*_Total List of Mistakes (For Part 2)_* 1:20 Mistake #55: Atheism entails materialism, reductionism, nihilism, etc. 4:42 Mistake #56: Naturalism is incompatible with abstracta 12:47 Mistake #57: Overlooking potential conflicts between theism and abstracta 16:28 Mistake #58: “The atheistic worldview” 17:23 Mistake #59: Atheism = New Atheism 18:45 Mistake #60: Lack theism 20:59 Mistake #61: Lack theist comparing God to Santa 21:28 Mistake #62: One less God than you! 25:13 Mistake #63: What is agnosticism? 33:40 Mistake #64: There are no agnostics 35:25 Mistake #65: Atheists are addicted to talking about God! 39:50 Mistake #66: Agnostics are fence sitters (or cowards!) 44:17 Mistake #67: Overlooking the panoply of atheistic worldviews on offer 45:40 Mistake #68: Atheism is a religion 46:38 Mistake #69: LFW is incompatible with atheism 48:36 Mistake #70: A/theists are irrational 50:05 Mistake #71: Atheists use their free will to deny God’s existence 50:57 Mistake #72: Theism entails some traditional monotheistic religion
I hate to dismiss your hard work but the only thing that really stuck in my craw - if that's the phrase, which it might not be, but I'm not going to check now - is this 'one fewer' business. I suddenly don't care about correct definitions of atheism or what naturalism entails....I'm afraid I ground to a mental halt when I uttered to myself the phrase, 'I believe in one fewer god than you'. That doesn't sound right at all. 'I believe in two fewer gods', sounds fine. 'I believe in one less god', sounds fine. But 'one fewer god'? I'm not buying it. Are you sure there isn't some countermanding rule concerning singular objects? This is a whole, 'Arsenal is versus Arsenal are' scenario, isn't it. And I don't like it one bit. 'I believe in one fewer grammatical laws than you'?
Hello, Joe! I have a question: What do you think of testimonies of people who were atheists but witnessed exorcisms and became believers? There are reports of exorcism, what do atheist philosophers of religion say about these phenomena? Capturing Christianity is making vídeo about it.
@@Terrestrial_Biological_Entity No, some are naive and some are figments of an apologists imagination. No wait - are you talking about the 'witnesses' or the actual 'demon possessed'. Because they are all either grifting or have severe mental problems that mean they've been deluded into thinking they're demon possessed by grifters. It's the same as with miracle claims of people being brought back from the dead and such - most of it is third hand accounts of half remembered tales of something someone's brother said he was told about. In every case, someone somewhere is making money from it, and that's a big motivating factor.
Honestly, I've always been 50/50 on whether Frank Turek genuinely believes even a fraction of the things he says. Basically everything about him has always screamed 'grifter' to me.
I think the lack-theist definition of atheism does lead to communication problems. But personally, I think the word "God" is subject to the same critique. Defending "God" is not the same as defending, say, Yahweh or Allah. Theists like to hide behind the guise of the Philosopher's God when they are in fact arguing in favor of a particular deity. If they are allowed to do that, then I as an atheist am allowed to hide behind the guise of agnosticism. Because I dont know whether that nebulous God exists, even if I would claim to know that certain specific Gods don't exist.
I'm not Joe but I'll offer my own thoughts 😁. As I understand it, your overall point is this: Yes, the definition of atheism as lack-theism causes confusion, but isn't it also the case that the philosophical definition of God causes confusion as well? And to support your point, you cite the many sophist apologist theists who perform a switcharooni between the philosopher's God and the God of a particular religion. I think your criticism is actually quite fair, but only insofar as you are criticizing a particular theist. So, for example, I think it is fair to make the following criticism: "Frank Turek likes to hide behind the guise of the Philosopher's God when he is in fact arguing in favor of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." However, I think your criticism is not fair if you extend it to all theists, because there most definitely are those who do in fact offer additional reasons to link the so called philosopher's God with, say, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (if, of course, that is in fact their position...one could of course be a theist without ties to a particular religion). For this reason, I don't think you present any evidence to show that the philosophical definition of God is confusing. Rather, I think it is only the case that there are some theists out there who use a perfectly clear definition of God in such a way that is confusing. So, while the lack-theism definition of atheism is inherently confusing, the philosophical definition of God is inherently clear, but sometimes misused. Note: minor edits from original comment made for clarity.
