I had originally intended not to upload this talk, since it was delivered virtually, and the camera quality is poor, but listening back to it in order to find clips for my second channel, I realised it is perhaps my favourite talk of the many I have given this year, and so decided to upload it in full! Sorry about the quality; luckily the audio sounds fine.
As a 21 year old potentially seeking a career in academia, speaking, and writing, I hope to someday be half as articulate as Alex is at our age already. One of my favourite TH-camrs by far.
The one thing to do is no not put him on a pedestal. Not saying you are, but its something to watch out for because if you put someone else above you, where have you put yourself? Dont put them below you either. Either way, you might not be able to put yourself in their perspective and understand if someone does those things too much.
@@macmac1022 True he also has probably had different permutations of the same conversations a million times and has memorized the best responses. “A lion eats meat why can’t I?” He’ll probably be a bit more well spoken on this topic than a conversation about sports.
@@macmac1022 I most certainly haven’t put Alex on a pedestal. He’s simply around the same age as I am and he’s very well spoken on topics which he is passionate about, something which I am striving to do as well. Im not a sycophant. I just think he’s articulate and I’m happy he’s been able to find success speaking about subjects he clearly cares about.
it’s been crazy to see how much alex has evolved through the years. seeing his journey into discussing animal rights has been especially rewarding to see as a vegan. i always leave a cosmicskeptic video with something to think about and i appreciate that so much.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result. Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
I thought alex was pretty good and made good arguments until he became a vegan. It all went downhill from there. Probably pesticides and herbicides got to his brain and fried it.
I loved your point about your experience of veganism helping shape your attitude to skepticism, I had a similar experience. Firstly the realisation that if such an enormous issue could be a blind spot, what else am I missing, and that I should never be complacent and assume I have everything sorted, and secondly that I need to take my skepticism seriously. I am a pretty pathologically fussy eater, there were only 15 vegan items of food I knew of and liked/tolerated when I decided there was no option for me but to go vegan, but I should have followed the arguments and brought my actions in line with my beliefs sooner and not let something like that stop me. There are now 29 items of food I can have and my diet is fulfilling and sufficiently nutritious
Same. Veganism really opened my eyes to the fact that I (arrogantly maybe) thought I was a clear, critical thinker, untouched by ideology before I was vegan. Carnism is such a painfully obvious ideology if one just takes a few minutes to ask critical questions. Now I can see how I'm ideologically influenced by all sorts of things, and can now examine those ideas critically. It really opened my mind. It also made me learn basic nutrition, so that I could take responsibility of my own health, as well as inspire me to learn to cook, try new foods. It also taught me social bravery, speaking up even though it's uncomfortable. In short - It's like the responsibility I took on when I became vegan made me grow up, expand, humble me and forced me to use my skills to the fullest. You never know what you can gain when you give up the unjustified ideas you used to cling to. Pretty wild.
@@fromeveryting29 " Veganism really opened my eyes to the fact that I (arrogantly maybe) thought I was a clear, critical thinker, untouched by ideology before I was vegan" Surely the irony is not lost on you, you considered yourself a clear and critical thinker when you reached the previous conclusion, and now you seem to think you're a (more) clear and critical thinker after changing your opinion.
"As a question, I don't have a straight answer for it, but as as an objection, I don't think it holds." My man has laser-focus accuracy in his thinking and articulation. I would never have thought of that distinction myself.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result. Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Yeah like there was a first human like the chicken and the egg a mutation by two other species adults made a new species that could only breed successfully with other's with the mutation and the difference can be big the vast majority of mutations are bad we see that in life but there's nothing saying one can be huge like Downes baby's but in a positive way a new species can't breed with anything else the fact we can't breed with fish proves there's a day the first human was born comparing to age is just want atheist who are not being honest would say we don't have a full fossil record
Yes! I wish it was thought i school. Right now I'm collecting topics that are relevant to critical thinking aiming to teach my daughter when she is old enough.
Another good tip for being a skeptic is holding noncommittal views on topics and subjects you don't care about. For example, you hear some drama about someone you know. A skeptic wouldn't spread the rumor to other people without asking the involved parties what really happened, but at the same time you're not obligated to uncover the truth if you don't care, you could just think to yourself "That's probably not true" and carry on with your day. If you're subsequently asked about the drama a skeptic would just say "I don't know" rather than arguing one side over the other, even if you place more credence in one of the sides being true.
Yes. Choosing not to have an opinion about something, whether because you don’t have the time or resources to make your own conclusions from the evidence or just because we have busy lives and it isn’t realistic to expect you would have an opinion on every issue that you come across. I think immediately jumping on an opinion without being informed is so common and can be dangerous and can have consequences.
panda thumb theory how can the raccoon evolve into panda and grows a thumb what did he eat if he had no choice but to eat bamboos how many human died from the cold or lived in snowy places and did not grow fur how many were drowned and lived in shores and didnt grow scales and gills how many died out of thirst or lived in deserts and did not gain a lizard like ability to maintain hydration or like how the camel blood is swollen what about the mountains why their inhabitants don't gain feathers and wings from those who fell couldn't fly in the wrecked ship story darwin stated he didn't believe in darwinism d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_was_jesus_crucified_for_our_atonement.pdf
Yes. I don't usually call myself a skeptic although my thinking says otherwise. I usually not hold any conclusions that a proponent might suggest from his limited set of premises. I would have to verify those premises first and add to those premises to really understand what's going on. It's easy to fool someone with a false or misleading conclusion with a limited set of "good premises". Sometimes it's not about the quality of premises, sometimes it's about the quantity.
Thank you for bringing this up! Animal suffering is such an underappreciated reason against belief in a god. People like to bring up human suffering and ignore the 99.9 of suffering on this planet which are animals.
As a Christian, being a skeptic has caused tensions in relationships with fellow Believers, even to the point of losing friends. Oh, well! I prefer free and critical thinking to cultish groupthink.
Might be personality of disagreement but yes, agreed As a Christian I’m often questioning what Satan’s role in reality or humanity gives the evil purpose rather than saying evil gives humanity purpose I get frustrated when fingers are pointed when in reality there is one enemy (in Christian perspective)
I am glad you reinforced the utility of skepticism. As a product of the 70’s I was raised to question authorities. This was not a license to be lippy to the police, but a demand to get to the sources. The problem of evil is, perhaps, why we were created or what inspires creator gods, especially omniscient ones.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result. Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
After you’re cognitive dissonance video, I couldn’t ignore the problem of consuming animal products. I went vegan that day. Since then, when I talk about it, people always raise a brow and become incredibly defensive. I’ll frequently get insults, and it’s always appalling how when you put people’s moral character to the test, most flounder towards add homonym.
