Skepticism is the best way to approach religious claims.

[Tolworth John]

Do you think this statement is true?

Honest skeptism is always a good way of looking at any claim.

But

The honest skeptic would. Recognise there is no scientific answer to the question what caused the big bang? And would recognise that the answer has to involve the supernatural.

That means they are not skeptics but agnostics who are actively investigating the claims of religion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The honest skeptic would. Recognise there is no scientific answer to the question what caused the big bang?

True -- so far.

And would recognise that the answer has to involve the supernatural.

False. It does not follow that because we don't know a physical answer that there isn't one. It isn't rational or skeptical to invoke magic as a solution to not knowing something.

That means they are not skeptics but agnostics who are actively investigating the claims of religion.

Skepticism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[Caliban]

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.

You are really making more out of this than you should. You have constructed a straw man of my position of the Enlightenment after several fragments of conversation. Instead of assuming my position, why don't you just ask me if I believe it was a time of intellectual backwardness. I don't by the way. It is best to not assume another position; and your tone doesn't exactly incline me toward further discussion with you. I am interested in you thoughts of race and gender in the Middle Ages, but gear down a bit.

 

[Caliban]

Honest skeptism is always a good way of looking at any claim.

But

The honest skeptic would. Recognise there is no scientific answer to the question what caused the big bang? And would recognise that the answer has to involve the supernatural.

That means they are not skeptics but agnostics who are actively investigating the claims of religion.

The the effects of the Big Bang are observable. What caused it is not. A skeptic, like you said, will say--I don't know how it happened because there is no evidence. But, I cannot the jump to the unjustified conclusion it was something supernatural. First of all, the has been no demonstration of the supernatural so it can't be in my bag of explanations. Every time people have ever encountered a problem in this world, the answer always turned out to have a natural answer. Every time. We have never encountered a problem and had the answer come back supernatural--never. Maybe the answer to what happened before the Big Bang will be the first time in recorded history that it it will occur, but until I have actually data, I remain unconvinced. That is what a skeptical position looks like.

Skepticism and agnosticism are different things, but I see where you are going, I think. I would be considered agnostic in the sense that I do not have knowledge of any data which would convince me how the Bang happened. I am agnostic on that point--meaning I do not have knowledge--from the Greek gnosis. I do not have enough knowledge to justify ANY position on that subject. It is intellectually honest to say, I don't know. But, that doesn't mean every option is a 50/50 split. I think it is highly unlikely the answer is supernatural.

 

[Silmarien]

You are really making more out of this than you should. You have constructed a straw man of my position of the Enlightenment after several fragments of conversation. Instead of aiming my position, why don't you just ask me if I believe it was a time of intellectual backwardness. I don't by the way. It is best to not assume another position; and your tone doesn't exactly incline me toward further discussion with you. I am interested in you thoughts of race and gender in the Middle Ages, but hell, you've gotta relax a bit.

I'm not assuming anything that you haven't outright stated. You've said in no uncertain terms that you view the Enlightenment as a source of progressive change where religion and superstition were cast off. You appear to be unaware of the Enlightenment origins of the hierarchical racial thinking that has plagued the modern world ever since, given that you asked for sources about this issue. The idea that the Middle Ages were a time of superstition and that the Enlightenment, in contrast, was an intellectual Golden Age without a horrifyingly dark side are quite literally historical myths. Both ideas have been discredited by modern historical scholarship, so to claim that you merely have a different view on history is to say that you prefer myths over the actual historical evidence.

You explicitly said that you "don't see religion as a force for good in the world" and that you "used to agree with [me]" when I specifically pointed out historical facts: that Enlightenment era scientific racism contributed to things like chattel slavery and that if you view universal education as the boundary between "enlightened" and "unenlightened" thought, you need to look at the 19th century rather than the Enlightenment as the point of contrast. Unless you're trying to say that you used to be familiar with the modern historical view on this issue and have since decided that you prefer historical myths, which would be strange in the extreme, to tell a religious person who is discussing actual historical facts rather than the value of religion that you used to agree with them but no longer do because you don't think religion is a force for good in the world is a pretty offensive non sequitur.

The fact that this is quite literally a thread about the value of skepticism, and that you've effectively just stated that you somehow used to agree with modern scholarship, but now have your own view of history based on 19th century myths and propaganda, makes the whole thing even worse!

