Still can't unsee that step in front of the bottom row of books, making them completely inaccessible. 😅
@andresnexuschamarra6991
2 жыл бұрын
why would you do that to me? now I can't unsee it either, I think I might just believe "reality is an illusion" to be able to put that step in the same "not real" bag!
@geheimnisvollerundbelanglo9396
2 жыл бұрын
why....why would they do this to us?
@killedinthezone1
2 жыл бұрын
I believe there's a gap in between the bookshelf and the step
@agentdarkboote
2 жыл бұрын
Perhaps it's a temporary stage?
@andresnexuschamarra6991
2 жыл бұрын
@@killedinthezone1 I want to believe :P
@Monty_The_Aegean_Cat
2 жыл бұрын
Every day that we live, can be a day in which we learn a valuable lesson to take with us for the rest of our existence, if we are willing to make a full fledged effort to participate in and learn from every moment we experience.
@DavidAguileraMoncusi
2 жыл бұрын
Honestly, I think nobody cares if you believe in God. The problem is religion: its rules and doctrines and commandments and what not. You have faith and you believe God exists: fair enough. You believe the Bible is God's word... well, prove it. How do you know it is? What if their authors got it wrong? Do your homework!
@TheBaconWizard
2 жыл бұрын
Hmmmm. Many of the things (other than religious claims) that we continue to believe without impirical data to confirm it, are so because we have no other choice if we are to continue functioning, even if we can imagine things being otherwise. Yes, I CAN conceive of being a brain in a vat and all existance is my own fantasy, and I may even conceed that it may be the case, but i can't actually function unless I assume (have faith) that my experience of life represents to some degree, the facts.
@jeannedarcstone
2 жыл бұрын
If you believe you are a brain in a vat, then you would stop believe that you actually function the way you do. That means you wouldnt stress about not functioning. In other words, believing that you can function is a result of believing the world is real. its like Super Mario not wanting to realise he is in a game because then he might die in the game (which would only be horrible if it wasnt a game)
@laurajarrell6187
2 жыл бұрын
Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, your brain is amazing!👍💖🥰✌
@catjuzu
2 жыл бұрын
I love how I know what you want to say but I also have to think of you lokking at a brain and saying "ah, that's amazing"
@laurajarrell6187
2 жыл бұрын
@@catjuzu LOL, eww, I've seen a brain, actually a few. It was a great class in Jr. High. Brain, heart, lungs. Comparing healthy and not. And, years later, at a 'pain clinic', a spinal cord! That was a surprise to me, I'd imagined the spinal cord looked more like an umbilical cord. It was a third of the size I expected, lol. Whereas, compared to dogs and cats, even horse, the human umbilical is big. Well, the horses were all stretched, and shredded. OK, sorry! I guess next time I'll say his brain works amazingly. That was great, thankyou! 👍😂🥰💖✌
@pauligrossinoz
2 жыл бұрын
"Belief" is an ambiguous word, because it implies a true/false binary. A far better word is "confidence", which is automatically understood as a spectrum from very low to very high. If somebody says they are _confident_ about something, then they should reasonably expect two questions: 1. How confident are you? 2. _Exactly_ what is your level of confidence based on? Those two questions are avoided by the religious "believers", because they lay bare the basis of their level of confidence, which has never yet been shown to justify any kind of confidence above "very low". And if anyone disagrees that their own religious belief is based a confidence above a "very low" level, I am sincerely interested in hearing about the empirical evidence that underlies their level of confidence. I might learn something!
@Phocas77
2 жыл бұрын
Not sure how this changes anything. If the degree of confidence still requires an explanation based on evidence, then his point still stands.
@pauligrossinoz
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Nitai Das - _"faith"_ is a fine word to use when you mean confidence that is _not_ based on empirical evidence, but instead of based on the ego. Thanks! 😊👍
@rmmusic33
2 жыл бұрын
As a recent revert to Catholicism, my confidence in the religion is based on the idea that I am not smart enough to invent my own values. We all worship something, and God is that which is most good and most worthy of worship. Science and empirical thought is great in its own way, but it doesn’t lead to moral truths - it only says “how”, but not “why”, and as people, the more important question is “why.”
@pauligrossinoz
2 жыл бұрын
@@rmmusic33 - now I'm intrigued. But before we discuss your stated reason for having confidence in your Catholic beliefs, can you just confirm for me one thing: *Do you accept that it's just **_possible_** that you could be wrong about anything you currently believe is true?*
@rmmusic33
2 жыл бұрын
@@pauligrossinoz The Catholic Church revises its doctrines and beliefs over time (albeit very slowly and carefully, but it does). It’s a beautiful thing - over the centuries, the church grows closer and closer to the truth, through refinement. So I would say yes, it is possible that, in the future, the church will change a teaching, which to me shows that the truth can be more closely approximated than it currently is. I’d note too that this process will continue forever, as it is impossible to completely know God. It’s like an asymptote in math, where you can grow closer and closer but you’ll never touch it. Or like the horizon, which stays at a distance no matter how far you travel towards it.
@fpcoleman57
2 жыл бұрын
I'm salivating while I'm waiting for you to start writing books. You are evolving into one of the most significant philosophers of the 21st century. What I particularly love about your attitude is that you recognise that you are "standing on the shoulders of giants". I detect no arrogance but, indeed, a humble recognition of what has gone before. Thanks Alex. Go for it!
@agentdarkboote
2 жыл бұрын
So many people think of him as arrogant, and I don't see why...
@justanotherhomosapian5101
2 жыл бұрын
@@agentdarkboote During his younger days he seemed arrogant to me, but he has indeed evolved over the past few years
@YAWTon
2 жыл бұрын
The 21st century is still young...
@fpcoleman57
2 жыл бұрын
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Maybe he was but he's only 22 years old and still an undergraduate at university.
@fpcoleman57
2 жыл бұрын
@@YAWTon And so is Alex. He's only 22 years old. He could live for most of if not the entire century.
@JohnnieHougaardNielsen
2 жыл бұрын
I remember a pretty good observation from a christian. "Faith is the right to not understand". I can fully grant that right, they just have to be sure to understand *that* they do not understand, and not promote their faith as a truth claim, or derive doctrines to be imposed on others. It is perfectly fine to not understand all the complexities of the world, and how we can expand our knowledge in a reliable way.
@RobotProctor
2 жыл бұрын
I agreed with everything except "It is perfectly fine to not understand all the complexities of the world, and how we can expand our knowledge in a reliable way." Having a right not to do something is NOT the same thing as it being fine to do the opposite. We have a right to eat only chocolate all day every day, but this is NOT perfectly fine. It's, if nothing else, a bit unhealthy. Similarly, NOT considering what you don't understand and acting out your life in service of truths built up by that lack of understanding, is unhealthy. Having a healthy mental life must involve at least some reflections about the nature of truth. Without the search for truth, you have nothing except chaos; you, your family, and your community's well being all contingent on the whims of fate (please excuse the poetic license).
@JohnnieHougaardNielsen
2 жыл бұрын
@@RobotProctor Now you're strawmanning me a bit. I very clearly did not endorse "the opposite", and instead stressed the importance of realizing to not understand, and to not impose your worldview on others. And I do see it as just fine with people, say, using a radio, without some sort of obligation to seek understanding about how it works, as long as they do not make up fanciful stories about what their "less informed" guesses. The world is too complex to expect everyone to understand much, and while I do like to have a very wide understanding of lots of things, I realize that this cannot be be a categorical imperative. While seeking to understand is of course a good thing, I do not see it as a failure to not understand how a tree works.
@DianaCHewitt
2 жыл бұрын
People should become more comfortable with saying "I don't know" when trying to explain phenomenon. Appeals to the supernatural appear to be a less uncomfortable version of saying "I don't know" by making up an answer. Even skeptics need to learn to say "I don't know" more often.
@RobotProctor
2 жыл бұрын
@@JohnnieHougaardNielsen I didn't mean to offend, nor strawman. I genuinely interpreted you as saying it's "fine" if people "don't understand ... how to expand knowledge in a reliable way". My opinion is it's a right people have, sure, but it'll be unhealthy, in general, if people don't know how to teach themselves new knowledge reliably. At least in some circumstances (managing one's diabetes for instance), if people either choose not to gain knowledge, or to instead substitute unreliable ways of gaining knowledge (taking the authority of a healing crystal shaman, for instance, instead of taking insulin), then this is not healthy. In other words, reliably gaining knowledge isn't important, until it is. And then it's REALLY important. I'm not saying we ought to apply our understanding of how to gain knowledge reliably to everything. I think it's fine not to know many things. I agree we need to say "I don't know" a lot more. I think a perfect understanding of nuclear reactors is probably not something we all ought to have. However, when knowledge IS important, like when you want to know how to teach your first child responsible driving habits at the age of 16, knowing reliable ways of gaining knowledge becomes important.
@lemon-yi6yh
2 жыл бұрын
It's not fine at all to be ignorant, ignorance leads to suffering, some guy observed this 2 millennia ago.
@AlmostEthical
2 жыл бұрын
The closest example I can think of as an existence with almost no induction was the Ruler of the Universe from Hitchhikers Guide. He believed in nothing, including his own senses. His life was only made possible by living with just a cat on a remote, inhospitable planet and having people sometimes bring him supplies. He was almost completely non-functional.
@nickrondinelli1402
2 жыл бұрын
While i respect that youre trying to be charitable to your opposition, faith is not an area you need to defend. It is no comparable to, say, the belief that the external world around us is real because it behaves with consistent and predictable rules. Faith is a sugarcoated way of asserting the supernatural, that which by definition conflicts with the laws of physics. This need not be defended nor be respected.
@MrNikeNicke
2 жыл бұрын
What is your evidence that consistent and predictable rules means that something is real? Do you have proof that the external world is consistent and predictable?
@solidus2916
2 жыл бұрын
Neither thier gods nor your extrernal world can be proving to be "real". For what is real? And why do you trust your memory about events existing and have existed, and your induction about _past events and actions_ being replicable and capable of being replicated, and that they could never change? Why do you think that an object would always r returne to the ground when it is thrown up in the air? Maybe next time you drop your toast and it goes up instead of down. Why is it not a _possibilty_ ?
@MrNikeNicke
2 жыл бұрын
@@wesbyEric I'm all in favour of science, and yes, most of science is based on this assumption, doesn't mean it's not an assumption. I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying it's ultimately based in faith. If we are to reason we need axioms, axioms are by definition without evidence. Now I happen to be pretty convinced of the simulation argument, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
@@wesbyEric There is an assumption in that approach that reality can be reduced to duality - true/false, real/fake, fact/opinion. If that assumption is incorrect then that would mean any attempt to predict, test, and verify reality into these separate opposing buckets would be spinning wheels and going no where. This is, of course, depending on the goal. If the goal is to cure cancer then they will certainly get somewhere, but if the goal is to understand what this experience or reality is then those assumptions are a blind spot for sure. I think it is possible to address all assumptions and find out what this reality is, but it takes an approach very few will even consider and is also counter productive to most people's worldly goals, especially scientists. If, let's say a scientist has been chasing "truth" their whole life and feeling like they're making tons of progress working at a great place with people they love, but then come to face that perhaps literally all of it their whole life was the wrong approach/direction. Who would have the guts to make a serious consideration of that?