You kill less animals eating meat alone than eating bread but never mind don't do critical thinking I can get milk butter cheeses meats etc for about 2 year's no poisoning or shooting just grass fed for a vegan to get the same amount of nutriants they need to poison millions that's a bad death unlike a bolt to the head which is equal to falling asleep and not waking up
@@davidevans3223 I will agree, that is a problem. If you have a solution, maybe brands I can buy, I’m all ears. But I don’t think that one being bad necessarily makes the other one ok. If I can avoid participating in the active killing of animals, then I’m obligated to do so. There is only so much I can do to prevent and avoid causing harm, but if it’s reasonably accomplishable and I know about it, that’s my obligation to do so.
@@speakersr-lyefaudio6830 how can a happy cow that's never hunted or hungry no parasites a vet and dies without knowing just happy for a while eating grass no poisoning or shooting just grass fed carbon neutral. For a vegan to get the same amount of nutriants they need pay someone to poison and shoot many more animals including bird's and mammals. Of course you can avoid some food has natural protection from pests and lot's grown in green house's etc but in reality vegans eat avocados and almond milk or use Palm oil all extremely distrutive there's no sustainable either as all put pressure on the global demand and pay to destroy rain forest
I think it's really simple: an actual skeptic would have no interest in questioning things they already don't believe. Their primary objective would be questioning what they do believe and shedding light on every hidden assumption in their perception of reality, resulting in a constant deconstruction and reconstruction of their views rather than a definite one to stand on.
That sounds like a lot of anxiety. I mean, you can't possibly keep asking questions forever, can you? At some point I would assume you gotta reach close to a definite perception sooner or later. Since reaching a definitive one would be desirable, right?
@@AugustoXRock We assume that the truth is more or less constant (uniformity of nature), but you can never be certain that your map of the world actually matches the territory. That's why you need to constantly compare.
A rational person would also investigate whether things they don't already believe are worth believing in. I don't know if that falls under the definition of skeptic.
I had an argument with my brother who doesn't quite understand ecology and nature. In the city I live we have seals on the islands outside the city (archipelago) and we reduce the population each year because they eat all the fish we as humans consume, so we have to reduce the seal population just in order for us to be able to eat enough fish. I tried to explain to him that we could let them be and catch enough fish to feed ourselves and them at the same time, the amount of fish in the sea is faaar larger then the amount needed to feed both seals and humans (if we consume in moderation atleast). And this doesnt even touch the aspect of animal suffering where we are killing seals just to be able to kill and eat even more fish. But I didnt get any kind of response that I would consider good, he only tried to catch me offgaurd on my language and the way I phrased my question (he is a politician after all Q_Q).
12 years ago I became vegan. Because of veganism I started to learn more about skeptical thinking and the scientific method. Because of that I began looking at my other beliefs and dogma's. It was only then that I stopped believing in god (s), homeopathie and the like. So for me it was all kind of the other way around. I thank all critical thinkers that we can find on youtube. Special thanks to Alex, and other skeptics/vegans that are much more eloquent than I am, because I now really start to feel I don't have to carry the world on my shoulders anymore. Tbh, it felt quite lonely for a long time, and I'm burnt out from it.
23:25 - William Lane Craig's answer to the problem of animal predation is probably the dumbest one I've ever heard: he says that predation is how God keeps the population of prey animals in check so they don't starve to death from overpopulation... as if God wasn't capable of simply limiting the prey animals' fertility to match the available food. Such a dumb answer.
@@daviddeida - Use the brain that you think God gave you or get out of the debate. Do you agree that a world where used hypodermic needles rain down from the sky would be worse than our current world? Good, then it should be equally obvious to you that a world without cancer would be *better* then our current world. Your one-sided agnosticism is indefensible. And if you think that used-needle-world might be better, because who knows, then why do you support cancer research and disaster relief efforts (assuming you do those things)? Who are you to say that the world would be a better place if we dig people out from under collapsed buildings? Why not just let them die? Do you know better than God?
@@Venaloid LMAO..Well you just lost the debate by trying to insult me.Pathetic.Hypodermic needles are not raining down so you are aligning with god .People do dig people out of collapse buildings so again you are aligning with what is and God.No I dont know better than god,you think you do.You cannot give reason and evidence to prove the world would be better without cancer and your examples in no way show evidence of that.Do you know the reason that cancer exists?.
@@Venaloid If I thought people should let them die while people are pulling them out,then I think I know more than God.I dont.You do. When you burn your hand when you touch fire do you think the justifies not believing in a loving God.lol.If not what is the difference between that and cancer?
I'd also like to add, even if you found a farmer who was super sweet to their animals and cared for them heaps and they had a great life, chances are they suck for the environment and / or they are a waste of food that humans could eat. For every 10 calories we feed an animal, we get 1 calorie back into our meat product. Even if you assume half of the animal feed is not edible by humans, it's still 5 times more efficient to eat the feed directly. I can already hear people talking about grass-fed cows. Cows are basically the worst for methane production. Grass-fed cows generally use a lot more water and produce way more methane than grain-fed cows. Anyway, this idea is a fantasy. If you read this and eat animals, you are almost certainly supporting factory farming.
" chances are they suck for the environment" the enviroment that is heating up to explode in a few decades because of too high co2, a gas that is at a historical low point and near starvation levels your clown movement has to be a practical joke right?
Thanks for answering my question on where to draw the line on moral decisions vs convenience. It was great to hear your thoughts on this, and would love to hear more on this question if you ever get the time.
@@shuaibmohammed3256 _"required to explain actions or decisions"_ Merriam-Webster. _"Accountable means obligated to explain, justify, and take responsibility for one's actions, and to answer to someone, such as a person with more authority."_ dictionary com. Hmmm. I don't see how determinism would hinder any of that stuff. Explaining, justifying, and taking responsibility are all things that can occur whether or not determinism is true.