 

[Caliban]

I'm not assuming anything that you haven't outright stated. You've said in no uncertain terms that you view the Enlightenment as a source of progressive change where religion and superstition were cast off. You appear to be unaware of the Enlightenment origins of the hierarchical racial thinking that has plagued the modern world ever since, given that you asked for sources about this issue. The idea that the Middle Ages were a time of superstition and that the Enlightenment, in contrast, was an intellectual Golden Age without a horrifyingly dark side are quite literally historical myths. Both ideas have been discredited by modern historical scholarship, so to claim that you merely have a different view on history is to say that you prefer myths over the actual historical evidence.

You explicitly said that you "don't see religion as a force for good in the world" and that you "used to agree with [me]" when I specifically pointed out historical facts: that Enlightenment era scientific racism contributed to things like chattel slavery and that if you view universal education as the boundary between "enlightened" and "unenlightened" thought, you need to look at the 19th century rather than the Enlightenment as the point of contrast. Unless you're trying to say that you used to be familiar with the modern historical view on this issue and have since decided that you prefer historical myths, which would be strange in the extreme, to tell a religious person who is discussing actual historical facts rather than the value of religion that you used to agree with them but no longer do because you don't think religion is a force for good in the world is a pretty offensive non sequitur.

The fact that this is quite literally a thread about the value of skepticism, and that you've effectively just stated that you somehow used to agree with modern scholarship, but now have your own view of history based on 19th century myths and propaganda, makes the whole thing even worse!

Yes I see the Enlightenment as source of progressive change. How do you infer from that, that I think the Enlightenment is some panacea of moral progress and infallible human triumph? It wasn't. When people in America say all people are created equal, it is reasonable to point to Jeffersons words in the Declaration of Independence as a source for that progress. It doesn't make Jefferson a hero in every regard or ignore the fact that he maintained considerable immoral failings. Quit assuming you know what my position is from snippets of sentences on this forum--ask don't assume. You are not doing a good of inferring my actual position from what I have written. Its is stifling this conversation.

Of course the Enlightenment generated significant problems. Why do you assume I am unaware of that fact? Just because I don't preface my statements with it, you make the assumption that I don't know this. Stop.

I believe no zero myths about the Enlightenment.

When did I say I used to agree with modern scholarship???????????????????

I will keep up this discussion if you change tactics. If your next post is a gotcha attempt--I'm out.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes I see the Enlightenment as source of progressive change. How do you infer from that, that I think the Enlightenment is some panacea of moral progress and infallible human triumph? It wasn't. When people in America say all people are created equal, it is reasonable to point to Jeffersons words in the Declaration of Independence as a source for that progress. It doesn't make Jefferson a hero in every regard or ignore the fact that he maintained considerable immoral failings. Quit assuming you know what my position is from snippets of sentences on this forum--ask don't assume. You are not doing a good of inferring my actual position from what I have written. Its is stifling this conversation.

It really isn't reasonable to point to Jefferson as a source for that progress, given that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is an extremely religious idea that borrows from the biblical idea that all people are made in the image of God and have equal value. That's a pretty major theme throughout Christianity, and it led to things like Church Fathers criticizing if not outright condemning slavery long before the Enlightenment. (See St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example.) Obviously Christendom didn't do a great job of adhering to these values, but they definitely predate the Enlightenment, and there's a very strong case to be made that the Enlightenment introduction of racial hierarchies as some sort of rational, scientific fact about reality was a major step backwards rather than forwards in terms of equal dignity.

What the Enlightenment did do was reintroduce democratic ideals to political philosophy and question the authority of absolutist regimes, but to point to it as the source of things like humanism or the concept of universal human dignity is really to erase everything that came before. Especially things like the Renaissance humanism of figures such as Erasmus--it's just good, old fashioned anti-clericalism to point to the Enlightenment as the turning point and characterize everything that came before as darkness and superstition.

Of course the Enlightenment generated significant problems. Why do you assume I am unaware of that fact? Just because I don't preface my statements with it, you make the assumption that I don't know this. Stop.

I believe no zero myths about the Enlightenment.

When did I say I used to agree with modern scholarship???????????????????

I will keep up this discussion if you change tactics. If your next post is a gotcha attempt--I'm out.

You literally said that "it helped people after the Enlightenment to have the label of The Dark Ages as a point of contrast" and that "it's still a helpful meme" when that point of contrast was always fictional in nature and pretty much any historian is going to say that the term "Dark Ages" is highly deceptive and really the opposite of a helpful meme.

I don't know if it's a "gotcha attempt" to point out how strange it is to say stuff that is completely at odds with modern scholarship if you're familiar with it. Even stranger to say that you used to agree with someone who is pointing it out, but no longer do because you don't think that religion is a force for good. If you don't believe the myths, don't call them "helpful memes." They're misinformation, plain and simple.