@kanna-chan6680
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday I think we should just chill, relax and focus on other things.
@etincardiaego
2 жыл бұрын
The examples you said are pragmatically justified, and very well justified in that sense. They wouldn't be justified if you are some kind of hardcore verificationist, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
@AzimuthTao
2 жыл бұрын
It would have been nice if Alex had hung around long enough to debate Jordan Peterson. I'm not sure why Cambridge would bother to invite such a silly man though.
@Chiungalla79
2 ай бұрын
Jordan had some good points in his early days on youtube. And a good way of communicating them. But now he is just cashing in and his drug addiction did further damage to his critical faculties. But it is also the fact that the rational crowd abandoned him a while ago. And now he is just doing fan service for those remaining his crowd.
@vakusdrake3224
2 жыл бұрын
I reject the core premise here because the notion of properly basic beliefs is absurd and unnecessary (as well as shooting yourself in the foot): It does not follow from the fact one acts as though induction works that such a belief must be justified. You simply act as if induction works, the external world exists, etc, because of an inability to imagine any other viable way of behaving.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
"inability to imagine any other way of behaving". The only other way is to cease imagining at all. Only then will things appear as they really are.
@vandpiben
2 жыл бұрын
Consciousness as a derivative of the synaesthesia of basic senses is mere the equilibrium of information of supply/demand on a cellular level
@DianaCHewitt
2 жыл бұрын
At some level we are all making assumptions that are useful because without those assumptions we only have Cartesian skepticism left. Its OK to acknowledge our foundational claims are assumptions not based on evidence but what we find useful.
@vakusdrake3224
2 жыл бұрын
+DH @DH You're entirely missing my point: Just because you can't see how to act as if certain beliefs are false *doesn't justify assuming they are true.*
@ahampurushahasmi6040
2 жыл бұрын
@@vakusdrake3224 No, it perfectly justifies the supposition of those basics as true. The justification of assuming as though something is true lies in how useful the assumption is to build a foundation for a discussion. Keep in mind, the actual validity of those basics is not what is in question here but merely the utility in accepting them as though they are true.
@bobon123
2 жыл бұрын
I mostly agree with the overall point, and I think many people commenting are not getting the point. However I would be more trenchant on JP position you mention at the end. The idea that religion is a fundamental belief that we cannot do otherwise is just not supported. A fundamental belief is *not* something that we _have to believe,_ it is something we _have to act _*_as if_*_ it is true._ I am agnostic (I do not believe that real knowledge can be acquired) on the question if reality around me is real or if I am a brain in a vat, in the same way in which I am agnostic on the existence of God (I enjoy some philosophical arguments, but they feel more like academic divertissements). But, on the first question I behave _as if_ it were true, because otherwise there is no reason to act in any specific way; on the second question however, I do not have any reason to behave as if God were true and therefore I am an atheist. Even if I were to assume that without God there was no morality and I would therefore act immorally like in JP dreams, I could still live a very coherent life of pleasure. There is no reason to consider that I cannot live a life without belief in God, _even if_ we were to misguidedly assume that morality only comes from God and one cannot be moral without believing in God. A moral meter, even a subjective one, is not a necessary condition to live a life in the same way in which it is important to believe in the existence of reality.
@marcelocardoso1507
2 жыл бұрын
Ok, but bear in mind that while Peterson himself might (and might not) be considered in some sense religious, his main usage of the term God is jungian in the sense of what God represents to the human mind (whats highest among your values, for example) with its symbols and archetypes. That's why he can go back and forth with ease from the pages of the bible to ancient pagan mesopothamian beliefs, to egptian mythology etc... even though those sources on the surface/literal level contradict each others claims, in more broad terms they all can be used to talk about this collective intuition about life.
@bobon123
2 жыл бұрын
@@marcelocardoso1507 The first JP, yes. Even if he kept avoiding stating clearly what he believed exactly, for example in the first debate with Sam Harris, muddling behind his hierarchical definition of truth a very simple concept: he did not believe in God (and Christ in particular), but he believed that believing in God (and Christ in particular) was beneficial. He never accepted to state this in clear words however, since most of his fans were polarized and related to the American religious right. However after his breakdown he became more and more properly religious, and in many occasions lately he explicitly said that he believes in the literal resurrection, etc etc.
@marcelocardoso1507
2 жыл бұрын
@@bobon123 Interesting, could you point to me in which point of their first debate you could tell Peterson was an atheist ? I've notices that he became more religious after his return but I dont expect him from now on to be narrowing his lectures from broad jungian terms to some specific literal religious preaching. Also one thing doesnt exclude the other... I'm a liberal christian and was already open to learning buddist/taoist philosophy but became more open to learn from ancient mythology and other contemporary religions from hearing him, not because I began to believe in those but for realizing the collective wisdom behind them.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
@@marcelocardoso1507 That's a great observation about Jordan Peterson! He believes that there is something significant to religion in the underlying principles. This affords him a lot of benefits where he can study religions open-mindedly without any attachment or conflict and see similarities between them. It seems rare (to me) for someone to be able to take this approach. I think that's what makes him a great psychologist too, what's important to him is a meta perspective on the situation. But yeah I like that you pointed that out.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Well said on all points.
@bourbonyoung6237
2 жыл бұрын
So what? It’s irrelevant what humanities shortcomings are. It’s irrelevant how hypocritical we are It’s also irrelevant if advocates of science are dissonant or advocate fallacies. None of the entities being discussed, unilaterally created the law or the the punishment. God is the one that has to justify applying an infinite punishment to finite crimes, while only providing one subjective book, to some. He is the one that has to justify judging his own offspring. He is the one that has to justify impregnating a betrothed woman. He is the one that has to justify killing all sentient life because one form of life offended him. ( Except two of each). None of it is justified by scientists shortcomings. None. It may not disprove his existence, but it does remove the foundation of his earthly representation. His church is built on a lie. I simply don’t care if he exists. The suffering has been caused by his representatives in the physical world. There is zero reason to continue protecting stupidity while others suffer. There is even less reason to legally protect the cause of the suffering. We did this crap to ourselves.
@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172
2 жыл бұрын
I'd define Faith:= belief with purpose, but without evidence
@carnivorous_vegan
2 жыл бұрын
wth does belief with purpose mean. You can say every belief has purpose.
@Noblility
2 жыл бұрын
Biblically speaking the act of having faith is in and of itself evidence. It's a wonderful world we live in.
@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172
2 жыл бұрын
@@carnivorous_vegan Might be. I just mean that a purpose is a reason to believe something, even if there is no evidence for it. You can imagine believing something without a reason, and I think that's why people feel misunderstood by the definition "faith is just belief without evidence"
@nookymonster1
2 жыл бұрын
@@Noblility , biblically speaking, that is a really stupid conclusion.
@Zahlenteufel1
2 жыл бұрын
I'd love an elaboration on this topic in a video on the main channel!
@Mattz554
2 жыл бұрын
I love watching Alex teach.
@edgarmorales4476
2 жыл бұрын
Earthly Consciousness is a fabric we spin with our thoughts and feelings. If only we had heightened perceptions - we would see it as a kind of dense fog. This is released into the air around us. When it is not ignited with the powerful drive of desire - intention and purpose - it lies around us like so much waste. But when our thoughts and feelings unite in thought patterns of desire - or intention or purpose - we have created a life-form. That life-form is a blueprint - an electrical outline of our intention and the corresponding magnetic field of emotion draws particles of energy together to bring this driving intention into visible manifestation. Please realize that this creation in the unseen around us is OURS. Out of our limited knowledge of ourselves - yes - our very limited knowledge of ourselves - what we really believe - how we really react in certain circumstances - how we really impinge upon the environment and affect other people - how truly honest we are in all circumstances - out of this very limited knowledge - we contrive to build these consciousness forms - the blueprints of our desires - intentions and purposes to be experienced in the future. We do this unknowingly until we realize what we are doing. Then we will possibly join a class where we will be taught to do it deliberately. Believe me - these are spurious creations. Do not do it. We see with limited vision. We do not know how we can actually distort the paths of others by this belief that we know what is best for ourselves or others. This is true error - this is a true trap for the unknowing. Created by the Ego (the guardian of individuality). Hundreds of thousands - probably millions - believe that because they say: "It is so"... in faith... that statement will make it so. But they have no idea of what really lies in wait for them because of the various cosmic influences which play a huge part in their daily experience. They do not know what lies in wait as a result of their thinking and behavior in the past. We cannot create the perfect life for ourselves - until we - ourselves - are absolutely perfect within our mind - heart and actions and have worked through a kind of recompense for past hurts we have inflicted. And yet millions of our financial currency are being spent on acquiring the knowledge of how to potently form such consciousness forms as will override all the energy blueprints surrounding us and make them null and void. We are all going in the wrong direction. All that we seek in harmony and health will elude us until we fully understand that EGO (the guardian of individuality) cannot create PERFECTION - until we wake up to the beautiful all-giving nature of Divine Consciousness which is our true Source of Being - the true Source of health - achievement and inspiration. We are like children in a playground - playing together - making up stories of make-believe and wondering why the make-believe does not work. The children are excited and energized by the imaginative and happy stories they tell each other - but when they go home - they have to face the realities of life as their parents live it.
@mailill
9 ай бұрын
Faith = belief in metaphysical ideas based on strong feelings connected to certain underlying psychological needs, the metaphysical ideas being a means to trying to fulfill those needs.
@ladulaser
Жыл бұрын
Don't they teach the three postulates of science anymore? The first postulate states that the external world actually is - no need to verify all of that sensory input, just roll with it. The second postulate states that nature is uniform - stuff doesn't chaotically appear or disappear or turn into something else as if pointed at with a magic stick. The third postulate states that there are symbols in the mind which stand for events things in the external world - we can name stuff in the world and use those names to communicate ideas, so that nothing can have the quality of being a priori "un-knowable".
@BenCarnage
2 жыл бұрын
I think axioms or properly basic beliefs or whatever you label those initial assumptions that Alex points to don't justify religious belief. The whole point of properly basic beliefs is that they are what is the bare minimum starting point to reason from. This makes all theistic religions very dubious as to if they could ever qualify. Poetically one could say properly basic things are the way they are by the will of the universe, but you're defeating the point of these basic assumptions by adding intention or agency to the process. Every extra element you then try to tag to this ''will of the universe'' is a further unnecessary point. The reason that we reason isn't that it is necessarily flawless, but because it demonstrably helps us separate the likely true from the likely untrue. Reason is testable and repeatable. My assumption that gravity will work tomorrow as well isn't just arbitrary and without consequence, which a step out of a nearby window can validate. What religious argument mostly entails as to this is pleading for exceptions to both practical and purely logical reasoning that must be applied to other avenues of life. Unless a religious person rejects shared reality entirely, they are pleading for reasoning that leads to false conclusions in all other contexts.