I fail to see the real relevance of getting hung up on "lacktheism" and atheism in the more rigorous and academic sense of the term, and don't think it causes much confusion. Because, either way, one doesn't believe there is a god or gods. The former just means they haven't seen or heard anything to make them think there is/are such an entitie(s); the latter means they definitively believe there isn't/aren't any such entities. We still have a negation in front of the bracketed proposition (or variable which means) "I believe in one or more gods". Right? Am I off base here?
@pauljackson9413 yeah that's basically what I'm saying. Though I'd make the case you could flip that same evaluation back the other way around for atheism as well. The philosophical definition of atheism is not confusing, it is rather clear, as pointed out in this video. Rather, as you put it, it is a problem with sophist atheists who swap between atheism and agnosticism, just as sophist apologists swap between the Philosopher's God and the God of Abraham et. al. We can prescribe definitions perfectly clearly in the world of philosophy, and people can still abuse the words anyway, by not appealing to their philosophical definitions. When a Christian says "God," they typically aren't appealing to the minimalist definition of what constitutes God according to philosophers, they're referring to the God of Abraham specifically. And it depends on the atheist, but plenty of atheists don't appeal to the philosophical definition of atheism when they use the word. Both sides venture away from philosophical definitions of words. If we are going to make a fuss about atheists having to stick to the philosophical definition of atheism, then we shoukd dk the same for theists sticking to the philosophical definition of God, and not letting them use arguments in favor of merely the Philosopher's God to support their preferred particular deity. That's what I'm trying to get at.
@@thesuitablecommand Good point about the symmetry between sophist atheists and sophist theists. Looks like we agree 100% for everything else you said as well 😃👍
@@wet-read To see the problems with the lack-theism definition, I'd check out the other videos mentioned by MoR already or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism. Now, say p stands for 'God exists' Theism: Smith is a theist iff Smith believes p Atheism (standard): Smith is an atheist iff Smith believes ~p Atheism (lack-theism): Smith is an atheist iff ~(Smith believes p) See the difference?
I am not really into New Atheist kind of stuff anymore, but I do like Dillahunty quite a bit, more than the Four Horsemen, even. Him and Dan Barker and John Loftus, the latter two because they are former insiders. The way he deals with anti-abortion stuff is great, and he seems more interesting overall than most NA types.
I think this is true, EXCEPT Dawkins has an actual career outside of atheism- being a biologist is still his day job for sure Turek does not, his job *is* his cross-examined ministry.
21:17 “we all believe don’t exist” maybe nowadays and in the online spaces and social circles you and I may frequent. But go to another time and place and surely you’ll find belief in things like fairies is actually quite prevalent.
Yes, one can be an atheist and believe that spiritual things exists. There might be no God per se, but there are within the natural universe beings who are spiritual. Thanks for this video. As a Christian, I do find that not every conclusion held by apologists and other Christians holds water. Believe me, I've tried some of these arguments and I've seen some get blown apart by very smart people. I've had to take stock of arguments that really make sense. Half of my struggle is with non-believers, and the other half is with fellow believers. Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land. It's a comfort to me that there are others like me that engage in this thought process, regardless of affiliation. Thanks again
Love you Joe! I’m an atheist and I find your videos to be incredibly refreshing and thoughtful. You’re about 8 years younger than me, but I look up to you in a lot of ways. I admire your overall character and intellect immensely. Please keep doing what you’re doing!
22:15 One very common mistake people make which really ruffles my feathers is thinking that Allah is different then the christian god. They are the same we just disagree on the trinity. Arab Christians before and after Islam worshipped Allah which the word itself is a contraction of al-Ilah, meaning "the God". Both Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic faiths who worship the same god Also I'm gonna go on a bit on an unrelated tangent here but i think that the fact that 67% of religious people worship the same god (which percentage wise is still increasing both in Islam and Christianity due to a higher birthrate). Also if we remove Buddhism (which according to my admittedly limited understanding of it doesn't believe in a god) that increases the number to 73%. In my opinion that fits well with a universalist model with an Abrahamic god which doesn't mind how you worship him but that preferably you should do so through the Abrahamic faiths. Ps i don't think that it entails hell for non religious people but for unrelated reasons
19:00 considering that one of the first modern usages of the word atheism is that of baron d'Holbacq, who was "lacktheist", and that the majority of self-identified atheists declare themselves as "lacktheists" I'd argue that it's unfortunate that some linguistic communities such as philosophers the meaning has been distorted to only describe a small subset of actual atheists. What creates confusion then isn't the primary and most extensive use of the term, it's the ones trying to narrow the use to a marginal view.