The “atheist community” always says that that we must be willing to have difficult conversations, that we must be willing to challenge the beliefs we already hold. But the moment you try to have a conversation about animal rights and veganism, and challenge what people believe on this issue, then you've gone too far. Now it's a cult-like or religious thing (they say “veganism is a cult/religion!”). Think of the serious irony of saying “ *You should not question* people choosing to fund the killing & exploitation of innocent animals”, and then accusing anyone who does question it - of being cult-like. Have you heard of anything more ironic than that, this week?
The thing that most atheists (who are vegan) fail to realize, is that the moral claim for veganism is actually a religious claim. Morality is an inherently metaphysical concept, which shares boundaries with spirituality. Every time someone talks about Good and Evil, they are manifesting a religious belief.
@@readysoldier6799 Under this view, can you even be an atheist without being braindead? Do we not all have at least one view on what is good/bad, should/shouldn’t be, is morally allowed/disallowed etc? EDIT: Or rather, can you be non-religious?
Veganisum is a cult it's a belief they claim to be morally superior and are willing to use force for there beliefs on everyone else sound familiar also eating meat alone like Eskimos kills less animals than eating bread it's bonkers as for health well it's terrible but add obese to meat eaters who die at 30 amd vegans seem above average lol the oldest living people eat meat it's not a fair comparison
@@mil401 but why do you think they suffer have you visited a farm I have many and the animal's are happy they might have a short life but they don't know people suffer far more than any animal's yet we still want to exist
When you told that Sam Harris could apply skepticism for his diet and still told people that he won't become vegan, I got goosebump. It's like - whatever honourable we will do, we are still just humans.
@@paddleed6176 it's about being skeptical about what we've been taught about morals to begin with. And we've been told non-human animals don't matter morally as much as humans or at all.
@@shuaibmohammed3256 He in fact does not believe in hard determinism. He doesnt believe in free will yes, but he also recognizes that quantum physics show that some things in the universe may be random, so he's not a determinist. Also, what double standards exactly? Either way, everyone makes mistakes, we're all human after all. Saying Alex is not a clever person is rather absurd. He's very clever, especially for his age.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
I think calling meat eating an addiction is a very accurate representation. I've been clean from a life of heavy drug use (opiates+amphetamines) for a few years now, and I can recognise the similarities. I acknowledge that eating meat causes suffering of animals, but I will rationalise, make excuses, and try to limit my consumption exactly the same way I did when I was spending every last cent on drugs. Perhaps that's why the conversations between vegans and meat eaters become so volatile, or why the arguments for eating meat so fallacious. Try telling a drug addict that they are a morally reprehensible person because of their drug use, and see how effective that is at getting them to stop.. Hopefully I don't need to explain why that isn't an effective way of reducing drug use. If we can all agree that we would like to reduce the amount of animals being slaughtered, then I genuinely believe that encouraging a reduction in eating meat is more productive than trying to convince people that what they are doing is wrong. Sure, it may have worked for you, and maybe it will work for some percentage of people, but if it's 10x more successful to spread a message of reduction, then that would result in less suffering than trying to spread a message of going vegan. I guess it would depend on how much more successful each message is, but, yeah, just thinking out loud
Strong words comming from someone addicted to eating plants. Vegans acknowledge the suffering required even in the production of plant-based foods, but will try toi rationalise and make excuses. Many vegans are addicted to their veganism. I've have vegans concede grass-fed beef might actually involve the least amount of suffering and still try to rationalise we ought to eat plant-based only. They'll oppose meatless mondays as insufficient, even tough 8people doing a meatless monday make more of a difference than 1 vegan.
@@hibernopithecus7500 that would depend on how you define addiction, but typically it means the compulsion to do something to the point of causing harm.
@@bdnnijs192 These points you brought up aren't very good if you give it some thought. If you are a regular viewer of Alex, you would know that the goal of veganism isn't the elimination of suffering, but the minimization of unnecessary suffering. This says nothing about necessary suffering; suffering that might just need to exist as an unfortunate reality. It never seems to be vegans who want to eradicate all animal suffering, but their critics who claim it is hopeless. This is telling. Many vegans are activists, which is not the same as being "addicted to their veganism." Grass fed beef might be less suffering, just as being executed by firing squad is probably less suffering that being executed by drowning in acid. It doesn't mean they are not both bad, so there is no inconsistency. Meatless Mondays doesn't do enough, but anything is certainly better than nothing.
I agree with you, talking about reducing meat consumption and not a full stop is a better approach. People will start to connect the dots little by little if you treat them with empathy and not as criminals. The same with drugs. Congrats by the way. Stay strong!
With the older generation of rational thinkers like Dawkins reaching their twilight years, it's good to know the next generation are equally brilliant.
Scepticism (in philosophy) is strictly speaking about knowledge. The quintessential sceptic would be Hume and it basically deals with whether or not knowledge is actually possible and if yes, to what extend !!!
Ta Alex. Quality points. As a society we should critically analyse the information we are presented before coming to a balanced and informed opinion. But that does take a little cognative effort.
This is one of the many reasons I’m excited for the advent of sustainable meat. Maybe a decade or so away from being able to transition from animals to cellularly synthesized meats.
If we can synthesize meat, there would be no moral issue with eating meat! Btw have you heard that there is a milk alternative made up of the same proteins as dairy milk?
@@disneybunny45 Exactly and it’s already being done but as with any new technology it’s prohibitively expensive at the moment. But that will come down in time and we can eat all the chicken, steak, turkey, pork we want without killing a single animal. But no I haven’t heard of that milk. I actually stay away from dairy for health reasons. That’s one part of veganism that stayed with me. Almond/flax milk for me haha. But I’m intrigued to hear about this substitute. Milk protein consists of Whey and Casein, of which as a body builder I do intake whey protein. Tell me about this alternative.
On the point about ecosystem stability: Cycles of predatory and prey populations always include "overpopulation" for either the predator or prey at some point. This just balances itself out over time because either overpopulated prey gives ample resources for predator reproduction or overpopulated predators starve from a lack of prey. Human intervention is completely unnecessary in these cycles.
@@sebtanner4975 Unless we create robots that simulate prey and grow meat on their bodies, allowing natural life/death cycles is oodles more ethical than going out, killing an animal, and calling it 'eco-friendly' or something. I.E. the animal a hunter kills still had opportunities to enjoy its life, even though it would still suffer. Humans are moral agents, so hunting needlessly is immoral.