 

[Caliban]

It really isn't reasonable to point to Jefferson as a source for that progress, given that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is an extremely religious idea that borrows from the biblical idea that all people are made in the image of God and have equal value. That's a pretty major theme throughout Christianity, and it led to things like Church Fathers criticizing if not outright condemning slavery long before the Enlightenment. (See St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example.) Obviously Christendom didn't do a great job of adhering to these values, but they definitely predate the Enlightenment, and there's a very strong case to be made that the Enlightenment introduction of racial hierarchies as some sort of rational, scientific fact about reality was a major step backwards rather than forwards in terms of equal dignity.

What the Enlightenment did do was reintroduce democratic ideals to political philosophy and question the authority of absolutist regimes, but to point to it as the source of things like humanism or the concept of universal human dignity is really to erase everything that came before. Especially things like the Renaissance humanism of figures such as Erasmus--it's just good, old fashioned anti-clericalism to point to the Enlightenment as the turning point and characterize everything that came before as darkness and superstition.



You literally said that "it helped people after the Enlightenment to have the label of The Dark Ages as a point of contrast" and that "it's still a helpful meme" when that point of contrast was always fictional in nature and pretty much any historian is going to say that the term "Dark Ages" is highly deceptive and really the opposite of a helpful meme.

I don't know if it's a "gotcha attempt" to point out how strange it is to say stuff that is completely at odds with modern scholarship if you're familiar with it. Even stranger to say that you used to agree with someone who is pointing it out, but no longer do because you don't think that religion is a force for good. If you don't believe the myths, don't call them "helpful memes." They're misinformation, plain and simple.

I used the Jefferson analogy to employ similar logic when I wrote that the Enlightenment was the source of progressive ideas. In my analogy, Jefferson's quote and what I said about the Enlightenment being the sourse of progress can be affirmed without denying other contextual problems. The Enlightenment is the source of liberal progress. That statement is true. However, I can also affirm that there are serious problems which stemmed for Enlightenment ideals. They are not mutually exclusive. When Jefferson said “...all men are created equal...” we now understand that as foundational to a contemporary understanding of equality. Affirming Jefferson’s statement does not erase the plain fact of his hypocrisy. Jefferson’s Idea is important, similarly, the Enlightenment is an important step in progressive ideals. I recommend reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now.



I don’t really want to discuss the merits of the Enlightenment here. It would be a great topic for another thread. Doing so would get us into a debate about the value of religious vs secular intellectual activity in the world and its effects. I suspect this is where you and I actually disagree. I bet that we actually do not disagree much about the facts of the Enlightenment. Facts are facts and maybe you studied those facts in college as I did.


My point about people labeling it The Dark Ages as a point of contrast and that it's still a helpful meme is actually true. I was not making a value judgement as maybe you assumed. People did label it the Dark Ages as a point of contrast to the Enlightenment. Stating a fact does not require me to think it is accurate or a good idea. And, it is a helpful meme. That also does not mean I think all memes are good or accurate. I don’t know why you want to paint me as if I do.


I guess I need to repeat this over and over until you do it—If you want to know what I actually think, ask me—don’t assume. It is a freaking internet forum—there is a lot of room for misunderstanding when people are writing fast and it is not peer reviewed. Just ask!

 

[durangodawood]

Skepticism is the best way to approach religious claims. (yes/no)

Something in the question seems to imply theres only one correct way to approach religious claims.

I do think skepticism is essential. But only as part of one's "toolkit".

 

[Caliban]

Something in the question seems to imply theres only one correct way to approach religious claims.

I do think skepticism is essential. But only as part of one's "toolkit".

What other tools should I consider?

 

[durangodawood]

What other tools should I consider?

Imagination. Empathy. Emotion.

 

[Caliban]

Imagination. Empathy. Emotion.

Taking one at a time. How would imagination lead me to true knowledge about a religious claim--for instance, miracles are real?

 

[durangodawood]

Taking one at a time. How would imagination lead me to true knowledge about a religious claim--for instance, miracles are real?

First off, there's more to religious claims than literal truth value.

So when youre concerned with a religious claim of meaning, skepticism wont get you very far at all.

 

[Caliban]

First off, there's more to religious claims than literal truth value.

So when youre concerned with a religious claim of meaning, skepticism wont get you very far at all.

I fully agree with that. Does imagination still apply when addressing the supernatural claims of religion?

 

[durangodawood]

I fully agree with that. Does imagination still apply when addressing the supernatural claims of religion?