@albertdepeal9658
Жыл бұрын
Faith is such a misunderstood word, all it really means is acceptance that whatever conclusion you reach is true. Everyone has faith. Theists have total blind faith that they'll experience the reality of their god, someday. Atheists have total blind faith that science will be able to explain how life began without divine input, someday. Agnostics have total blind faith in their conclusion that belief in one or the other doesn't really matter.
@lastround2357
2 жыл бұрын
finally addressing Peterson. also is it just me or it looks like that lady totally had a crush on Alex? she was staring at Alex's eyes or face the whole time. lol not trying to be rude
@henochparks
Жыл бұрын
There are divine beings. I know many people who have seen them. No joke. They do not share normally.
@richdandanell2911
2 жыл бұрын
Most people have belief's that don't have evidence for them . But most of these belief's and mundane and insignificant . If you hold a core belief that is the main influence of your world view and is how you are perceiving reality . That belief needs to be based on verifiable testable evidence , reason and critical thinking . If it isn't and your belief contradicts and conflicts with reality and the evidence we can test and verify . Then you are being irrational and you are likely be harmful or dangerous to yourself and every one around you . Religion is the perfect example of this . The best goal to avoid being one of these types of people is to strive be belief as many true things as possible and as few false thing as possible . And the tools to use for this is skepticism reason critical thinking and logic . Above all you need to be honest with yourself and not twist the evidence to fit what you wish it was or where you want it to lead . You should proportion you belief's to the available evidence and that's it .
@Brandon75689
2 жыл бұрын
Well its not the only fact that Religion relies on faith and faith is belief without evidence. I think it spawns from the fact (no pun intended) that religion claims to be something from a belief without evidence whilst claiming to be something larger in the materialistic world. Also, not only does it try to have faith without evidence but many times makes OTHER claims without evidence. I can't think of anything else that is as large, potent, moving, and motivational as something like religion that is attacked by skeptics as the belief without evidence. Someone in the comments below says that he saw the definition as "Faith is the right to not understand". Which is perfectly fine. But you feel an unsettling feeling with that when the whole process of materialistic / science thinking is to know that "we do not understand many things". You're hard-pressed to accept that definition when, outside the belief of God, they claim to have far more answers than we do. ON TOP OF THAT, many Christians claim that science is also a religion, why? Because many of them use terms like "We Believe". But they don't understand that "We Believe" is a lot different than "I Believe". With 'we' we are working together, double checking against cognitive bias and dissonance. They also don't seem to understand that "Believe" to a scientist is "We have pretty damn good evidence but the results are still inconclusive" where as Theists never had to go through this process ever. They either are or aren't.
@hansdemos6510
2 жыл бұрын
Surely the essential difference between the "properly basic" assumptions of a religion or other dogmatic ideology and the "properly basic" assumptions of a skeptic is that a skeptic will always be willing to evaluate, test, verify, amend, and even abolish such assumptions if and when some method for doing so would become available, while a dogmatic ideologue would not be willing to do so.
@busylivingnotdying
2 жыл бұрын
That is true, but a dogmatic and ideological belief in God is not the only way to believe in God. It could be a temporary category for the inexplicable (to be reviewed upon further evidence) and a comfort for the child in you who hope that we arrive at a safe harbor. Note: Key here is HOPE. It should ALSO be adjusted with new insight
@hansdemos6510
2 жыл бұрын
@@busylivingnotdying I would say that as long as there is insufficient objectively convincing evidence for a deity to warrant rational acceptance of its existence, any belief in a deity needs to be dogmatic. I don't see how you can avoid the "properly basic" assumption that this deity exists, and I also don't see how you can prevent such an assumption from being dogmatic, because you would be unable to question it.
@busylivingnotdying
2 жыл бұрын
@@hansdemos6510 I don't think you have to have "properly basic assumptions" about ULTIMATE REALITY, because it falls so far outside our little lives. Example: I don't know what a pilot is doing in the cockpit when I fly. (I'm hoping she's getting us safely down on the ground), but that activity falls COMPLETELY outside my level of competency. BUT, landing safely happens without ME understanding it. And I don't HAVE TO understand it for it to happen. AND hoping that we reach our destiny, helps me relax and enjoy the flight. Put another way: Dogmatic belief in a pilot is saying: I have to understand that she pushes THOSE buttons and does something I understand in order for us to land safely. And if I believe INCORRECTLY about her activity, we all die! It doesn't matter what I think of the pilot, but it might help ME to trust her! Do you get my drift?
@hansdemos6510
2 жыл бұрын
@@busylivingnotdying No, I don't think I get your drift at all. You don't need to know what a pilot is doing, but you do have sufficient objectively convincing evidence that a competent person is flying the plane. Your analogy therefore does not correctly represent religion, because there is no religion that has sufficient objectively convincing evidence for its deity. Given the fact that there is not sufficient objectively convincing evidence for any deity, any belief in the existence of a deity needs to be dogmatic. You said: _"Put another way: Dogmatic belief in a pilot is saying: I have to understand that she pushes THOSE buttons and does something I understand in order for us to land safely."_ I don't think that is true at all. Dogmatic belief in a pilot would not be required, because there would be sufficient objectively convincing evidence that a pilot would be flying the plane (for example, the unworried appearance of the cabin staff, the fact the plane took off smoothly, etc.). I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean at all.
@busylivingnotdying
2 жыл бұрын
@@hansdemos6510 Let's see if I can help you understand what I'm saying (remember: all analogies are imperfect): We are as "dogmatic" or understanding as we CAN be. But life hints at mysteries FAR OUTSIDE our understanding. The plane example: You get as many "hints" that everything is OK as you CAN when you fly, but you don't know. And if you are a child, or someone particularly incompetent, your level of trust must increase in order to not be frightened. I think death and ultimate purpose falls into that category. That is: something beyond our understanding, so dogmatism and certainty is "beyond reach". To use your analogy: we CANNOT read the faces of the crew, because NOBODY has experienced death and come back to tell about it, so we just don't know .. I cannot reach behind death or see some ultimate purpose yet I have to face life AND death. Like a child on a plane, it "behooves" me to trust that there is someone in charge better equipped than me to make this "make sense" Some people don't need that but others do. And as long as ULTIMATE reality is so far beyond our reach, there is room for imagining a purpose and "comfort" without those who don't need it to say: -nonsense there ain't nothing there because they don't know EITHER as long as one does not force the issue ..
@JM-us3fr
2 жыл бұрын
I also think there should be a distinguishment between the philosophically idealized version of a skeptic (one who follows the ideology of Skepticism to a ‘t’) and a member of the Skeptic community (one who believes in Skepticism, but doesn’t necessarily follow it perfectly). There’s no reason the idealized version ought to be attainable, so it is entirely conceivable that a skeptic could hold unjustified beliefs.
@ComfyDents
2 жыл бұрын
Yes sure. Same for most technical terms. The terms people throw at each other in each politcal debate are a mess. ^^ It's funny when the same social market economy gets insulted as capitalism and socialism at the same time by people who can't think in more than two cathegories. :'D
@JM-us3fr
2 жыл бұрын
@@ComfyDents Yes, though to distinguish myself from Alex, he seemed to be saying that there are some beliefs for which we know are unjustified and yet can't help but behave as if they were true merely out of psychological disposition. I'm not sure if this is true, but I'm even less sure if this would necessitate a *belief*
@ComfyDents
2 жыл бұрын
@@JM-us3fr Ah, good thought.
@pretzelogic2689
Ай бұрын
You will have to be more specific.
@zupacs
2 жыл бұрын
To assume the existence of the external world or the existence of other minds is not belief. They are just practical assumptions that simplify thinking. To reject these assumptions would not lead to any other behaviour. If there is no external world, but nevertheless everything affects me as it does, fire causes me pain, chocolate gives me pleasure, I will still behave in the same way, I just have to put the reason for my action into a more complex formulation. I would no longer refer to the existing external world, only to my impressions. An unnecessary complication. So these ideas are not beliefs.
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
In modern analytic philosophy a belief is *an attitude of agreement towards a proposition.* When I (and you, perhaps) comprehend the propositional content of the statement “there is an external world” or "induction is valid" my (and your, perhaps) immediate psychological reaction is one of agreement. Thus, I have a belief that there is an external world.
@zupacs
2 жыл бұрын
@@mil401 We can call these ideas also beliefs, similar to the religious beliefs but this is a source of misunderstanding, since they are different in an important aspect. The religious belief can be discarded and lead to different behavior if I do not assume that a god has given me such and such commands, whereas discarding the beliefs discussed here makes no difference, only makes thinking and communicating more difficult.
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
@@zupacs I don't think I could not believe that induction is valid. I do see what you mean though about this asymmetry betwean common foundational beliefs and religious ones. Then again, our belief that there is an external world or iduction is valid does motivate us to take actions in a way not unlike religious hinge comintments can. If I thought I was the only mind for example, my metaethics would be quite different.
@zupacs
2 жыл бұрын
@@mil401 " If I thought I was the only mind for example, my metaethics would be quite different." Can you tell me in what sense it would be different? Because I don't see that was true. Solipsism is a meaningless metaphysical position, because it does not form a different behavior in any way. It is in vain for me to assume that only my mind exists if I nevertheless receive the same stimuli, the same feedback from the world, as if other minds existed, then there is no reason for me to behave differently. For example, will I have a reason to kill something that looks human if I assume it is just a puppet? No, because whatever I believe will still get me arrested and punished.
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
@@zupacs If I was the only mind I wouldn't see any reason to try and decrease any of the suffering I see around me. Why should I, say, anonymously donate money to help starving children if I was the only mind that could actually experience the qualia of hunger?
@sulikotai8145
2 жыл бұрын
Reason to live #5: to watch how much Alex's influence grows over the next century
@aaronlawrence6350
2 жыл бұрын
I agree that some beliefs are held almost as axioms -- that I'm real, and this world is real, and logic works as I think it does, etc. I can't break those things down any deeper, it can't get more fundamental. But I have to believe those because otherwise I can't function, I can't escape danger, I can't have conversations with others. And I don't think this is a problem, because religious people also have the same beliefs. We all uniformly agree on these fundamental principles that are necessary for humans to live on this rock together. But the religious then take it a step further with the religious part, and I don't think that's a justified step. I can't function without assuming this world is real, but I can definitely function without assuming a god is real. That's where they lose me. It's almost like Occam's Razor in a sense -- amongst competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is most likely. We all share the assumptions of reality and logic, but the religious add one more -- one that is not justified by necessity, and therefore can't just be assumed, but must be proven.
@sebastianriss
2 жыл бұрын
If I’m understanding the razor you brought into your argument correctly isn’t it more likely that the outside world doesn’t exist because it’s another assumption one would have to make?