@@charliet9490 Well obviously hunting would be necessary if predation is but with less suffering. Further human involvement could reduce the suffering even more
@@sebtanner4975 Do you mean that hunters should kill prey that are already in the jaws of a predator, leaving the food to the predator? That might make sense since the predator would be able to eat, and the prey would suffer less. If a hunter takes the prey's body, that just means the carnivore will kill another prey or starve from lack of finding one.
I remember Harris saying he had a difficult time of going down the vegetarian/vegan road due to health/diet issues. He is also an investor in ethically derived meat products. So I don’t think he discounts the treatment of other moral beings, which would be inconsistent with his ethics. I think your skepticism in this example is misguided.
@@sithius99 you can refuse to believe what you want but this was his statement. He tried for years to eat a plant based diet, more than once, and gave up. Using him as an example of someone who is either not skeptical or a liar is unfair and Alex should think about it a bit deeper.
@@austinm419 But it's not unfair. Since it's simply not true that a vegetarian/vegan diet brings health/diet issues, Harris must be either not skeptical or a liar.
He said he felt sick. This is obviously because he was on a bad vegan diet. The problem is the “bad” part, not the vegan part. I don't think this is a valid excuse. If millions of people, most of whom not only far less wealthy than Harris but also just below average in terms of wealth, can manage to be healthy on a vegan diet; why can't Harris with all his wealth and all his intelligence?
Alex is so awesome. I've been watching him from the very beginning. In my opinion, we don't need proof for whether or not God exists. We need proof that God is something other than a made up story that our ancestors made up to try to pass down ethics, knowledge, etc. Though it's almost the same thing, I think this distinction is important.
Thanks so much for posting this. Alex O'Connor is a great thinker at a relatively young age, and I congratulate him on that and on his highly articulate visions. I think, too, that I may have just become a vegan.
For actual starters he cannot say people to be skeptical because he believes in hard determinism. That is, people don't have free will and everything is a result from an uninterrupted causal chain.
24:14 "it's made so much harder when it comes to animals, because these theodicees don't even apply" The somewhat consistent answer I got from christians about this question is that the fall of man actually changed the metaphysic of the entire world, including animals. And that animals in eden were not causing any suffering nor were they suffering themselves. In other words, here again, it is human free will (that of Adam) that is eventually responsible for animal suffering. So in that case, the theodicee do indeed apply.
@@JM-us3fr Yeah, that response doesn't really address the theist's answer, because he would just ask : The razor sharp teeth of the dinosaurs after the fall or before the fall ? If you answer "after the fall", then you just made his point for him. If you answer "before the fall", he will then ask you why you believe dinosaurs had razor sharp teeth before the fall. Granted that the theist's answer is unfalsifiable, it seems nevertheless consistent (at least to me).
@@MrGustavier Different Christians have different views on this. When I was a Christian, I didn’t believe anything particularly specific about the fall of man, just that it happened. Depending on what they believe, the fall could explain everything, or nothing. jmo
The fall of man represents when man became self conscious and bound in polarity.Hence suffering.What is the root of all suffering?.Wanting something to stay the same,wanting something different.
39:46 "it turns out that it is in our own best interest as human beings to stop factory farming" I've seen that factory farming's carbon print is by far the lowest among farming methods. There is therefore an argument to be made that we should ban all other kind of farming (animal husbandry).
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Hi Alex, I usually enjoy your videos with your well thought out and presented logical arguments. However your rationality fades when you speak about veganism or more specifically animal suffering. Using emotive or distasteful language like referring to milk as a secretion or suggesting that venomous snakes tear their prey apart cheapen your argument. I totally support your free choice to be a vegan. that is no doubt a position arrived at based on your moral reasoning. Please just be as sure of your facts as far as practically possible before adjusting and sharing your morals. Humans have evolved as omnivores. this will not necessarily always be the case in the future but at the present most people consume animal products. The vast majority of livestock producers like animals and do their utmost to ensure a happy, healthy, pain free life. I won't try to defend factory farming. Modern abattoirs don't use gas. Cattle, sheep and pigs are killed individually and instantly with a bolt gun. My livestock have a great life followed by one oblivious moment. My morality isn't lessened by producing and consuming animal products. It's just another aspect of being human. Kind regards, keep up the good work.
William Lane Craig feels dishonest in how he avoids questions or just changes the subject. He is better than many and at least have semi-rational arguments, but respect is not something I would say one should have for him
The indifference to animal suffering is similar to indifference to reason. They are both appeals for pleasure and for eternal life. It shows we are not as reasonable as we think we are. I will add that going vegan yourself is not hard and not much of a sacrifice. Prevailing on your family to go vegan is a bigger price. You can take it a step further and withdraw your money from investment institutions that help grow your money through investing in meat restaurants and animal farming. Any vegan willing to do that last one?
50:41 that is a very interesting point. I just started my PhD in Bioengineering so I am well exposed to the use of animals in research. I won't actually be involved in that because I'll be doing computational research, but it's something that I'm constantly reminded of in my classes and in the papers that I read, so as a vegan it's something that I've thought a lot about. I'm honestly not certain where I land on the topic but the one conclusion that I have come to is that I think it would be a lot better if the scientific community at least had the goal of minimizing the use of animals as far as possible. I don't know if biology and medicine could continue to progress at a reasonable rate without using animals in research, but we'll never know because we never tried.
No atheism isn't the default skeptic position that's agnosticism. Typical of Alex to pretend that atheism is agnosticism to avoid justifying his BELIEF system as an atheist.
Atheism is the null-hypothesis. It's the position of not believing in something until it has been demonstrated. Agnosticism is a claim to knowledge, not belief. Not believing in something is by definition the default skeptic position.
@@seanrogers8547 No that's agnosticism try to remember agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a Creator(God) because such things are unknown and maybe unknowable(origins). *"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."*
@@tyronelol In philosophical literature, agnosticism and atheism are not on the same spectrum. Agnosticism is a claim to knowledge while atheism is a claim to belief. For example, you can be an agnostic atheist who thinks there’s no way of knowing if a God exists and therefore doesn’t believe. But you can also be an agnostic theist. You think the secrets of the universe are unknowable and therefore place your belief in a higher power. When it comes to a belief in God there are only two options, it’s a binary. You either believe (theist) or you don’t believe (atheist). You are either convinced of a proposition or you aren’t.