Ive been consistently and irresponsibly making mistake #63 because (maybe listening to too much AE over the years) I accepted the dichotomy of belief or not belief without recognizing that the third option DOES make sense. When you put it as p and not -p terms its quite clear that there is a third option in belief that has nothing to do with knowledge. Thanks for clearing that up MR. Wont continue to make that mistake.
I don't think you've been making a mistake. You've just been using words with their common usage, instead of defined in a particular and strict philosophical sense, which has its place. In common usage, an atheist is just anyone who doesn't believe p. Strong atheists are those who believe -p, and everyone regardless of their belief in p and -p can and should be agnostic since we lack the evidence to justify knowledge. I used to think one could be an agnostic and not be atheist or theist, but that just doesn't make sense because theist and atheist are definitionally a dichotomy, gnosticism is a different track.
@@Rogstin I suppose I meant mistake in the characterization of agnostics. In the past for instance, I accepted the false notion that you either believe or you don't, and that's IT. The "that's it" part is the mistake regardless of the colloquial usage. Like MR said it's somewhat more clear and simple if P is simply "belief in god". No extra baggage with making assertions about "rejection of the claim...etc". Yet, it probably doesn't matter too much as long as you are defining terms whenever having these type of discussions.
@@Rogstin Forcing the ancient Philosophical meanings from a time when everyone believed in gods really confuses things. If asking a person in the street, in at least in Aust and the UK, the answer will be something like "a person who doesn't believe in the god stuff". The insistence of the philosophical confusing the categories of belief and knowledge apparently poofs the Agnostic Theist from existence.
@@davidfrisken1617 Despite the common usage(s), there are allways three valid answers - yes, no and maybe. THAT IS NOT DICHOTOMY unless you willingly ignore one of those answers and pretend that it doesnt exist (which would be a fallacy called "false dichotomy").
I think I would disagree here and there but it almost doesn’t matter. You are making such amazing high quality content that is definitely doing so much good in this debate space possibly more than any other professional contributing to the popular level discourse. I selfishly hope you keep making such amazing content for a long time 🙂
Wonderful video. Atheists should not only deny gods but also 'non-physical mental states', goblins, ghosts, and the like because they're definitionally related. I think your definition of atheism is reductionist and needs to account for properties intrinsic to conceptions of god that are also found - to some degree or another - in virtually all non-physical entities. I think we should only work with a modern definition that relies on a rigorous scientific empirical standard and rejects conceptions that are not presented as veridical and testable.
I just wanted to add another great atheist thinker that wasn't listed: Jeffery Jay Lowder. Even though Lowder doesn't have a PhD (as far as I am aware) his work online and his RU-vid videos are very good.
"...the steaming pile of poo that is internet debates about religion." Haha man I'm so glad I found this channel. You don't wanna know how many times I banged my head against the wall becouse of the amount of nonsense being said by apologists AND their opponents..
Hello, Joe! I have a question: What do you think of testimonies of people who were atheists but witnessed exorcisms and became believers? There are reports of exorcism, what do atheist philosophers of religion say about these phenomena? Capturing Christianity is making vídeo about it.
The issue of lacktheism isn’t complicated? I think it has a very clear meaning. The only reason it’s a distinction is that theist don’t accept that classical “atheism” is coherent unless the atheist can show with absolute certainty that no gods exist. Just like I can’t do that with vampires or faeries, I can’t do it for every possible god, and that’s the point that lacktheism is making. It’s the most rational position. “I don’t think either of us know how that mystery works, and when you claim to know, I don’t believe you,” is a clear position, and very different from “I am claiming to disprove the unfalsifiable proposition that an undetectable god exists.”
I run into a lot of people that want to use agnosticism to refer to "knowledge" rather than belief and they'll point to its etymology to substantiate this. They'll claim that you can be an agnostic theist for instance which is merely to say they believe in god but don't think they can prove it or "know" it. Do you have anywhere where you explicitly talk about this definition of agnosticism? I don't feel like you touched on this specifically here.
The video he referenced on mistake #64 might be relevant to that. Check out also Emerson Green's podcast "Counter Apologetics" (not on RU-vid though). He has one episode on that very topic.