@aaronlawrence6350
2 жыл бұрын
@@sebastianriss But both religious and non-religious people have to assume the outside world exists, was my point. I have to assume I'm real, the world is real, and logic works, but I don't have to assume a god is real. I make one less assumption than a religious person, so I'm more likely to be right. If I make one less assumption than that, maybe not assuming the world is real, then I can't really engage with anything at all in a serious and meaningful fashion. I can't talk to you, because maybe I'm talking to myself. I can't talk to a religious person about god, because maybe they and god are also just me talking to myself. If I don't assume the external world is real, then the entire god-concept doesn't matter anyway.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
"But I have to believe those because otherwise I can't function, I can't escape danger, I can't have conversations with others." Why would this be the case without those assumptions? I think it would be even more functional. "And I don't think this is a problem, because religious people also have the same beliefs." Depends who you talk to. I think a lot of the people who hold those same beliefs misunderstand what the religion was trying to teach lol. Essentially turning a non-dual teaching into a dual teaching by misunderstanding. So some religious people accept the same assumptions as an atheist and some don't. "It's almost like Occam's Razor in a sense -- amongst competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is most likely." So for the religious people who add assumptions to a shared set, then yes, Occam's Razor definitely can cut those out. But by applying Occam's Razor to the shared set, you'll end up with an even smaller set which I think gets you closer to the original intention behind religion (just my opinion because I can't ask the OG people lol). But now we run into a problem. It's easy to understand added assumptions, but not easy to understand fewer assumptions. That is because those assumptions will keep creeping back in and corrupting the view. I think that explains why it seems to you that fewer assumptions would be non-functional - the view you're trying to see is still being affected by those assumptions.
@sebastianriss
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday I’m glad to see you commenting here as well. What you’re saying sounds interesting yet I’m not sure if I do understand even the slightest bit of it. I can follow your line of thought but what on earth is this awareness of viewer assumptions when radically applying Occam’s Razor? It seems that everything sort of collapses into solipsism.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
@@sebastianriss Awareness of viewer assumptions when radically applying Occam’s Razor? Are you referring to when I talked about assumptions creeping in and corrupting the view? Can you quote the part where I lost you? What do you think about solipsism? Can you find any assumptions in it too?
@OneMoreJames
2 жыл бұрын
But I am fine admitting that the world could be a simulation or I could be the only self-awareness. I just don't think there is any reason to believe those are the case, nor do I think it would matter. Whereas a theist BELIEVES they are right, not that they are probably right, but could be wrong. I don't agree that my provisional belief that there are other consciousnesses is the same as a Christian's non-negotiable belief in the Abrahamic God.
@TheBaconWizard
2 жыл бұрын
Right. It COULD be a simulation. But you have no reason to suppose-so, and you have SOME reason (experience) to suppose otherwise. One is forced to make a bet as to which is true. The odds are very clearly in favour of the latter. Furthermore, there is no utility in the first proposition: Utility doesn't make something true of course, but in this case one has no choice in the matter: Either believe in existance that is external to your own mind, or cease to be.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheBaconWizard "Furthermore, there is no utility in the first proposition". I think there is great utility in the first. One of the main motivating factors for awakening is the end of suffering. Cessation cuts the roots that are the conditions for suffering. Another main motivating factor is to comprehend what this experience is. Deeply investigating sensational experience also leads to cessation. Or maybe you just love mind-blowing experiences. Nothing could be more mind-blowing then seeing a whole new reality!
@TheBaconWizard
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday That was word salad. Explain what utility there would be in assuming that nothing exists outside your own mind? You would literally just die.
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheBaconWizard I listed 3 examples of utility: end of suffering, comprehension what this experience is, and enjoying mind-blowing experiences. Why would you consciously choose to resist, reject, fear, or attack your own mind? These things come from a sense of separation, a perceptual split between self and other. Rather it would make sense to choose acceptance, non-judgement, and embracement. "You would literally just die." - What are you if there is no other? What does that make death? This is a whole different paradigm we're talking about now. Everything has to be reconsidered without the pre-existing assumptions of external world.
@TheBaconWizard
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday Literally just word salad.
@deadbunnyeyes190
2 жыл бұрын
That girl is captivated... Anyways, does the Canadian psychologist you referred to happen to be Jordan Peterson?
@deadbunnyeyes190
2 жыл бұрын
If not, I would like to see a talk between you two :)
@victormd1100
2 жыл бұрын
It seems like we can do something akin to pascal wager to basic beliefs and get that living as if they were true is always best. As an example, if we act as if induction is possible and it truly is, we get understang of the real world as a consequence, while acting as if it isnt just wont give you anything good
@jeffgraham9208
2 жыл бұрын
I think that you are assigning reason to anything with a “brain” by these parameters. It could be an unlearning avoidance of suffering. If someone (assuming we exist) stomps on your foot you would, most likely, act then reason. Why not just jump to “when I actively question my existence is the only time I am certain I exist” When defining the terms, may I suggest: Faith is untestable trust. Still curious if you’re an internalist or externalist. Also, as so many have stated, great stuff and looking forward to you literary outpouring.
@carlosidrovo4965
2 жыл бұрын
If you don't have reasons for your faith, you are acting in a not reasonable way. If God exist (I actually believe it) he has gave us the capability of thinking, asking questions, etc. If we have to reject our reason, in order to find God, He is the one who would be acting in a irreasonable way (a contradiction). And God doesn't contradict himself. Faith in God (for the catholic view at least) is the belief in certain information that we have received (reason) from people that deserve our confidence (is the same when I accept the existence of the protons even if I've never saw it) . In what the catholics belief is for example in the testimony of the Apostles.
@bdnnijs192
2 жыл бұрын
There are many concepts of Gods. The old Greek Gods for example were dikcs that didn't much care for humans. I think your concept of God contains unspoken assumptions that coincicentilly align with (some of) your conclusions. "And God doesn't contradict himself." Which is a conclusion you derived based on your own very specific conception of God, that contains unspoken assumtions that may or may not aloign with that concusion. The most direct deomstration to demonstrate accepting God is reasonable is to present a reasonable argument for Giod here and now.
@dynamic9016
2 жыл бұрын
Good information.
@pourygin9496
2 жыл бұрын
I'm skeptical of three meals a day.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Towards the end of this talk, we get to a consideration that could be expanded upon a bit more. If some person for the moment were to set aside reason, and set aside the notion of being guided by some invisible moral authority, indeed as much as possible set aside ALL concepts as a source of motivation, would that person then jump in front of a moving train, or go out on a rampage of crime? The answer is: probably no. Unless the person was at unusual risk of acting badly anyway, that person would probably go making their peanut butter sandwich or whatever. Many, if not most, of our daily actions are benign, or if they're ethically a bit trick, they're often justified after the fact. We act much like other social species when left to our innate instincts. This is demonstrably sufficient for the survival of any such species, including ours for hundreds of thousands of years. We can do better, certainly, but it's sufficient. I think that we often overlook this very important consideration. Why? Because it refers to unconscious motivation. It's hard to treat anything seriously if we're not consciously aware of it. But instinct is always operating to influence our decisions just the same. Conceptual justifications are artifacts that we either layer on top of whatever we would instinctively do anyway, or layer on top of those instincts in order to keep them in check. And this is a very important human activity, to be sure. But it's not all that's going on under the hood. And so, just as there is no validity to the claim that we get our morals from god, there's almost no validity to the claim that we get them from reason. One way or another, we're building them out of our own nature, and in order for them to function they have to be closely congruent with that nature. This explains why mask wearing and vaccination were not easy to implement even during the worst of the pandemic. All the sound reasons in the world, and all the appeals to faith in authority whether religious or secular, were unable convince some people. Why not? It seems odd to say it, but because it wasn't in their nature. They didn't need a reason, or anyway the reasons these people gave were clearly not very good ones. That didn't matter, because individual instinct was in control of their choices. Ordinarily, natural selection would take care of this, and according to morbidity statistics it has. It's just that we can do better than instinct, if we try. But ironically, we have to individually have the instinct to try.
@danzmind27
2 жыл бұрын
Please let me know when you are in Cornwall.
@Noblility
2 жыл бұрын
So everyone has faith and everyone is a skeptic?
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
Pretty much, yes.
@martinwharmby1528
2 жыл бұрын
Allow your students to contribute!
@Ammeo
2 жыл бұрын
The cruel, violent and unjust design of nature is enough to tell me there is no such thing as god
@alsbackyardscuba2703
2 жыл бұрын
Biblical faith is not, and never has been, belief in something without evidence. The basic nature of "faith", according the the Judeo-Christian library of books called The Bible, is TRUST in a source that has shown itself to be true, and confidence in that source even when the holder of faith doesn't have exhaustive evidence. The Bible calls humans to have faith (trust) in God based on sufficient, but not exhaustive, evidence. As an example, take the very existence of God Himself. Some of the rational evidence supporting the notion of a great Creator would be: the universe had a beginning; the fine-tuning aspects of the universe (including the laws of physics themselves); the uniqueness of the human species as compared to other creatures on planet Earth; the extraordinary and inexplicable nature of human consciousness; etc. These evidences POINT to a cosmic Creator. The next question to ask is: has the Creator revealed Himself in a manner we can understand, and is there a record of that revelation? The Bible presents a God who has done that and given evidence of it in confirmable, historical ways. I could go on, but I think that's enough to convey what true "faith" is.
@billnyethescienceguy4502
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah… you’re wrong
@ZebidiahChaos
2 жыл бұрын
_The Bible calls humans to have faith (trust) in God based on sufficient, but not exhaustive evidence_ I think is demonstrably false. I do not believe in the Christian God (or any other God that I've heard about), therefore *insufficient* evidence has been provided to me. Would you accept this statement? If not, why not?
@TamerSpoon3
2 жыл бұрын
@@ZebidiahChaos Insufficient evidence provided to you is not the same is insufficient evidence to believe, unless you can demonstrate how your personal belief is a necessary condition for truth. In fact, I can almost guarantee that there are things you don't believe that are true. You could be ignorant of the totally of the evidence, have misunderstood or misevaluated the evidence, or conditioned yourself emotionally to baselessly reject the truth of the evidence. That's what the point of "sufficient, but not exhaustive" is, meaning "enough to believe, but not necessarily enough to compel belief". I don't think anyone has ever argued the the evidence is enough to "compel" belief where it would be 100% irrational to not believe, though that still could be the case.