@@tyronelol As an example, let’s take a hypothetical example. Imagine there was a person locked in a basement all their life who had never seen the sky. Imagine I told them that the sky was blue. The “theist” position in this analogy would be to believe me that the sky is blue. The “atheist” position would be to NOT believe me that the sky is blue, because I haven’t provided sufficient evidence to this person beyond simply telling them. You could also claim that this person would be “agnostic” as to the sky’s color because they lack knowledge of its color. This further shows that atheism and agnosticism are not on the same spectrum. When it comes to belief, there are two positions. You either believe or you don’t. And not believing is the base skeptic position. It’s on the believer to prove their case to be true.
@ValentineFrey Atheism is just a philosophical label. You are free so associate whatever you want with it. It’s not a monolith. There are self-proclaimed atheists that are super fucking annoying; I agree. But don’t let them define whats simply a philosophical position. And for what it’s worth, I would definitely call myself an “anti-flat earther” if the United States Congress was full of flat earthers attempting to pass legislation based on flat earth doctrine. Beliefs matter, because they become policies that have tangible impacts on people’s lives. This is the world we live in with modern Christianity.
Regarding the point about separating the calf from its mother to get milk: it's not even necessary! Dairy cows produce far more milk than their calves can drink. I think the figure I heard was something like 7L per day for the calf and 100L per day from the cow. The separation is down to just pure greed.
Apart from the amount a calve needs and what a cow produces, the cow is bred to produce way more milk than is natural. As for human adults, or children, there is no evolutionary reason to suckle milk from another species anyway.
51:00 Regarding "rights" being inviolable, legally this is almost entirely not true. Only torture is an "absolute" right. All other rights can be violated if certain criteria are in place. For instance, the right to life. Neither you nor the government may end another person's life. However, imagine a scenario where the person is going to kill you, and the only way to stop that person from killing you is either you or the government (police/military) kills the person first, then that is legally permissable. Same goes for all other rights. Typically, the criteria for legally violating a person's right has to do with whether the violation is necessary for a democratic society, if the damage of the action is proportionate to the need of the action, and whether it's a last resort. I think there were some other criteria as well, but I cannot think of them of the top of my head right now. Basically, human testing has more to do with the power dynamics rather than rights. People can consent being tested on for certain types of tests, but not others. If the tests will cause you so much damage, either psychologically or physically, as to be permanent an cause significant loss of quality of life, then you cannot consent to it. However, a scientist can always test on themselves. A person cannot consent to having another person kill them (euthanasia), but a person is legally allowed to kill themselves. Similarly in testing, a person cannot consent to having a scientist test on them by dropping acid in their eyes, but the scientist can do so on themselves. So, when people insist on claiming that animal testing is needed to save human lives, I simply say that the scientists can test on themselves instead. It's both morally and legally permissable. So, scientists, stop being cowards, hiding behind mountains of animals, and start doing that groundbreaking research by putting yourselves on the line.
@@uselessgarbagehandler I've seen it. And it's quite good. I'm drawing from my memory of being obsessed with new atheism talks. What I'm referring to was prior to that conversation. And I even remember Hitch taking about the ruthlessness of mother nature to take down that theodicy
Thank goodness your audio is ok (bit quiet), I was worried it was going to just be like the first guy...I couldn't understand a fucking thing he said, the mic is so bad.
I think, even though we can't impircally prove that we exsist or that god doesn't, we can at least choose to believe what the best available evidence points to and change our beliefs accordingly instead of improvably clinging to whatever speculation we find most comforting or convient to our biases.
The problem with any form of critical or philosophical thought is that it goes round in circles like a puppy chasing its tail. David Bohm able to step out of his box as a physicist had this to say: ' Thought is constantly creating problems and then tries to solve them, but as it tries, it makes matters worse because it doesn't notice that it is creating them; the more it thinks, the more problems it creates... I call this sustained incoherence.' In other words our thinking separates us from the experience of pure being. Nobody much notices that Religion has been replaced by Reason with it's own fiercely defended dogma.
Not causing unnecessary suffering raises the question of how suffering but also of necessity. What is necessary? I know of no way of even where to begin answering that question. I have some confidence that that sciences answer to how we can to be is correct. If that is the case necessity is something we invent, something is necessary only because we decide it is. Suffering on the other hand, we can make some estimation of suffering can be made. We know something about what suffering is in terms of physical processes. It's reasonable to conclude from the similarities between other animals and humans that animals suffer. But it's not reasonable to conclude that animals suffer like humans suffer because there are differences. Judging how similar or how different involves a lot of guessing but at least we have something to work form, unlike deciding what is necessary and what is not. Are humans necessary? Are pigs?
@Reggie Warrington That's as good and as subjective answer as any. But notice "high quality" might be used to justify inflicting some suffering. How much and how much quality it achieves is in the eye of the justifier.
18:52 - Do people really need to be able to *do* evil things, or do people just need to be able to *desire* to do evil things, even if they can't act on those desires? After all, didn't Jesus say that lusting in your heart is just as bad as actually committing adultery? From this teaching of Jesus, I think it's clear that, within Christianity, moral agency does not require that we can *do* evil things, just that we can *desire* to do evil things. So the question remains: why would God allow us to *do* evil things (which harm other people), when he could have only allowed us to *desire* evil things and thereby prevented a lot of suffering?
People can be skeptical on any subject. If they avoid one that doesn't make them overall bad skeptics that's not required. I like Sean Carroll's justification for meat eating. He notes it is the lessor moral option hands down, we should focus on reducing animal suffering for farmed meat (what I wish FS would focus on vs. just veganism hard push). We are apart from other animals because we are conscious creatures where we can imagine a better life, and suffer from knowing the difference, and imagine a future we would miss if killed and suffer from the knowing. I have reduced my meat eating but my being an animal that evolved to eat both I feel it's best to continue that, but greatly look forward to lab grown meat.
How is studying at oxford like? Can a student be a part of multiple colleges at the same time? Like I think Alex is from St. John's. Stephen Hawking was from University College. So can a student be part of multiple colleges at the same time?