Definitely. I think its hard to even appreciate what any supernatural claim is trying to say without applying imagination. I mean, you cant appreciate through your natural senses, obviously. What other tools do you have for this task?

 

[Caliban]

I think its hard to even appreciate what any supernatural claim is trying to say without applying imagination

I'm not referring to the meaning of a supernatural claim or the ability of a person to infer a lesson from it, but can imagination be a tool to help me determine whether a specific miraculous claim actually occurred. In other words, can imagination help me determine whether an event is supernatural or natural?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not referring to the meaning of a supernatural claim or the ability of a person to infer a lesson from it, but can imagination be a tool to help me determine whether a specific miraculous claim actually occurred. In other words, can imagination help me determine whether an event is supernatural or natural?

I see. Well thats a problem with your OP because, in it, you didnt limit the applicability of a claim to its literal truth value. And I'm not just being picky. I actually think most of the value of religious claims is found in their meaning rather than their literal interpretation.

But that aside, when assessing the truth value of a supernatural claim, you have to apply imagination up front. If you dont get "a feel" for the object of the claim, then how can you even apply skepticism? The alternative (which I dont entirely reject) is...... what's it called?....."ignosticism" where you plead "nonsense!" before even bringing proper skepticism to bear.

 

[Silmarien]

I used the Jefferson analogy to employ similar logic when I wrote that the Enlightenment was the source of progressive ideas. In my analogy, Jefferson's quote and what I said about the Enlightenment being the sourse of progress can be affirmed without denying other contextual problems. The Enlightenment is the source of liberal progress. That statement is true. However, I can also affirm that there are serious problems which stemmed for Enlightenment ideals. They are not mutually exclusive. When Jefferson said “...all men are created equal...” we now understand that as foundational to a contemporary understanding of equality. Affirming Jefferson’s statement does not erase the plain fact of his hypocrisy. Jefferson’s Idea is important, similarly, the Enlightenment is an important step in progressive ideals. I recommend reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now.

Yes, I had actually assumed that you were getting this from Pinker. I'm somewhat familiar with his narrative, and he's unfortunately part of the problem, since he's a cognitive psychologist and science popularizer, not a historian. This means that he is not an authority on a subject like the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. You would be much better off looking at the work of genuine historians.

One book I'm aware of is The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution, by Roger Chartier, which contains the brief argument that the French Enlightenment was in a real sense the founding mythology of the French Revolution--that they retroactively "canonized" the thinkers that fit their ideals as being part of a joint movement while downplaying those who did not.

Another I've heard of is The Enlightenment (New Approaches to European History), by Dorinda Outram. I don't have access to it, but it looks like a more nuanced rundown of where scholarship on the Enlightenment actually is.

(Personally, I would argue that there has been significant intellectual decline since the Late Middle Ages, since if you look at scholastic thought, it was all extremely discursive. It was a collaborative project based in the universities, and people were supposed to demonstrate that they understood an argument before responding to it. That sort of spirit died when individualism took over--now we just have a free for all where nobody even bothers to try to understand what their opponents are trying to say, and I can't say that I'm that impressed by the results.)

My point about people labeling it The Dark Ages as a point of contrast and that it's still a helpful meme is actually true. I was not making a value judgement as maybe you assumed. People did label it the Dark Ages as a point of contrast to the Enlightenment. Stating a fact does not require me to think it is accurate or a good idea. And, it is a helpful meme. That also does not mean I think all memes are good or accurate. I don’t know why you want to paint me as if I do.

But why on earth would you consider a meme to be helpful if it isn't good or accurate? Shouldn't a skeptic be interested in debunking misinformation, not spreading it more widely?

I guess I need to repeat this over and over until you do it—If you want to know what I actually think, ask me—don’t assume. It is a freaking internet forum—there is a lot of room for misunderstanding when people are writing fast and it is not peer reviewed. Just ask!

You told me in no uncertain terms that you used to agree with me, but no longer do because you think that superstition is bad. If you claim that you used to agree with me, that means that you were assuming that you knew what I actually thought. You don't get to play the "I used to agree with the poor, benighted Christian and now I am enlightened and know better" card and then get annoyed when I take what you say at face value.

It's alright if you're not really into intellectual history and don't realize that you're contributing to discredited historical myths. I'm just pointing out that that's what these are: myths. It's much less okay if you are aware that these are myths and that historians avoid the term "Dark Ages" altogether, but then continue to spread something that you recognize isn't good or accurate, because you find it "helpful" for whatever historical narrative you're trying to build. I don't think you're doing this, but please be more skeptical of the sorts of narratives that people like Pinker who are not actually professional historians are offering. It's not scholarship.