@ZebidiahChaos
2 жыл бұрын
@@TamerSpoon3 _Insufficient evidence provided to you is not the same is insufficient evidence to believe_ This is just incorrect. Just in case I didn't make myself clear, I'm talking about myself, and I'm saying that sufficient evidence for me to believe has not been provided, this is demonstrated by the fact that I do not believe. _unless you can demonstrate how your personal belief is a necessary condition for truth_ This is not about truth, just about belief, my belief. Of course it would be nice for the things that we believe in were true, or would only believe in true things. _In fact, I can almost guarantee that there are things you don't believe that are true_ I would agree, and would be shocked if it were otherwise. _You could be ignorant of the totally of the evidence, have misunderstood or misevaluated the evidence, or conditioned yourself emotionally to baselessly reject the truth of the evidence. That's what the point of "sufficient, but not exhaustive" is, meaning "enough to believe, but not necessarily enough to compel belief". I don't think anyone has ever argued the the evidence is enough to "compel" belief where it would be 100% irrational to not believe, though that still could be the case_ This makes me think we might be talking past each other, as this is what I am trying to get at. If sufficient evidence had been provided, then it would compel my belief. If it doesn't compel my belief then it is insufficient. Hopefully, I've made myself clear and not misunderstood your point. If so, I apologise.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
It's called "begging the question." It's a fallacy.
@lad4694
2 ай бұрын
Where's the full talk?
@xavierpowers12
2 жыл бұрын
I think Alex is my favorite skepticism youtuber
@GSpotter63
2 жыл бұрын
I have faith in what the bible has to say not because of what I don't know (AKA Belief without evidence) but because of what I do know.... Your argument is fallacious because it is based on a false pretense. Faith is not a belief without evidence. Applying your own false narrative to other peoples ideas then proceeding to criticize them for your own made up BS is also logically incoherent.
@bdnnijs192
2 жыл бұрын
"Faith is not a belief without evidence" Mind if I ask for you to show your evidencde?
@GSpotter63
2 жыл бұрын
@@bdnnijs192 The Internet is rife with it if you choose not to find it that's your own fault. The amount of archeological historical and geological evidence supporting The Bible is mind boggling. Just the evidence from fulfilled prophecy alone is more than enough to confirm its authenticity. In contrast the amount holes and assumptions used in the evolutionary theory that one must just accept on faith is far worse than any Christianity. It is impossible to come to a correct and accurate assessment by looking at only one side of a debate.
@bdnnijs192
2 жыл бұрын
@@GSpotter63 Nothing speaks faith in your own arguments like telling someone to [x] off when they ask you to explain more. "Just the evidence from fulfilled prophecy alone" Present even one. "The amount of archeological historical and geological evidence supporting The Bible is mind boggling." What kind of archeological evidence boggles your mind? Maybe your mind is just easily boggled. "that one must just accept on faith" Which... of course any Christian is fine with. If anything, according to a lot of Christians it's even a commendable trait even. For example: Qoute: "I have faith in what the bible has to say" The worst that could happen for many Christians, what absolutely would make many Christians shit their pants, is when atheists start to adopt faiths as a path to atheism. That'll force a lot of Christians scratch the back of their heads and reconsider Christianity. p.s. "the evolutionary theory" Why bring up evolution? I didn't even mention it. You sound like an educated chap. Surely your rejection of evolution doesn't even factor in why you believe in the Bible?
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@@GSpotter63 So, you've got nothing. That's not remotely convincing.
@GSpotter63
2 жыл бұрын
@@starfishsystems Your misunderstanding and or deliberate false narratives do nothing to discredit what the bible actuality has to say… Let us take a look at some of the archaeological, historical and geological evidence supporting the stories in the bible. kzitem.info/news/bejne/rZqJq6x6fmp2poo kzitem.info/news/bejne/lZiC0qSfkJpqYKA It took me less than 5 seconds to find this information on KZitem. A Google search gave 116,000 results in .44 seconds. To dismiss the evidences supporting the information found in the bible is paramount to self induced ignorance. Since when do myths and legend leave so much archaeological, historical and geological evidence behind? So tell me, are you really so stupid that you could not find this information yourself or do you stay this ignorant on purpose.
@jacobg1219
Жыл бұрын
me and my brother were talking about this. how our whole idea of morality (from an atheist point of view) is based on belief in the same way that a christian's idea of morality is derived from a belief in god. I've started to debate with people by understanding their beliefs and then manipulating that set of rules to to argument. I love this side of philosophy as its the real meaty stuff that seems like a step back. Unfortunately my re class is more focused on a ping pong of ideas that never seem to develop or build off of each other.
@benjaminschooley3108
2 жыл бұрын
I rather tend to think faith leads to belief in spite of all evidence. The difference here being that I am willing to change my beliefs based on new evidence.
@Giorginho
2 жыл бұрын
Please, talk with Jay Dyer
@geomicpri
2 жыл бұрын
One thing that bothers me is that he does actually still make an epistemic distinction between what we know & what we think we know (aka, believe). Einstein “knew” that entanglement was impossible, until he didn’t. I have faith that the external world exists. I blindly believe the witness of my 5 senses. I don’t see any valuable difference, epistemically speaking, between that faith & my “knowledge” that there is or isn’t a God.
@geomicpri
2 жыл бұрын
My favourite internet atheist! While I arrive at different conclusions than he does, I like how Alex’s thought processes are so honest that they can serve to edify & entertain the atheist & theist alike.
@ina7084
2 жыл бұрын
@@eowyahsan3938 Atheism - a(without) god Agnosticism - a(without) knowledge You can be an agnostic atheist as he was the last time I checked.. I think he still considers himself one if I'm not mistaken.
@seeker3599
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think your argument for why belief in God is not as "basic" as belief that the external world exists holds any weight there. You said they are different because you could conceive of someone wanting to live morally even without a belief in God, yet you could also conceive of someone wanting to live "not randomly" if they didn't believe the external world was real. Perhaps you can find a difference between the two, but you certainly didn't do it there.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
I understand that you might like to develop the idea of god as a properly basic belief, but it isn't. It isn't anywhere close. It's just something that you would like to assume is true, on no evidence. But that's not how these philosophical terms are defined or applied. Any concept of god that someone might develop - and there are thousands of them - is DERIVATIVE of more fundamental concepts, such as existence. In order to say "I believe that a certain kind of god exists" you first have to begin by believing in existence. Then you can consider what sort of things might exist, and how they might be distinguished, and then you can go on to consider that some particular god with certain distinctive properties might be such a thing. That is what's meant by "properly basic." You can immediately see that any sort of god that exists and has distinctive properties is different from some other god that exists and has other distinctive properties. Those two gods are clearly not properly basic, since they both equally derive from more basic beliefs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief
@seeker3599
2 жыл бұрын
@@starfishsystems That's not really what my original comment was about. But addressing your post, most developed religions believe God is "I AM", or the foundation / source of existence. Existence is not seen as "properly basic" as God, unless you assign it the properties most classical theists assign to God, but then you are just redefining terms.
@jacobg1219
Жыл бұрын
What I find interesting is that humans do things we want to do and for many people that is based around their beliefs of what is good or bad (mabey because we have a natural affiliation to good or because we were raised as such) . However, some beliefs seem to contradict each other. Is that because people don't consider things to the point of seeing these contradictions, a wilful ignorance, or that their beliefs dont contradict eachother but rather are explained badly (ie people saying they believe "we shouldn't kill" actually mean that they believe "we shouldn't kill other than in scenario X Y Z ...")? Can you even argue that these are contradictions to someone who doesn't believe in logic or the words "therefore" "because" or "thus"? can you have no belief in logic? Is logic a true truth? are there any true truths?
@beflabbergasted325
2 жыл бұрын
Faith is based upon that which can never be proven on purpose. Without faith, there would be no manipulation. Without manipulation, there would be no fear and without fear, there would be no power. Without power, the multi trillion dollar religious business would not stand a chance. The fact that something can only "exist" based on blind faith and/or belief speaks for itself. If deities were real, belief would not be a prerequisite. People would just acknowledge them. Deities only exist in the minds of those who believe them to exist after they have been put there by someone else usually after the person was born when the person is gullible enough to blindly accept everything they are told without question or, when there is an ulterior motive. They do not just "magically" appear in people`s minds. They are put there. Even the first people who started it all, the shamans, did put the deities in their own heads because they could not understand what their minds were capable of under the effect of some heavy duty hallucinogenic drugs. I love your mind and the way you look at the world. I have been a fan for quite some time. However, I still do not understand how, in the 21st century so much time and money is spent around the world trying to prove or disprove something that was never proven to start with and something that was made unprovable on purpose with the intention of taking advantage of the situation in order to achieve power and money. Also, the story of the alleged anthropomorphic being who killed itself to itself over a weekend, to save humanity from itself would make not only "sin" but the being itself completely irrelevant from that moment onward. If you add the fact that the unknown ancient men who never witnessed anything they claim to have happened, created an powerless deity since an "all-knowing" being would not be able to change anything, or it would not be "all-knowing" in the first place. This render the alleged deity completely powerless. You have a being that is powerless. A being who made itself even more useless when it killed itself to itself to save humans from itself since the moment it did that it renders itself useless. So it is unseable, it is powerless, it is useless, why spend time with any of it? And, yes. It would be an "it" not a "he" and everyone should at least acknowledge that. A being that could have created a world, could not be from that world, making it, by definition, an alien. It sums up to an unseeable, powerless, useless alien that only exists in the minds of those who believe it to exist. So, what gives??
@youdonthavetocomment
2 жыл бұрын
Perhaps god is simply awareness that there is always a consiquence - and believing yourself above it makes it more aware of you (you cannot see without it)
@istvansipos9940
2 жыл бұрын
yes, it is. Even worse: belief= accepting something without evidence AND with evidence to the contrary.
@bjeol
2 жыл бұрын
I am not sure that it is true to say that one can "conceive" of inductive processes failing. Conceptualizations are intellectual endeavors whereby we grasp abstract universals. What Alex (and Hume) are stating is that one could "imagine" such processes failing in the same way that one could imagine a snake biting their hand at any given moment. That one can create a mental image of a certain effect occurring without its corresponding cause is not the same thing as to conceive of the intelligibility of such an occurrence. And I would liken faith to a trust fall; whereby I could indeed convince myself of the fact that I will be dropped, but it is unreasonable to do so if I trust the strength and character of the person behind me :) God has proven to be of such strength and character, but nevertheless our bodies dislike the powerlessness of falling backwards.
@geheimnisvollerundbelanglo9396
2 жыл бұрын
I don't really think "justified" is a good word to use here. "Justified", beeing a past participle, implies that there is something that actually has justified, say, the belief in induction. This, as you point out, is not the case. Our belief in induction might be caused by our essential inability to disbelieve in it, but this is of course no justification, just a cause. In that sence, though we might hold a belief in the validity of induction to be acceptable and even necessary, it is precisely unjustified.
@eldjoudhi
2 жыл бұрын
It's unfortunate that most Jacques Bouveresse's books have not been tranlated to english ( from French) . His two books ( but also the many others he wrote) " Que peut-on faire de la religion"( what can we do with relgion) and " Peut-on ne pas croire - sur la vérité, la croyance et la foi " ( Can we not believe- on truth, belief and faith) ..deconstruct in very analytical and intelligible manner the subtleties of faith based reasoning ... William James vs Clifford's positions ...and postures ..serve as the basis for this deep dive into the analysis ))
@jessicag2586
2 жыл бұрын
WHEN WERE U AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNION?! How did I miss you?