Without sounding sycophantic I have to say that I really like what Alex has to say about animal welfare . One of the thing I find very frustrating about the eco movement is that it is so human centric . Even if you put aside the fact that as a species we depend on biodiversity , I very rarely ( if ever ) hear eco warriors mentioning about the misery human activity causes to wildlife . A photo in the media yesterday showed some elephants scavenging and dying on rubbish tips in Sri Lanka due to loss of their natural habitat . Do you remember a couple of years ago one of the supermarket chains made a wonderful advert about the loss of habitat on Orangutans . Naturally it was banned from being shown on TV - astonishing when you think of all the horrendous adverts that are on TV . Ps please note that my county of Kent - once called the ' garden of England ' - is basically being concreted over . Still I guess there is a compelling need for 5 bedroom detached houses with plenty of room to park your eco friendly 4x4.🕊️
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
cosmic skeptic wht do you think of marxism? most people for some reason dismiss historical materialism as nonsense but is it? it sounds more logical that history is driven by material conditions than ideas, which themselves emerge from the former
The vegan argument you put forward seem to be a utilitarian one, i.e. that we morally ought to maximize happiness/minimize pain. Furthermore you seem to take for granted that this is an ethical position most people intuitively have (because you seem to be baffled by people who are not vegans). My impression, however, is that hedonistic utilitarianism is not a widespread position (regardless of whether it's adopted "subconsciously" or after deep reflection). Thus, I think you must spend more time on convincing people to become utilitarians in the first place, before you can convince them to become vegans. Or even further than that, you have to convince them of the value of adopting a thought out and consistent moral position in the first place, because an overwhelming majority of people ar not even there yet.
I'd agree if everyone acted based on reason. But there are some people out there who act on emotion, and can't be convinced to act rationally. Some of these people would go vegan because animal suffering makes them sad, but wouldn't do it to make sure their actions fit a consistent moral framework. At least I believe there's a good amount of people like that.
@@RetryAgainAgain Then there are entirely rational people with no conscience whatsoever. They do not care that animals suffer and they do not care that they should "do something" about it.
@@RetryAgainAgain I don't think anyone acts entirely based on reason. Reason is usually applied after the action. Most of our actions don't even involve thought, and those that do often involve the action first and then the thought.
I might be reading into it too much, but do I sense a tension between CosmicSkeptic and Rationality Rules? Because I remember that Stephen's conversation with Alex was what convinced Alex about Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights and ultimately Veganism... But he didn't credit Stephen with that. Was this intentional?
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Our suffering is part of our evolution. We transcend our trauma,... Slowly but surely our suffering will ease... And while it may seem like a slow process, considering the evils of the 20th century it a blip when u consider the millions of years we've been evolving.
You do not plan to be atheist or skiptic or religious. It is the accumulation of experience and interactions with the environment and culture who makes us what we are. On top of our mental state and capabilities.
You aren't quite correct on there isn't a threshold between things like middle-aged and elderly. For interaction with conceptual classifications there is always a delineating line. It can shift on the group doing the interaction with the classifications, based on whatever their views are about what that line is. You can't have classifications without the application of defined barriers, but you are right that the line can be moved based on the group referencing it and humans were likely able to breed with non-humans near that delineation point. But there is always a line decided upon what is human and it is dependent on the variables that a person or people wish to consider of what makes someone human. DNA, thought, societal bonds, etc.
Christianity is something that grows from tradition and environment, or when evangelism meets desperate need. The conditions need to be right, and it demands certainty, which is the opposite of the humility you say skepticism should have. Christians don't just start randomly sprouting in India as a result of skepticism and critical thinking. Your respectful discourse is more likely to persuade or promote productive conversation, but I simply can't agree that it's possible to be both a skeptic and a faithful Christian. Such a person either knows things we don't, doesn't know things we do, or is not bound by reason in the same ways. If it's the first, they need to write a book (so far, all arguments fall short). If it's the second, they need to read a book. If it's the third, we simply can't be a skeptic without a foundation of reason. Perhaps personal experience could lead to this...but then... would that really be enough evidence for a skeptic? More likely, they haven't yet brought themselves to recognize their agnosticism/atheism because of the culture they grew up with.
@@aaronpolichar7936 That being the case,he does'nt seem to understand where the bible clearly states when man became self conscious and started seeing the world through polarity.Prior to this man did not perish.This is basic understanding.
Isn't a person's very existence contingent on suffering? Be that other people, animals, the environment. So moral perfectionism only comes through not existing. As we want to exist there has to be an acknowledgement and acceptance to the suffering caused, and where you draw that line is dependent on the value you give it (and social acceptance). I, personally, don't think veganism is the answer, though I do think I can do a lot better than I do.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect here.
Great question, but it depends. If by "agnostic" you mean a nontheist without being an atheist, I think this is impossible, but for me nontheist and atheist mean the same thing. If instead you mean someone who doesn't believe in a god, but hasn't ruled it out either, while an atheist would be someone who believes they have ruled it out, then I think you can be an agnostic skeptic without being an atheist. For me, there are four categories: agnostic theist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and gnostic atheist. The agnostic/gnostic category refers to whether one doesn't or does know. The theist/atheist category refers to whether one believes or disbelieves in a god. Personally, I consider myself an agnostic atheist; I don't know if a god exists, which means I haven't seen compelling evidence. Since I'm a skeptic, in the lack of compelling evidence, I also disbelieve in a god.
Procrastinated watching this out of fear my skeptic attitude would be crushed under his elegant voice but neh I think I seem to be on the right path so yay
I had originally intended not to upload this talk, since it was delivered virtually, and the camera quality is poor, but listening back to it in order to find clips for my second channel, I realised it is perhaps my favourite talk of the many I have given this year, and so decided to upload it in full! Sorry about the quality; luckily the audio sounds fine.
It's alright. I'll listen to you in any quality
Thanks Alex. Great point on vaccines by the way 👍
Alex it will be nice if you go to Majesty of reason TH-cam channel for discussions please do more discussion with joe directly on his channel
Glad you decided to upload it, this talk has been helpful!
Thanks 👍
As a 21 year old potentially seeking a career in academia, speaking, and writing, I hope to someday be half as articulate as Alex is at our age already. One of my favourite TH-camrs by far.
Practice and more practice
Yes he is a quick and articulate speaker.
The one thing to do is no not put him on a pedestal. Not saying you are, but its something to watch out for because if you put someone else above you, where have you put yourself? Dont put them below you either. Either way, you might not be able to put yourself in their perspective and understand if someone does those things too much.