Arsenal we’re my grandpappys team in the heyday of Chapman and company. I could never stomach the red shirts with the white arms though, thus the team. Any philosophical insights in this? Or would this be more appropriate for the psych department?😮
Great video, Joe! I have committed mistake #63 at least once, specifically by assuming that there could only be one reason one could be an agnostic about God's existence: thinking there's roughly a 50/50 chance (epistemically and probabilistically speaking) that God exists or that he doesn't exist given the balance of the evidence that person thinks there is on both sides or the complexity of evaluating it so as to decide for one over another. I do have a question though: what difference there is between 'credence' and 'belief'? It was interesting to hear about how you can have a slightly higher credence on, for example, the proposition "God exists" and yet not *believe* God exists. How does that work?
One argument I see a lot is “I don’t believe…I KNOW“ - as if there’s a difference. Christians believe they know. Some do anyway. So the question is what’s the difference?
@@truthovertea Oh, it's already funny that you are defending a clown who only does theism a disfavor. Seriously, stop watching con artists and start reading some serious theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne or Van Inwagen. There are so many…
@@anteodedi8937 I wouldn’t go as far as calling him a conartist but I agree it’s very weak intellectually speaking. And I suspect a lot of Christians and theists like him, because he’s very charismatic and he’s good at public speaking. I feel like a lot of people in general are easily persuaded by rhetoric rather than actual good argumentation, I suspect that’s why so many people cling to people like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, Dan Barker, and etc. there’s very little substance to their actual arguments or objections to theism. Atheists should spend far more time reading individuals like Thomas Nagel, Paul Draper, Michael Martin, Michael Ruse and all the other people Joe mentioned and etc.
At 45:00-45:17 (mistake number 67), you detail a list of a panoply of atheistic worldviews on offer. I am really fascinated with all these atheistic and non-theistic worldviews (that are not reductionistic or eliminativistic) and I would like to read about them in greater detail. I was therefore wondering do you have a website or page that has a list of links to papers (or websites) that discuss each one of these unique atheistic worldviews. I am especially aching to read in more detail about the ‘An Aristotelian-like worldview incorporating an atheistically-construed thomistic 'Being Itself" at reality's foundation’ and especially the ‘Atheistic Neo-Platonism with an impersonally-construed Neo-Platonic One at reality's foundation’ worldview, as I have always been fascinated with Neoplatonism!
1:26 Hmmm. Two stances for atheism: Atheism type 1: (belief not) god Atheism type 2: belief (not god) Is the first not also "in a philosophical context"?
I didn't want to feel left out by not leaving a comment complaining about something in this *_Majesty of Reason_* video... However, Joe confused me by not dogmatically saying what I'm supposed to complain about in this video, So, I remain agnostic about what I think of my complaint, especially if it remains imaginary. 😎
No worries! Here’s the basic idea. If someone merely lacks a belief in God - that is, if they lack a belief in God but they do not believe that God doesn’t exist - then they should not be comparing the epistemic merits of belief in God with the epistemic merits of, eg, belief in fairies. For the epistemic merits of belief in fairies is so poor that most of us should believe that there are no fairies. So if theism’s epistemic merits on par with those of belief in fairies, then we should believe that theism is false, ie, we should believe that God doesn’t exist. But then one shouldn’t merely be a lack theist, in the sense of merely lacking belief in God without believing that God doesn’t exist. Instead, one should believe God doesn’t exist. This is what their argument commits them to. Hope this helps!🙂❤️
@MajestyofReason I think to be charitable to the lacktheist they might say that they actually lack a belief in those entities as well but that people can quickly and more clearly see why that's warranted in those cases but don't see that in the case of theism even though the evidence is roughly as compelling. They may also point out that there are relevant similarities such as being more than natural or having some type of supernatural powers and being quite hidden. I think the point for the theist to argue is that we just simply in fact do have significantly better reasons in suppprt of theism than we do for these other entities.
I'm curious about your Dillahunty jab. Your inclusion of him in your list of contemporary non-theist philosophers was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I'm curious, what has he said or done that makes him deserving of such a backhanded compliment? He's acknowledged he's had no formal education on the matter and holds no university or other official positions unlike the rest of the people on the list. He's done a lot of good guiding people through their faith transitions and providing support groups for those who are lost. The work he's done has never been put forward as more important or equal to the work done by university scholars. It was never intended to be pier-reviewed or used in lectures by professors. I have more to say but I'm just wondering why you would include him over other atheist RU-vidrs.