@cartesian_doubt6230
2 жыл бұрын
It can be but not necessarily so. But as a whole, it is simply not true that faith is belief without evidence.
@ibeswimmin
2 жыл бұрын
I think the problem with annoying beliefs is in original intention. Tyranny, self righteousness and narcissism is the bad one manifest; open inquiry and truth seeking is the good one
@demesminp
2 жыл бұрын
If Cosmic ever starts a cult...shorty in the front will be the first member. I think she's in love. lol
@thepubliusproject
2 жыл бұрын
I actually am not convinced that we all hold a bunch of beliefs that are not evidence based. I didn't see any examples listed that most skeptics have failed to address. I know that when I, personally, am asked why I believe something, in every instance I recall I have been able to explain my belief based on reason, or I've acknowledged that I could think of what I meant but not articulate it, or ultimately if I actually didn't have any good reason for a belief, I immediately re-evaluate it.
@DavidAguileraMoncusi
2 жыл бұрын
Think about mathematics. They're all about reason and logic and being demonstrable… but that's actually not true. There are some axioms that can't be proven and are just "true". Well, the same applies to some of our beliefs. Can you prove the external world exists beyond your own experience? Can you prove other people have their own mind and they're not just a product of a hallucination? Can you prove logic and induction work? We need some axioms upon which we build our reason... and those axioms, by definition, can't be proven.
@thepubliusproject
2 жыл бұрын
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi thank you so much for your reply. I really enjoyed giving it thought. Thank you for engaging me honestly. To your question, this line of reasoning was argued by Rene Descartes. No, we can't know much beyond our own existence, but even as Descartes himself concluded, rightly, there is logic and reasoning to support understandings beyond that we simply exist. I know I exist. I know therefore, that I have a mind. My perceptions and my reality tell me I have senses, and these senses combined with repeated empirical results, tell me I am posting on KZitem right now. It's possible that I am actually an android and do not know it, and that I've been programmed to understand my reality this way, but if that's true, it's the only reality I know and therefore it's the only reality that matters to me. It's also the best thing I can get to an actual answer about any question in the universe. There's reasoning there, and evidence for those beliefs. This is _not_ a faith-based belief, and I don't know of any that I hold which are. Did I miss something?
@TamerSpoon3
2 жыл бұрын
@@thepubliusproject Actually, all that you know is that you exist and have a mind. Your "senses" could be just electrical signals fed into, or just spontaneously generated in, your brain and not actually be representatives of something real. This: //My perceptions and my reality tell me I have senses, and these senses combined with repeated empirical results, tell me I am posting on KZitem right now.// Is just circular reasoning. In essence, "my perceptions are reliable because they are". You are using information obtained through your senses to assert that your senses are reliable. This is circular reasoning. If your senses aren't actually reliable, then the fact that the information you get through them appears to be reliable is just that, an appearance. Or in less charitable terms, a delusion. Also this: //It's also the best thing I can get to an actual answer about any question in the universe.// Is refuted by this: //It's possible that I am actually an android and do not know it, and that I've been programmed to understand my reality this way, but if that's true, it's the only reality I know and therefore it's the only reality that matters to me.// If you are an android, there is no reason to think that your understanding of reality in anyway correlates to actual reality. In this case, you are literally treating delusions as fact. It is not physically possible for you to obtain any "actual answers" to questions about the universe because you have no way of getting reliable information from the universe. It is impossible in principle to argue to the reliability of empirical observation from first principles. You have to just assume (meaning believe without evidence or by faith) that it's true that empirical observation is reliable. It doesn't matter if it's, as other people have said, "the only way we can function". It's still a belief that you hold without any evidence.
@thepubliusproject
2 жыл бұрын
@@TamerSpoon3 It's neat that you'd use a Decartes style argument, but seem to be misrepresenting it. The only thing someone can know with _absolute certainty_ is that they exist. The only other two things we can reasonably know with 100% certainty are math and logic, because they're both math. This does not preclude us from reasonable levels of knowing anything else however, and it's absurd to argue that we know nothing at all other than that we exist. It's a truly preposterous notion. To leave out any knowledge beyond us being able to know we exist, and to try to argue that this invalidates _all other knowledge_ would make one completely nihilistic and cynical to the point of literal self-starvation without hesitation. It is _not_ circular reasoning to induce from my senses and my understanding of reality, that I am posting on KZitem right now. If we really wanted to write novels on here, the number of errors in your assertions is pretty high, and it seems to be a pretty pedantic attempt to argue nuances rather than engage in legitimate exchange of ideas. If you'd care to make one assertion at a time, perhaps we could have a productive conversation. Let me know if you're interested in that.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi No mathematician claims that ANY axioms are proven. The whole point is to begin with an explicit and carefully chosen set of assertions called axioms and see where they lead, what richness of structure and patterns and insights emerge, and - perhaps but not necessarily - how these might illuminate our understanding of the material world. Axioms are the ONLY part of a formal system which is NOT proven. They are the basis of the system. It's not a matter of concern whether they're "true" or "false" but only whether they give rise to interesting properties of the system.
@yourfutureself3392
2 жыл бұрын
Very interesting
@kentonian
2 жыл бұрын
I think therefore I am. Anything else is up for grabs.
@BobHutton
2 жыл бұрын
I would have thought parsimony would need come into this discussion.
@darkdragonite1419
2 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't equate the belief in God with the belief in an external world. We CAN interact with the external world and other minds. We can't with God.
@darkdragonite1419
2 жыл бұрын
Even if you want to say I have a belief in an environment, it is justified because we can interact with it. The interaction is the justification, it is the evidence.
@victormd1100
2 жыл бұрын
@@darkdragonite1419 You would still feel like you were interacting with the real world if it were all a projection of your mind or whatever. "Interacting with it" isnt evidence
@ob4161
2 жыл бұрын
Question begging.
@TamerSpoon3
2 жыл бұрын
This is an obvious case of begging the question, lol.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Indeed. If we're interacting, then we're interacting with SOMETHING, even if it's only some unrecognized part of ourselves. Even if the apparent something is only a synthetic presentation, that presentation is different from nothing, and whatever mechanism is responsible for generating the presentation would also be something. We can't, in a Cartesian sense, get beyond observing that some entity which we can call the "self" is at least sufficient to account for all of this, both the apparent introspection and the apparent interaction, as well as any apparent order to it all. And it's the apparent order that seems most interesting, because some entity which we can call "reality" is at least sufficient to account for it too: the apparent presentation, the apparent interaction, and the apparent order. This "reality" behaves in complex ways that exhibit a lot of predictable order and some unpredictable behavior that may either be disorder or some kind of order that we haven't yet learned to predict. All this, I agree, is utterly unlike some entity, which we can call "god," that has NO apparent presentation (no subjective qualia at all, to many of us, including those who appeal to faith rather than personal experience, and no objectively measureable properties at all, to any of us, ever, as far as we can determine) and therefore not even the possibility of apparent interaction or apparent order.
@lendrestapas2505
2 жыл бұрын
Why are you focusing so much on empirical evidence though
@chandir7752
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not religious, but what about the following definition of faith: A belief supported by a certain kind of evidence which can not be shared through any language or symbols with others. This would be more than belief without evidence, yet less than rocksolid proof. Matt Dillahunty once said he doesn't know what would convince him of gods existence, but if there is a god, god would know what would convince him. So maybe this kind of subjective evidence, which is a paradoxical term, is what religious people should argue.
@pauligrossinoz
2 жыл бұрын
That sounds like belief supported only by someone's _ego._ Which is a pretty embarrassing admission, so I don't think religious types will be rushing to admit that!
@paskal007r
2 жыл бұрын
Uhm, no I can justify belief in the existence of the external world and other minds by inductive reasoning and test of predictive hypotheses. So... maybe speak for yourself?
@paskal007r
2 жыл бұрын
as for induction, it has showed a good non-time dependant likelyhood of working, faith hasn't. So if you want to hypothesize that it might not work tomorrow, you are essentially saying that it might be time dependent, which is against the evidence pointing to a lack of correlation with time.
@inbb510
2 жыл бұрын
Alex you should be careful with your wording. There is no such thing as "scientific proof". You can prove things like mathematical claims that help explain the physical word but not science itself. Science is strictly based on empirical observations.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Indeed, use of the phrase "scientific proof" is about as profound a demonstration of ignorance about science as can be imagined. Science doesn't offer proof. Ever. On anything. If someone has failed to notice this, give them a nudge. What science can do is offer disproof. For example, we found evidence that controverted classical Newtonian mechanics under certain conditions. That in itself was a disproof, but a relativistic account of mechanics had to offer something more: a model that worked under classical conditions and also near the speed of light. The new model in turn awaits a better replacement. It should be noted that science also makes very substantial reference to mathematical - and more recently, computational - models. But you're right that such models are only useful to the extent that they help us make sense of observed data.
@roqsteady5290
2 жыл бұрын
This comes across as confused ivory tower philosophy. No we don't have to hold beliefs based on faith, and there is no need for "properly basic" belief nonsense either, because we don't need to even ask those questions about the fundamental basis of reality in order to live our lives and most people don't. It hardly matters if we live in the matrix or are brains in bottles if we never get to take the red pill. In practice rational people take a pragmatic approach to these questions (See JS Peirce and the pragmatic maxim or watch AnticitizenX videos), which basically involves using the scientific method (repeated observation) and seeing how a proposition fits into what we already experienced (or think we experienced if you want to be pedantic)... I believe that falling into deep holes is dangerous, because of past experience not faith. Maybe one day you will fall into a hole and float gently to the ground in defiance of gravity, but I wouldn't coiunt on it!
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
"It hardly matters if we live in the matrix or are brains in bottles if we never get to take the red pill" This statement puts emphasis on the availability of the red pill, but not the ramifications of the red pill. The movie only touched on this briefly, but what do you think would be the actual potential outcomes of this decision and taking the red pill? Some things that come to my mind: hysteria, psychosis, existential dread, hostility, resistance, cognitive dissonance, etc. Losing the reality you believed for a completely new one is not insignificant. But let's say you take the red pill and fully wake up to realize there is no external world and could fully accept this without any of the negative outcomes. Why would it matter? Some things that come to my mind: since you and other are now the same, there's no reason to be afraid, to attack others, to wish things were different, to be discontent, to struggle to meet expectations, etc etc. All of these things are essentially born from the perception that I am a persistent self in a separate alien world, or at least some sense of separation, even if very subtle.
@GGGG_3333
2 жыл бұрын
I believe that Alex is the reincarnation of Hitchens on a basic level. I mean such eloquence can't be achieved by two separate individuals can it 😅
@ErnestPiffel
2 жыл бұрын
He doesn't have Hitchens arrogance or sex appeal. 😉
@GGGG_3333
2 жыл бұрын
@@ErnestPiffel I mean Hitchens had to start somewhere, let's give our boy a few years.