@@macmac1022 True he also has probably had different permutations of the same conversations a million times and has memorized the best responses. “A lion eats meat why can’t I?” He’ll probably be a bit more well spoken on this topic than a conversation about sports.
@@macmac1022 I most certainly haven’t put Alex on a pedestal. He’s simply around the same age as I am and he’s very well spoken on topics which he is passionate about, something which I am striving to do as well. Im not a sycophant. I just think he’s articulate and I’m happy he’s been able to find success speaking about subjects he clearly cares about.
it’s been crazy to see how much alex has evolved through the years. seeing his journey into discussing animal rights has been especially rewarding to see as a vegan. i always leave a cosmicskeptic video with something to think about and i appreciate that so much.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an
interesting Result.
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects,
evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff.
So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
@@slevinchannel7589 Atheists don't need constant validation to reinforce their non-belief in God
@@ktiemz Youre right.
But as understandable that is: it does have negative side-effects, doesnt it?
I thought alex was pretty good and made good arguments until he became a vegan. It all went downhill from there. Probably pesticides and herbicides got to his brain and fried it.
@@siewkimng1085 the.......the what 🤣
I loved your point about your experience of veganism helping shape your attitude to skepticism, I had a similar experience. Firstly the realisation that if such an enormous issue could be a blind spot, what else am I missing, and that I should never be complacent and assume I have everything sorted, and secondly that I need to take my skepticism seriously. I am a pretty pathologically fussy eater, there were only 15 vegan items of food I knew of and liked/tolerated when I decided there was no option for me but to go vegan, but I should have followed the arguments and brought my actions in line with my beliefs sooner and not let something like that stop me. There are now 29 items of food I can have and my diet is fulfilling and sufficiently nutritious
Same. Veganism really opened my eyes to the fact that I (arrogantly maybe) thought I was a clear, critical thinker, untouched by ideology before I was vegan. Carnism is such a painfully obvious ideology if one just takes a few minutes to ask critical questions. Now I can see how I'm ideologically influenced by all sorts of things, and can now examine those ideas critically. It really opened my mind. It also made me learn basic nutrition, so that I could take responsibility of my own health, as well as inspire me to learn to cook, try new foods. It also taught me social bravery, speaking up even though it's uncomfortable.
In short - It's like the responsibility I took on when I became vegan made me grow up, expand, humble me and forced me to use my skills to the fullest.
You never know what you can gain when you give up the unjustified ideas you used to cling to. Pretty wild.
Veganism is dumb
@@pradyumnabanerjee3333 why?
@@pradyumnabanerjee3333 It's about not supporting industries which torture and kill animals. How is that dumb?
@@fromeveryting29
" Veganism really opened my eyes to the fact that I (arrogantly maybe) thought I was a clear, critical thinker, untouched by ideology before I was vegan"
Surely the irony is not lost on you, you considered yourself a clear and critical thinker when you reached the previous conclusion,
and now you seem to think you're a (more) clear and critical thinker after changing your opinion.
"As a question, I don't have a straight answer for it, but as as an objection, I don't think it holds."
My man has laser-focus accuracy in his thinking and articulation. I would never have thought of that distinction myself.
Can you give a time stamp? I forget where this was in the video
@@JM-us3fr It's at the end of a long Q&A answer that begins at 51:31
Dang you're right, that's some subtle nuance right there.
Thanks for putting out great content and making us ask the hard questions in life!
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an
interesting Result.
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects,
evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff.
So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
We actually need a full course in critical thinking
Yeah like there was a first human like the chicken and the egg a mutation by two other species adults made a new species that could only breed successfully with other's with the mutation and the difference can be big the vast majority of mutations are bad we see that in life but there's nothing saying one can be huge like Downes baby's but in a positive way a new species can't breed with anything else the fact we can't breed with fish proves there's a day the first human was born comparing to age is just want atheist who are not being honest would say we don't have a full fossil record
Yes, perhaps more than STEM.
Here you go:
th-cam.com/play/PLRdTugBInz19a9H58pNKmjvMU8fpX-UlK.html
yes please
Yes! I wish it was thought i school. Right now I'm collecting topics that are relevant to critical thinking aiming to teach my daughter when she is old enough.
Skepticism is not some impenetrable wall around one's beliefs that lets in nothing new.
It is the well-guarded gate in that wall.
I love this.
is this original or someone's quote?
@@nothingchanges014 Original, as far as I know - I wanted an analogy that dispelled the idea that skepticism was no more than naysaying everything.
@@JMUDoc Love how precise and concise your analogy is.
Another good tip for being a skeptic is holding noncommittal views on topics and subjects you don't care about. For example, you hear some drama about someone you know. A skeptic wouldn't spread the rumor to other people without asking the involved parties what really happened, but at the same time you're not obligated to uncover the truth if you don't care, you could just think to yourself "That's probably not true" and carry on with your day. If you're subsequently asked about the drama a skeptic would just say "I don't know" rather than arguing one side over the other, even if you place more credence in one of the sides being true.
Great observation!
Yes. Choosing not to have an opinion about something, whether because you don’t have the time or resources to make your own conclusions from the evidence or just because we have busy lives and it isn’t realistic to expect you would have an opinion on every issue that you come across. I think immediately jumping on an opinion without being informed is so common and can be dangerous and can have consequences.
I completely agree. Skepticism doesn't just need exist at the threshold of reason and philosophy. It should appear in our everyday lives.
panda thumb theory how can the raccoon evolve into panda and grows a thumb what did he eat if he had no choice but to eat bamboos
how many human died from the cold or lived in snowy places and did not grow fur
how many were drowned and lived in shores and didnt grow scales and gills
how many died out of thirst or lived in deserts and did not gain a lizard like ability to maintain hydration or like how the camel blood is swollen
what about the mountains why their inhabitants don't gain feathers and wings from those who fell couldn't fly
in the wrecked ship story darwin stated he didn't believe in darwinism
d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_was_jesus_crucified_for_our_atonement.pdf
Yes. I don't usually call myself a skeptic although my thinking says otherwise. I usually not hold any conclusions that a proponent might suggest from his limited set of premises. I would have to verify those premises first and add to those premises to really understand what's going on. It's easy to fool someone with a false or misleading conclusion with a limited set of "good premises". Sometimes it's not about the quality of premises, sometimes it's about the quantity.