I love this series and you’ve definitely improved my critical thinking skills even though I’m a theist I get a lot of benefit from your video. However I disagree with your assessment that labeling theism or atheism as a worldview as mistake. If you mean on their own they are not reviews I can see you’re coming from but your atheism and your theism definitely entail your view of reality, and you believe what you do based on those propositions. Oh wait to show that new atheist definition of atheism as lack theism,Is to define theism is simply the lack of belief in the proposition that there are no gods. Be on that one disagreement I really have absolutely nothing wrong with this video I encourage both theorists and atheists to watch these videos. And yeah I’ve said for a while I think the whole why are atheists angry at God or why do you spend so much time talking about something you don’t even believe in, is really dumb there’s a lot of things but atheists could discuss about God and the existence of God and religion and theism, even though they don’t believe in it that’s just a ridiculous objection it’s not really an objection though.
*whistle Man's starting what a heavy one. 17:20 Ouch. I think he let himself in for it though. 18:08 I thought Dillahunty was very much a new atheist. 37:58 39:21 but then there's also this lumping together of atheism with social liberalism. If these are linked then this gives an additional reason for socially conservative believers ot oppose both atheism and liberalism. Gave the first video a thumbs up but none for this one. 39:54 Well some of them very much talk like new atheists. I think those particular agnostics are in fact atheists. If it walks like a duck...
I still think #63 comes from a place of naivete, and the analogy (the number of stars in the universe is even), is significantly different to the religion question as to make the comparison fall apart. Bad Joe. That beautifully clean philosophers way of cutting up the doxastic landscape is clumsy. (I'm also a philosophy major.) Yes, I'm agnostic by those lights. Even Dillahunty calls himself agnostic by that standard. Most atheists do. Of course we cannot know. Of course we withhold judgment until there's a shred of evidence to even begin to evaluate. I don't "know" there's no god, I would never take that on myself. It's too dishonest to make that claim. But we are all atheists. You -- and Emerson Green -- are just jerking people around with your philosophy degree and giving the wrong impression to theists. They think "aah, Joe's not so bad, he's not a full-on atheist!" when your epistemology is exactly like my own. I am no closer to theism than you are. But at least atheists are up front about it. Your clining to "agnostic" as a label is dishonest, disingenuous, knowingly misleading. You've absolutely got invites onto shows under almost a false pretense. "But I'm agnostic!". You're not convinced there's a dragon in the garage at all. Nor am I. Nor are atheists. And what exactly is the practical difference between calling yourself "a-dragonist", or "agnostic on the dragon question"? You don't buy it. You can see the faulty thinking in the people making the case for the dragon. Yeah, same here. There's no functional difference. Stop pretending, especially to theists, that there is a difference; that you are different -- at all -- in your epistemology to most atheists.
I'm wondering if the worldview mistake (#58) presumes too strong of an atomistic perspective, and if one turns to the "overlooking the panoply of atheistic worldviews" mistake (#67) is as fatal as it sounds, given none of them I am aware of combine an individual afterlife with a standard for moral justification. Much less one that accounts for justice and mercy. Namely, the real mistake is to say that atheism and theism are reducible to isolated propositions. While it seems true that there are a varieties of atheistic and theistic worldviews, it seems false to say that certain forms of theism and atheism don't have implications wider then the narrow proposition regarding theism. It seems evident that atheism and theism as propositions are never held as isolated propositions, but sit within a network of beliefs that frequently, if not necessarily in at least some cases, accompany them. In short, I'm not sure that individual propositions can be individually judged as "stand alone truths" to be true or false? Rather, one must posit multiple propositions about reality (a worldview) to judge their internal consistency (truth as coherence) and therefore truth against other less consistent views, and triangulate it with our experience (truth as correspondence). If so, then judging worldviews is not a mistake, the mistake would be to over-generalize that there is only one atheistic worldview, but worldview criticism as such is not a mistake, but rather necessary. But, even here, I wonder if it is really an "overgeneralization" to compare "atheism," that is all atheistic worldviews, categorically against one other worldview, if that one view has something necessary to it which all the atheisms lack? Maybe we should compare a bare atheistic worldview to other views if all atheistic worldviews held an erroneous view of moral justification, or lacked a component that was necessary to make them coherent? Are moral views under atheism so diverse, even sharing perspectives in common with Christian theism or Platonism, as to rule out a universal defeater for all atheistic worldviews as a whole? Unless one can affirm that this is the case, then one should probably not say that it is a mistake to argue that all atheistic conceptions can be defeated by another worldview on account of a common weakness. Just because there are multiple atheistic worldviews doesn't mean any one of them has the ability to provide a grounding for morals that are meaningful for both the individual and the group. Can an atheistic Platonism make morality meaningful without mind or through an impersonal nous? At least, to say the grouping of worldview arguments for common elimination qualifies as a "mistake" seems to presume one knows the correct answer from the start. For example, that one of them satisfies the criteria of explaining, in this example, morality satisfactorily.
very good comment i would even go so far as to say that it is impossible to talk about ethics for example, without also talking about epistemology or metaphysics.