@reedclippings8991
2 жыл бұрын
How well-evidenced a belief is needs to be a spectrum. There is more than enough evidence to justify believing in an external world with a high degree of confidence. What there isn't, is proof. Certainty is what isn't justifiable. Faith doesn't have enough evidence to justify any substantial degree of confidence, and 100% certainty is what is clearly demanded by most of the texts. There's a sheer drop off here.
@christianspanggaard
2 жыл бұрын
Given the current world situation, I would like to request some sort of video on your take on the morality of war. Obviously, my interest in such a video has been spurred by the invasion of Ukraine. Many people automatically take a stance on the war, justifiably so, and thankfully most are strongly against the ongoing invasion, but it may be interesting to get a moral insight into war.
@kristijanpavlovic8605
2 жыл бұрын
Any type of violence is not moral and that includes war.
@billskinner7670
2 жыл бұрын
That was great. He didnt bring up the thing, or even allude to it. Refreshing!
@MarkLucasProductions
2 жыл бұрын
I (as an atheist) have always defined God as 'he whose existence cannot be denied'. I stand by that. I think just as our personal consciousness 'cannot be denied' so too 'God' cannot be denied because they are both one and the same phenomenon - it's just that theists don't realize it.
@agentdarkboote
2 жыл бұрын
🍄
@bike4aday
2 жыл бұрын
"The path to God was never the search for something outside us. It was always the search to answer 'what am I?'"
@agentdarkboote
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday who/what is this quoting?
@MarkLucasProductions
2 жыл бұрын
@@agentdarkboote Myself.
@MarkLucasProductions
2 жыл бұрын
@@bike4aday Exactly. Bravo.
@HappyBloke81
2 жыл бұрын
I searched the dictionary meaning of atheism and it reads : life without brains. The same dictionary had the definition of Faith : belief without evidence. İronic it was in the exact same dictionary. Who knew
@piercemchugh4509
2 жыл бұрын
this was the dictionary in your distorted dreams, put there by brainwashing theists.
@prometheus3498
2 жыл бұрын
Alex's point reminds me quite a bit of Kierkegaard's Athens vs. Jerusalem.
@Zahlenteufel1
2 жыл бұрын
He looks so adult in this :o
@YAWTon
2 жыл бұрын
I agree. I think it is because he _is_ an adult.
@Zahlenteufel1
2 жыл бұрын
@@YAWTon one can be an adult but still look young. Maybe mature would've been a better word instead of adult.
@Bill..N
2 жыл бұрын
Very good.. It is certainly true that all of us have beliefs that we cannot prove.. Even mathematical equations are just useful descriptions of our environment and do not necessarily represent ultimate truth.. Rather than challenging a theist on his lack of evidence, it is more effective to use inherent contradictions within the belief, balanced by lines of logical reasoning.. One must also realize that for the SAME reasons it is not purely correct thinking of oneself as an atheist because a god cannot properly be thought of as an impossibility.. Agnostic would be the technically correct word..
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Atheism is the position of not being convinced by claims that a god exists. It does not make any positive claim of its own. Consider a jar that contains a large number of marbles. Suppose we agree that the number of marbles in the jar is either odd or even, and that those are the only two possibilities. If you say to me, "the number is odd," I may well respond that I don't believe you. That does not imply that I therefore believe, much less claim, that the number is even. I'm simply an a-oddist with respect to your claim. It's perfectly correct to describe someone as an atheist if they don't believe the fundamental theist claim of the existence of a god. This doesn't imply that the atheist believes or is claiming that there are no gods.
@Taum1024
2 жыл бұрын
I like all these clips, but I miss the usual content.
@lewismazzoli6076
2 жыл бұрын
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
@YAWTon
2 жыл бұрын
I am under no obligation to use or accept that definition.
@lewismazzoli6076
2 жыл бұрын
@@YAWTon What’s the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in your view?
@YAWTon
2 жыл бұрын
@@lewismazzoli6076 Thank you for the question. In my view, a belief is a mental state, an attitude towards a proposition, namely that the proposition (a statement which is either true or false) is likely true. Usually, my beliefs are supported by evidence (not proofs). If I find to have a belief that is not supported by evidence I tend to lose the belief. I cannot will to have or not have a belief. Believing is not an act of volition. And beliefs are not binary, they have confidence levels. There is a second meaning of “belief”, where the object is not a proposition, as in “I believe in …”, but a person, or God, or Science, or an ideology. This type of belief would interpret as more or less synonymous with trust. My understanding of “faith” (when it has a propositional object) is that it is a special kind of belief: one that has theological content, and one that is (usually) held with great firmness and conviction. As a child I had faith, because I received religious instruction and because I had faith (~trust) in my parents and in my teachers. When I grew up and realized that I had no evidence for these theological beliefs I lost my faith.
@lewismazzoli6076
2 жыл бұрын
@@YAWTon No problem. Although I do agree with what you’re saying for the most part, I take issue with your conception(s) of ‘belief’ - in which I believe you’re doubling up definitionally. Also, you seem to be contravening the notion of ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ (which are synonymous) when you say that your beliefs are “supported by evidence not proofs.” For example, if I’ve proved (or evidenced) a proposition to be true, it is true definitively. This isn’t and can’t be constituted as ‘belief,’ obviously. On the other hand - and I think this is what you’re getting at - if I’ve shown evidence to support the truthfulness of a claim or proposition, though I can’t be sure to point to it or at it empirically, this is what constitutes ‘belief.’ The historicity of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is a prime example of what I’m getting at, and especially in relation to the conception of ‘faith.’ Historically, we can point toward the truthfulness of His death, burial and resurrection, but we can’t ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ it from a scientific standpoint. Hence, a Christian when he or she says “I ‘believe’ in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.” So you’re right in saying that ‘belief’ is confidence based, to the degree you can or can’t ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ a claim or proposition. Your second definition of ‘belief’ is, as far as I can tell, what constitutes ‘faith’ as per the New Testament. It’s ‘trust,’ but it’s reasonable; hence ‘evidence of what isn’t seen.’ To you’re definition of ‘faith,’ I would disagree in saying that it’s strictly theological. I have faith in my car’s durability, I have faith in my relationships, I have faith in the conception of what’s ‘good.’ All of what I’m speaking to can’t be proved empirically, but I know that I can have ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ in them because of what they’ve shown me to be. And in relation to your loss of ‘faith,’ go deeper to see what is and isn’t, and I’m sure you’ll find out.
@YAWTon
2 жыл бұрын
@@lewismazzoli6076 Thank you for your reply. You say that I seem to be contravening the notion of “proof” and “evidence”, that they are synonymous. To me they are not synonymous. Evidence is what causes me to belief, proof is what causes me to know. And you kind of seem to agree, when you say that what you have proved is true definitively. [I do not understand “This is and can’t be constituted…”, did you mean “This isn’t and can’t be…”?] I’ll illustrate what I see as difference between evidence and proof with an example from mathematics. The Goldbach Conjecture (GC) claims that every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. Foe any given even number greater than 2, one will easily find two primes that will add to this number, in fact the greater the number tested, the more pairs of primes one will find. If this causes a person A to believe that the GC is true, then the successful tests are evidence (for the person A) that GB is true. Another person B, even after seeing the results of the same tests may still not believe that GC is true. So the same facts (the list of numbers that are the sum of two primes) are evidence for A, but not for B, even A and B agree on the facts. Now, if a mathematician would come up with a proof of GC or of its contrary A and B would come agreement (provided the proof is simple enough to be understood by A and B). I am a mathematician. To me proof (objective) is very different from evidence (subjective) and the facts (objective) that constitute the evidence for A but not for B. I am not sure if I understand what you write about the resurrection. When a Christian “points toward the truthfulness” of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, my interpretation would be that they do the “pointing” in an attempt to provide evidence (in my understanding of “evidence”) for their beliefs. I think this interpretation is supported by many clips on YT: search for “resurrection evidence”. In my view, and using my understanding of “evidence” the belief of such a Christian would be based on what is evidence to him, but not to me. Indeed, I would not even agree with the “facts” that he is “pointing” to. But since in your understanding, there is no evidence (=proof) from a scientific standpoint I would ask: is there evidence from a non-scientific standpoint? What then is the reason for your belief? I didn’t give a definition of “faith” and I am fully aware that the word has several meanings. My 1979 Collins English Dictionary has seven. The first is “strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence” [Note: the author of the definition seems to distinguish between proof and evidence]. The second is “a specific system of religious beliefs”. Yes, one of the meanings of “faith” is ~”trust”. If I have trust in my relationships the trust is based on evidence, people I trust have gained / earned my trust. Sure, I have no proof that they merit my trust, and sometimes the trust is broken. But was based on evidence. Maybe faith requires some special knowledge (revelation, holy spirit) which I do not have. I lost my faith when I went deeper to see what is and isn’t.
@Steve-bm3cq
2 жыл бұрын
I wish I was this articulate.
@Menzobarrenza
2 жыл бұрын
By this standard Free Will is a properly basic belief, as humans are literally incapable of behaving as if it is false. As an example, when Cosmic Sceptic feels indignant at people who commit animal cruelty, he is assuming that they are responsible for their actions (or else his indignation would be absurd), which inherently necessitates the ability to choose freely.
@mutex1024
2 жыл бұрын
This is not true because a person can function perfectly fine without ever becoming indignant with other people's behaviors. I could apply my reasoning to any other example you could give. Just because people rarely act as if free will does not exist does not make humans "literally incapable" of doing so.
@Menzobarrenza
2 жыл бұрын
@@mutex1024 "can function perfectly fine" This is not the standard he proposed. It's not about whether or not it would be functional. It's about whether or not it is *possible* live out a deterministic worldview. My claim is that humans are incapable of truly behaving as if free will is false. Ever. It's not "rare" that people do it, as you said. It simply does not happen.
@luamfernandez6031
2 жыл бұрын
I think that any laws of logic are made of understanding, and not the contrary
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Then you would think incorrectly. Logic is a symbolic FORMALISM. No understanding is required either to express or apply the formalism. A machine could do it. In fact you're looking at such a machine now. (Also, by the way, formalisms are not based on "laws" but axioms. A scientific law is strictly empirical, and it describes without explanation the pattern observed in some set of phenomena. So there is not much understanding in a law, no account of mechanism for example. For that, we would need to develop a theory, and all that entails.)
@lendrestapas2505
2 жыл бұрын
What video is this from?
@Danollogic
2 жыл бұрын
I'm a bit confused if "Knowledge" is a justified true belief, and "faith" is a belief without evidence, how do we describe the word "belief"?
