling.

I am not claiming Pascal did not address it--I am simply not convinced it is a good method of arriving at truth or anywhere close to it. Besides, aside from Michael Rots, who is advocating for it today--William Lane Craig? Even Rota's recent book was heavily criticized by many theists. I have his book, it is full of statistical probability and Bayesian analysis. I think it only convinces the already convinced.

 

[zippy2006]

I am not claiming Pascal did not address it--I am simply not convinced it is a good method of arriving at truth or anywhere close to it.

I don't think Pascal understood the Wager to be an epistemic method. It's a way to grapple with a skeptical conclusion. It says, "Hey, we can't know the truth of the matter, so this is the best way forward." Your objections aren't making much sense to me (incompatible with religious practice; inferior to skepticism; not a good epistemic method...).

Besides, aside from Michael Rots, who is advocating for it today--William Lane Craig? Even Rota's recent book was heavily criticized by many theists. I have his book, it is full of statistical probability and Bayesian analysis. I think it only convinces the already convinced.

Oh, I didn't know Rota had a book out. It looks like a bit of a grab bag, but good for him for writing it.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think Pascal understood the Wager to be an epistemic method. It's a way to grapple with a skeptical conclusion. It says, "Hey, we can't know the truth of the matter, so this is the best way forward." Your objections aren't making much sense to me (incompatible with religious practice; inferior to skepticism; not a good epistemic method...).



Oh, I didn't know Rota had a book out. It looks like a bit of a grab bag, but good for him for writing it.

It's fine we don't agree. I think the the value of Pascal's wager mostly falls along religious and non-religious lines. I am unaware of any non-religious person who thinks it is a good tool.

 

[Silmarien]

I just see history differently. I don't see religion as a force for good in the world and I see the Enlightenment as the casting off of superstition. Enlightenment thinking lead to progressive change in my opinion. I used to agree with you though.

I didn't even mention religion. I mentioned the scientific racism that was rife in Enlightenment thought and led to the transatlantic slave trade. If you used to agree with me that this was a bad thing and now think it was a great victory for progressive change in the world, I have to wonder if we're defining the word "progressive" in the same way.

 

[zippy2006]

It's fine we don't agree. I think the the value of Pascal's wager mostly falls along religious and non-religious lines. I am unaware of any non-religious person who thinks it is a good tool.

I already gave a non-religious example of the Wager in post #24 and you basically agreed that that does happen: that non-religious do use it in public policy debates.

 

[Caliban]

I didn't even mention religion.

No, you didn't; I did. I wasn't quoting you. I don't see any evidence that Enlightenment thinkers were responsible for the slave trade. Please send me a couple reliable sources for that claim.

 

[Caliban]

I already gave a non-religious example of the Wager in post #24 and you basically agreed that that does happen: that non-religious do use it in public policy debates.

I meant non-religious people valuing the use of the Wager when thinking of religious claims.

 

[Silmarien]

No, you didn't; I did. I wasn't quoting you. I don't see any evidence that Enlightenment thinkers were responsible for the slave trade. Please send me a couple reliable sources for that claim.

Directly responsible, no, since it started earlier than the Enlightenment, but it was the Enlightenment thinkers who justified it with pseudo-scientific nonsense about natural racial hierarchies. This has had an influence on all the colonial oppression that followed:

Historical Foundations of Race

How the Enlightenment Created Modern Race Thinking and Why We Should Confront It

You're peddling multiple myths here: first you paint the Middle Ages as a time of intellectual backwardness, a view not shared by modern historians, and now you've framed the Enlightenment as being a step towards social progress, when it was absolutely terrible in terms of racial and gender issues. And conscripted scientific rationalism to back up this type of stuff.