Great video! Thank you for your contribution to a more respectful and less error-ridden conversation about the topic of God. I have two small remarks. Regarding Lacktheism, I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you advocating that we should respect their wishes (the linguistic communities) for their definition of atheism as lacktheism solely on the basis that it has become an unfortunately solidified position and, hence, see it as a legitimate position? I don't think we should settle with that but rather try to regain the original and more accurate definition of atheism. To me, it just seems to be riddled with issues, and the original definition captures the true nature of atheism much better. On atheism being a religion, I definitely agree that atheism is not a religion. However, I think that a certain manifestation of atheism (or a subset of atheism) can have religious qualities, making them into a sort of religion, most notably a secular religion as seen with examples like the Cult of Reason. I believe the New Atheists (and by extension Militant Atheists), in particular, are in danger of leaning towards a secular religion. Besides these personal remarks of mine, you did a great job. I'm looking forward to the rest of this series. Have a great day Joe!
Excellent comment! And great question about lack theism. Briefly, my point there was about the meaning of the term ‘atheist’; given its established usage in some linguistic communities as referring to lack theists, it is implausible that those in such communities are *incorrect* in their usage - ie, that they don’t actually understand the meaning of the term. But this is a separate issue from whether they *should* use the term this way and whether we *should* push for linguistic reform. One can accept that atheism means lack theism in certain linguistic communities while also urging that we push for linguistic reform within those communities so that the term ‘atheist’ no longer has that meaning.
When you said "the order that you read them", that struck me as one of the complaints I had with Plantinga's idea of rationality being defeated in a way that you could never know anything. To me, it doesn't seem like a rational process to filter all new evidence only through existing beliefs. It's common, but so is irrationality in general.
35:00 that’s not why Reformed apologists say you can’t be agnostic, according to Romans 1:18-24, Paul explains Gods divine power has been revealed in all mankind so all are without excuse. How could that be? By imaging God, we owe all our moral system which derived from God to him, we owe our higher level faculties like reason and logic and language, God is the precursor to these.. Atheists are basically using a wireless modem connecting to God like a router borrowing his web browser, Christians explain don’t you think it’s funny all of you can connect to the exact same webpages don’t you think there’s a modem/God, and they go no my computer was just manufactured with RU-vid on it.. I’ve always had it… why would I need a modem? Using God’s gift but attributing his gift to autonomous man is the beginning of sin, you just don’t see it.
@@MajestyofReason According to the Hindu text, is Krishna defined as a transcendental God with causal powers, that explains causality/uniformity, that grounds our reason... if this is the case then check mate for you. If not then it's a category error. To ask me to repent you have to borrow from my religion, so if you've come to the side of Theism I'm very happy to hear you've come to the side of truth.
Ayoo! Could you clarify what link you’re referring to? Note that the blue font in brackets in mistake #59 is not a link, if that’s what you’re referring to🙂
I see mistake #66 *painfully* often in political discussion, where centrists are demonized by both sides for being fence-sitters. It's just as infuriating and just as mistaken.
15:00 yes.. that WOULD be a problem if we subscribed to Thomism Divine Simplicity, but most Protestants don’t, especially Reformed apologists under the Calvinist camp like Van Til, so that ain’t no problem. Your slam dunk at best is a Tu quoque like “you have problems too if you hold to DS..” okay, but you still have no coherent foundation for justifying all these necessary transcendentals like the laws of logic, math, universals and they’re abstract at best, the Divine Conceptualist is still sitting on a more coherent view and explaining power.. how are you gonna explain all humans have the same universal mathematical understanding and access to infinite concepts from person to person.. evolution? We just evolved from eukaryotes to multicellular organisms to some how emergent minds.. get outta here that’s utter nonsense, you’re the one believing supernatural if you believe in this Frankenstein theory.