@triffnix
2 жыл бұрын
I'd assume something along the lines of "a position or statement that is considered to be correct / right / true"
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
Beliefs are states of mind. It's a bit more nuanced than that, because there are many states of mind other than beliefs. There are also ideas, speculations, impulses, and so on, which loosely resemble beliefs. What distinguishes a belief from any other state of mind is perhaps a bit surprising or nonintuitive. Beliefs can always be distinctively characterized in relation to some PROPOSITION. This doesn't necessarily mean that we, ourselves, internally represent each possible belief as a proposition. That's the counterintuitive part. It's only that an OBSERVER must be able to refer to the belief as a proposition, in order for it to qualify as a belief and not, say, an affinity for deep fried calamari. That affinity, in the moment of ideation, is certainly a state of mind for whoever is thinking it. It's a THOUGHT. But it doesn't qualify as a BELIEF until someone shapes it into a proposition, such as "calamari sure are tasty" or "I like calamari," in other words, a statement that can be true or false. Beliefs, being states of mind, can be conscious or unconscious, explicit or implied, and based on anything at all. The propositional part is not necessarily something that we experience, but only how we or others can potentially LABEL that state of mind. With this in place, KNOWLEDGE (as a subset of belief: justified true belief) is a state of mind, that we can label as a proposition, which we have some rationally explicit basis for holding, and which also happens to be true. FAITH (as a subset of belief: belief without justification) is also a state of mind, perhaps motivated by wishful or fearful thinking, that we can label as a proposition, which we have no rationally explicit basis for holding, and which may be true or false Not to beat this idea to death, but I want to emphasize the essential importance of the part about being propositional. Just the idea of fried calamari is certainly a THOUGHT, but it's neither "true" or "false" : it's just that we're thinking about this thing. It HAS to expressed as a proposition ("fried calamari probably has a lot of calories") before we can begin to talk about it as a BELIEF. Only at that point can it be supposed to be either true or false. That's the peculiarity about these states of mind that we call beliefs. In a strictly formal sense, our minds don't have "beliefs" until the point that we, or someone, sets them up as such. It's a small step, one that usually goes beneath notice, but it can lead to some real confusion of thought if we don't catch it in that moment of narration where something that was intuitively felt becomes something named. A more complete treatment requires going into the distinction between general cognitive function and consciousness. Your question was excellent.
@FlyingSpaghettiJesus
2 жыл бұрын
“Faith is an insertion of absolute conviction that is assumed without reason and is defended against all reason.” ― AronRa
@geomicpri
2 жыл бұрын
I’m sure Alex has heard this definition & rejected it as unsatisfactory. That’s why people on both sides of the debate respect Alex, & Aron not so much. Aron’s definition of faith is, itself, an assertion of absolute conviction that is assumed without reason & is defended against all reason.
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
Hi, cool name. Do you know if this theory of faith is a consensus view amongst sociologists and psychologists of religion? This is not my field at all, but I'd imagine it's difficult to defend any theory that is framed just as "X is....". Sociological phenomena are multifaceted, defining them in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions (X is C1, C2, C3....) could very well blur the boundaries between models of faith that diverge with one other. Some Christians are fideists, yes, but many also think they should have reasons to believe (Aquinas’s five ways etc). We can certainly disagree that the latter's reasons are sufficient, but might it not be a bit reductive to lump, say, fideists and natural theology proponents together if we’re trying for a theory (or theories) that accurately maps out the wide range of Christian religious behaviour regarding faith? Do you know if AronRa has published any papers I could read where he defends why he includes these conditions in this definition (and perhaps why he chose to frame the phenomena of faith in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions)? Thanks :)
@FlyingSpaghettiJesus
2 жыл бұрын
@@geomicpri so what?
@FlyingSpaghettiJesus
2 жыл бұрын
@@mil401 You could ask him directly. What’s stopping you from doing that my dude?
@mil401
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, yes I’ll read up on his work in the field and write something if I have time. I don’t know much about him beyond what a cursory google search shows, is there anything he’s written that you’d recommend to get a better idea about his particular views on sociology of religion, epistemology etc.?
@M0skit007
2 жыл бұрын
Is there a full version of that clip?
@MJ-in2xt
2 жыл бұрын
This is such a stupid argument. First, there is evidence for all of the things you give in your example. Second, faith in a religion is not just believing without evidence. It's believing against the evidence. We have evidence the flood didn't happen. We have evidence people don't rise from the dead.
@victormd1100
2 жыл бұрын
What is the evidence that anything around you exist instead of you being in a coma?
@bdnnijs192
2 жыл бұрын
@@victormd1100 "What is the evidence" Observation... obviously. Remember evidence, not proof. Either way it's not a very usefull road to go down for creationists. The creator of this universe must exist because maybe the universe He is supposed to have created does not exist, doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
@victormd1100
2 жыл бұрын
@@bdnnijs192 If you were in a coma, it'd be expected for you to see exactly ehat you're seeing now. This isnt evidence just as us seeing the sun going around the earth is evidence that he really is doing so ( we'd see the exact same thing if the earth was going around the sun ).
@bdnnijs192
2 жыл бұрын
@@victormd1100 "it'd be expected for you to see exactly ehat you're seeing now." That's an assumption on your part. And that's even ignoring the fact, as far as I'm aware, coma's and hallucinations aren't even that lucid. "This isnt evidence..." You appear to be conflating proof and evidence. In English there is a distinction between the two. Proof is used to refer to absolute certainty, and mostly reserved for mathematical proof. Evidence in contrast can allow some margin of doubt. (Whcich you're unwilling to grant_
@victormd1100
2 жыл бұрын
@@bdnnijs192 You did understand my example of the sun going around the earth right? You'd see the exact same thing if the sun was going around the earth or if the opposite happened. So your observation when you look up in the sky and see the sun going around cant be evidence for this position, because you'd see the exact same thing if it was the opposite. Now, we're comparing two views, the view that the outside world exists and some form of solipsism, where only you exist and what you call the outside world are only projections of your mind. Again, you observing a chair isnt evidence for the chair's existence, as it may well be that solipsism is true and the chair is a projection of your mind. No matter what is your observation, it'd be expected for you to see the exact same thing if the outside world exists or if solipsism is true. What i am saying is not controversial on philosophical grounds, i dont know why you're making such a fuzz about it.
@BillyGamerz
2 жыл бұрын
Where is this clip from?
@karlazeen
2 жыл бұрын
Here's what I do, I listen to what a theist's own position is on faith and observe their words and actions to see if they meet their own definition of faith. Most of the time I see theists claim that their faith is belief with evidence while simultaneously displaying blind belief without evidence.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Nitai Das The Kalam is an attempt at a logical argument, premised on the ASSUMPTION that "everything has a beginning." It fails in four obvious ways: 1) The assumption is not warranted by evidence. The evidence we have is only that SOME things have "beginnings" - under a not particularly rigorous or helpful definition of beginning, which contains an unstated implication that our informal human perception of things existing is necessarily correct. And quantum physics begs to differ on that point. Moreover, we have no evidence that ALL things have beginnings, and it may not even qualify as a falsifiable claim. 2) We likewise have no evidence that ALL things which begin have a cause. We can only suppose this is so, based on an incomplete survey of macroscopic phenomena. It's much the same flaw as (1). 3) The conclusion that there must be an ultimate first cause would not logically be supported by the above two premises, even if they were not flawed. In fact this particular conclusion directly CONTRADICTS the premises. It's a Special Pleading fallacy to exempt the supposed "first cause" from also having a beginning and a cause. All you can properly get from the Kalam is infinite regress. If you like that, fine, there's your argument (apart from its flawed premises.) If you don't accept the conclusion of infinite regress, then you'd better not bring out the Kalam. 4) Supposing that we were to permit special pleading, there is then nothing in the Kalam to forbids the universe itself from qualifying as the first cause. And it's an inherently better candidate for the purpose than to posit some invisible something for which we have zero evidence. We have pretty good evidence that the universe exists.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Nitai Das I can't even show you everything that began to exist. I can only show SOME things, just like the Kalam. But I don't have to. It's not my claim, thus I carry no burden of proof. The Kalam does. I'm simply pointing out the flaw of its premises, and argument, and implications. The claimant carries the burden of proof. As I pointed out in items (1) and (2) the claimant can't show everything that began to exist either. That would require a exhaustive inventory of the universe throughout all of spacetime. Only then can claims concerning ALL THINGS be properly demonstrated by evidence. Why is this distinction important? Because the evidential standard of "sort of, maybe" isn't strong enough to drive the argument that the Kalam proposes. The Kalam tries to be inescapable, but if its premises are not absolutely tight (and they clearly aren't) then the argument is not tight either. And if the premises were tight, that would argue only for infinite regress. And if you try to fix that by special pleading, you've just put a hole in the argument which the universe itself completely satisfies.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Nitai Das You will have to demonstrate that the universe began to exist. Good luck with that one. We have no evidence that it did. None. Cosmologists have evidence that takes us ALMOST all the way back to a beginning, but stops short. There is no data or mathematical model to demonstrate that t=0 was ever reached, or ever could be reached.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Nitai Das You're trying (and failing) to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to disprove YOUR claim. And I'm not offering a claim of my own, therefore I don't need to. You (or the Kalam, which you evidently are defending) made the claim about a set of things. Now you've got to prove that these things have the claimed property. I see no effort to do so. Nothing has been justified here. It's just an empty claim - and a sloppy one at that, since its terms are undefined. So do your work.
@mohamedadel5934
2 жыл бұрын
The whole point crumbles with this: you're saying induction is not justifiable but then you're trying to justify it lol, you don't need to justify induction, it's part of the definition of knowledge, and yes all definitions are arbitrary but some accurately reflect what we mean and don't contain contradictions, while other do. Faith is NOT a definition for knowledge, it's an assertion that a belief is true.
@mohamedadel5934
2 жыл бұрын
You're confusing the way of knowing with the things to know. Induction is not a belief, it's a part of our way knowing, because we define it to be so, and yes, all definitions are arbitrary. The reason it's wrong to hold a "belief without evidence" is because you're basing your belief on a different way of knowing that will lead you to a contradiction, because it's not the way of knowing that everyone already uses: the scientific method.
@TamerSpoon3
2 жыл бұрын
The scientific method presupposes that induction is reliable. That is quintessential "belief without evidence". You have to assume the truth of the proposition "induction is reliable" to even begin to gather any evidence. Also, believing a proposition is true without evidence in no way leads to a contradiction. The truth value of a proposition is independent of the evidence for it. It is either true or not true. Believing a true proposition "just because" does not somehow make the proposition false, it just means you believe it for a bad reason.
@starfishsystems
2 жыл бұрын
@@TamerSpoon3 No, you can test induction to see if it comports with observation. (In fact this is what science does as a matter of course, working back and forth between induction and deduction to see whether their results are coherent.) Certainly, testing of this kind pushes back to questions of whether observation can be trusted, whether the observed world is coherent, whether it's real, whether our internal model can be trusted, and so on. What we can say (at least I can) is that I'm generally satisfied with the coherence of my field of experience, enough to accept methodological naturalism as a good working model, and that my experience as at least a rough proxy for what may be going in the natural world. And I'm prepared to examine alternatives, provided they can be shown to work better. So far, skepticism, mathematical logic, and the scientific method seem to have no significant competitors.
Пікірлер: 500