As I said in the video, that specific point only applies to classical theists in particular. But as I also went on to explain in the video, there are serious challenges from abstracta for theism more generally, pertaining especially to God's aseity and sovereignty. (WLC, for instance -- certainly not a classical theist -- thinks that abstracta pose extremely serious challenges for theism, so much so that he thinks they should deny their existence.) There are also tons of other challenges from abstracta to theism more generally that I didn't cover in the video but which are covered in my God and Abstract Objects playlist, such as the bootstrapping problem (see my video with Felipe Leon). As for explaining how we have mathematical knowledge, there are plausible and relatively widely accepted evolutionary models within cognitive and biological sciences about how we evolved a capacity for such knowledge; you can't simply pretend that these don't exist or don't have merits.
@@MajestyofReason Thanks I'll check out the video. The problem seems much more severe for the materialist than the Reformed Christian, since they have far grounding of their metaphysics. I hear the atheistic community diving right into Multiverse theory, RNA world hypothesis for abiogenesis, Chance Hypothesis, and even ppl jumping ship into monism like Panpsychism.. you guys are just inventing ad hoc bs to explain away problems of "wave particle collapse" or Bell's Inequality or the "Information Problem" with DNA ALL THE TIME... wow, here's an article that shows how in a lab they can use proteases to link together 2-3 Amino Acids... wow, take that Christians. The Miller Urey was a fail 'cause it assumes a reducing atmosphere, modern scientists reject that and say there was a high presence of oxygen and nitrogen.. the presence of high nitrogen is detrimental to the formation of sugars and proteins, so are early Earth temperatures >100 C, even if we give you RNA you lack the enzymes for translation from the codons to amino acids, even if we grant you the proteins the probability of a functional protein is like 10^70 you'd get a functional sequence, the proteins are a lock and key and must be folded into a quarternary or 3D structure precisely to function. And even if the blueprint is made you don't have the epigenetic material and building blocks available "lumber to construct the house", you're up creek without a paddle. And there's no lab environment to carry these out.. there's tarring effect that'll gunk up reactions, there's chirality issues since most stereoisomers in nature are R- rotation, in these reactions which poses a big problem. And your hero scientists have solved almost none of these, so no I don't have as much faith as you to be an atheist, at least I'm putting my "leap of faith" into something more coherent, even if you're right you're still fukked and facing oblivion, but if you're wrong... I know that's a pascals wager, but it is actually true.
20:59 *Mistake #61: Lack theist comparing God to Santa* _- Right, you merely lack belief in God, but you compare God to things we all believe don't exist, like Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or Leprechauns, or pixies, or fairies..._ Well, yes and no. What is the exact reason, that WE ALL believe, that Santa, the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, pixies, fairies,... do not exist? Is it, because of the lack of (empirical) evidence for such claims? If so, then why are specifically "you", the theist, believe in the existence of God despite the lack of empirical evidence for God's existence (or despite divine hiddenness) and at the same time specifically "you", the theist, are justifying your disbeliefs in such entities through the lack of empirical evidence for such entities? Yes, exactly because specifically "you", the theist, are holding an unnecessary double standard for epistemology and because specifically "you", the theist, are question begging and special pleading your own case.
But then you are not just a 'lack theist'. If you positively believe Santa doesn't exist because you think there's no empirical evidence, then you must for consistency sake also positively believe God doesn't exist because you think there's no empirical evidence. Theists aren't inconsistent because they typically don't hold to a principle that restricts beliefs must only be empirically justified.
@@rogerx1979 I never said, that theists are inconsistent for not holding a certain principle for their epistemology. But I do say, that they have an unnecessary double-standard regarding their epistemology, if they are holding multiple (mostly irrelevant) principles for their epistemology, as they simply tend to question begging and special pleading. Besides that, how would you exactly verify the following claim? _"It will rain tomorrow."_
@@rogerx1979 _"If you positively believe Santa doesn't exist because you think there's no empirical evidence, then you must for consistency sake also positively believe God doesn't exist because you think there's no empirical evidence."_ Yes, exactly that as I do not possess an unnecessary double-standard regarding my epistemology. I believe, that God doesn't exist *as long as there is no evidence for God's existence,* since God's non-existence explaines that lack of evidence for God's existence quite well as I believe, that Santa doesn't exist *as long as there is no evidence for Santa's existence,* since Santa's non-existence explaines that lack of evidence for Santa's existence quite well. Notice, that I'm willing to update my beliefs to both of those cases according to new and relevant evidence, which presents itself for each case. But there is no good reason to update my beliefs without such new and relevant evidence.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are different imo because at some point parents usually tell their children that it was an invention and they were the ones hiding the presents. There are beliefs in other things like ghosts for instance that are more similar to the belief in God. I think it makes a difference because the belief in the easter bunny seems so ridiculous that comparing it to the belief in God might feel more like an insult than an argument.
@@MsJavaWolf Well, if someone is not capable of distancing him- or herself from his or hers heuristics, then sure comparing one's beliefs in the existence of God to one's beliefs in the existence of Easter Bunny can be easily considered to be an insult. I guess, that's why Russell suggested that _"tee pot"_ of his or more specifically the scepticism regarding the justifications in the belief of its existence - so that no one can be offended by that but rather start thinking about, what the actual claim and beliefs are and what are the justifications and reasoning behind that. "You" can special plead your case and personal beliefs as much as "you" want, but at some point - namely at the point of making empirical claims - "your personal" reasoning and justifications for "your personal" beliefs are simply not sufficient enough but they have to face the empirical facts (or the lack there off and what that might imply). "You", theists, might have strong personal reasons in believing, what "you", theists, are believing. But if "you", theists, make such fantastical empirical claims such as humans being created after the image of a divine deity and that divine deity coming a second time to earth in flesh, then please, do not wonder about "your" beliefs being compared to the beliefs in Santa Claus or in Easter Bunny. As long as "you", theists, do not even bother demonstrating and proving those empirical claims by empirical evidence (but are only special pleading your case wrongly declaring it to be nonempirical, when it's clearly that - at some point it is an empirical claim), as long as that happens over and over again, that ridiculing of your beliefs is and will be justified, since what is ridiculous is simply meant to be ridiculed and those beliefs of "yours", theists, are ridiculous and simply meant to be ridiculed.
A little harsh on Dillahunty to lump him in with Turek. But I did give a self satisfied smile when noting a prominent absentee from the theist list. And I think we all know who that was. I find it absurd to imagine we all don't know who we're talking about, and I'd willingly reduce the odds that all of us are thinking of the same person.
think Dillahunty is the Ray comfort of anti-theism. I think Frank Turek is much closer to someone like David Silverman if you watch there debate you’ll know what I’m talking about. Individuals like all the ones I’ve mentioned can get away with sloppy reasoning because of there rhetorical skills.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Claiming there's an equivalence between Dillahunty and Comfort is totally unjustified. I really don't understand this snobbery towards Dillahunty. It smacks of over compensation.
@@bengreen171 no I don’t really think it is unjustified. To me Matt Dillahunty is the anti-theist equivalent to Ray comfort, and Aron Ra is the anti-theist equivalent to Kent Hovid. The reason people don’t like him and we don’t like him in particular is because he embodies absolutely everything wrong with the new atheist movement. And also just because of the movement he’s created with his Fanbase.
Morally justify it to who? You? Why does he have to morally justify it at all. And what happens if he doesn't. Will he burst into flames for braking YOUR moral rule that states eating animals is bad?
@@nunya2076 Redirect your question to any human based atrocity. "Hitler, morally justify the holocaust, to who? You?". Himself obviously, there is no moral arbiter, moral realism, and obviously it is subjective, but that changes nothing. Good luck, being morally and logically consistent defending animal abuse; contributing to history's largest holocaust, that unnecessarily; enslaves, rapes, orphans, tortures, exploits and kills 90 billion land animals and trillions of marine life every year for for the momentary pleasure of the taste buds. To even attempt to morally justify this, is justifying chattel slavery, the Jewish holocaust, child rape. To be ethically consistent you should be okay with enslaving black people to wear their skin, raping women for their breastmilk, putting dogs or people in gas chambers for "bacon". You have no right to infringe on the wellbeing of another sentient being, in the same way no one has the right to infringe on your wellbeing. There is not trait true of animals, if true of humans, that would morally justify what we do to farmed animals. Meaning if you changed any trait of a human or animal, e.g. intelligence, at what point does it become morally acceptable to be have their testicles/ teeth/ ripped out without anaesthesia and put in a gas chamber and burn inside out? There is no point, while they are sentient. Speciesism is another arbitrary form of discrimination based on prejudice that is no better than sexism, or racism. Our ape species is no more inherently valuable than any other species, and to be logically consistent you must extend the same rights.