Thank you for bringing this up! Animal suffering is such an underappreciated reason against belief in a god. People like to bring up human suffering and ignore the 99.9 of suffering on this planet which are animals.
As a Christian, being a skeptic has caused tensions in relationships with fellow Believers, even to the point of losing friends. Oh, well! I prefer free and critical thinking to cultish groupthink.
Might be personality of disagreement but yes, agreed
As a Christian I’m often questioning what Satan’s role in reality or humanity gives the evil purpose rather than saying evil gives humanity purpose
I get frustrated when fingers are pointed when in reality there is one enemy (in Christian perspective)
@@joshphares3332 😂😂😂
Macht Nichts Sei Mann Guard your faith. Be careful not to be a member of the ‘critical thinking cult’. Faith operates on a different realm.
How do you square free and critical thinking with a religion that demands exactly the opposite to that?
@@stewartmoore5158 ‘A religion’ which religion are you referring to? Your statement tells me that your mind is not as free as you think!
I am glad you reinforced the utility of skepticism. As a product of the 70’s I was raised to question authorities. This was not a license to be lippy to the police, but a demand to get to the sources.
The problem of evil is, perhaps, why we were created or what inspires creator gods, especially omniscient ones.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an
interesting Result.
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects,
evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff.
So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Damn it's really cool to see that Alex actively seeks and find answers that are asked on this channel
After you’re cognitive dissonance video, I couldn’t ignore the problem of consuming animal products. I went vegan that day. Since then, when I talk about it, people always raise a brow and become incredibly defensive. I’ll frequently get insults, and it’s always appalling how when you put people’s moral character to the test, most flounder towards add homonym.
You kill less animals eating meat alone than eating bread but never mind don't do critical thinking I can get milk butter cheeses meats etc for about 2 year's no poisoning or shooting just grass fed for a vegan to get the same amount of nutriants they need to poison millions that's a bad death unlike a bolt to the head which is equal to falling asleep and not waking up
@@davidevans3223 I will agree, that is a problem. If you have a solution, maybe brands I can buy, I’m all ears. But I don’t think that one being bad necessarily makes the other one ok. If I can avoid participating in the active killing of animals, then I’m obligated to do so.
There is only so much I can do to prevent and avoid causing harm, but if it’s reasonably accomplishable and I know about it, that’s my obligation to do so.
@@speakersr-lyefaudio6830 how can a happy cow that's never hunted or hungry no parasites a vet and dies without knowing just happy for a while eating grass no poisoning or shooting just grass fed carbon neutral.
For a vegan to get the same amount of nutriants they need pay someone to poison and shoot many more animals including bird's and mammals.
Of course you can avoid some food has natural protection from pests and lot's grown in green house's etc but in reality vegans eat avocados and almond milk or use Palm oil all extremely distrutive there's no sustainable either as all put pressure on the global demand and pay to destroy rain forest
@@davidevans3223 wrong on all counts, I'm afraid.
@@ritawing1064 nope I'm not lol ask a farmer they have to poison there crops often for some reason animal's also like our very nutritious food
I love how you integrate animal suffering into your lecture
That almost sounds like he takes out a bunny and starts punching it in the middle of his talk. :P
Always a privilege to have my assumptions challenged by Cosmic Skeptic 👍🏻💯
I asked the question regarding animal models and research. Just wanted to say I really appreciated your indepth answer and the live event in general!
Great question, and it prompted a great response from Alex.
I think it's really simple: an actual skeptic would have no interest in questioning things they already don't believe. Their primary objective would be questioning what they do believe and shedding light on every hidden assumption in their perception of reality, resulting in a constant deconstruction and reconstruction of their views rather than a definite one to stand on.
That sounds like a lot of anxiety. I mean, you can't possibly keep asking questions forever, can you? At some point I would assume you gotta reach close to a definite perception sooner or later. Since reaching a definitive one would be desirable, right?
@@AugustoXRock We assume that the truth is more or less constant (uniformity of nature), but you can never be certain that your map of the world actually matches the territory. That's why you need to constantly compare.
A rational person would also investigate whether things they don't already believe are worth believing in. I don't know if that falls under the definition of skeptic.
@@AugustoXRock What is a better way to spend your time than asking questions and discovering answers?
@@cheshire1 That's fair I guess, to have a solid perspective, one needs to keep it stronger.
I had an argument with my brother who doesn't quite understand ecology and nature. In the city I live we have seals on the islands outside the city (archipelago) and we reduce the population each year because they eat all the fish we as humans consume, so we have to reduce the seal population just in order for us to be able to eat enough fish. I tried to explain to him that we could let them be and catch enough fish to feed ourselves and them at the same time, the amount of fish in the sea is faaar larger then the amount needed to feed both seals and humans (if we consume in moderation atleast). And this doesnt even touch the aspect of animal suffering where we are killing seals just to be able to kill and eat even more fish. But I didnt get any kind of response that I would consider good, he only tried to catch me offgaurd on my language and the way I phrased my question (he is a politician after all Q_Q).
12 years ago I became vegan. Because of veganism I started to learn more about skeptical thinking and the scientific method. Because of that I began looking at my other beliefs and dogma's. It was only then that I stopped believing in god (s), homeopathie and the like. So for me it was all kind of the other way around. I thank all critical thinkers that we can find on youtube. Special thanks to Alex, and other skeptics/vegans that are much more eloquent than I am, because I now really start to feel I don't have to carry the world on my shoulders anymore. Tbh, it felt quite lonely for a long time, and I'm burnt out from it.
23:25 - William Lane Craig's answer to the problem of animal predation is probably the dumbest one I've ever heard: he says that predation is how God keeps the population of prey animals in check so they don't starve to death from overpopulation... as if God wasn't capable of simply limiting the prey animals' fertility to match the available food. Such a dumb answer.
I just love how humans replace themselves with god and think how life could be better.
@@daviddeida - Use the brain that you think God gave you or get out of the debate.
Do you agree that a world where used hypodermic needles rain down from the sky would be worse than our current world? Good, then it should be equally obvious to you that a world without cancer would be *better* then our current world. Your one-sided agnosticism is indefensible.
And if you think that used-needle-world might be better, because who knows, then why do you support cancer research and disaster relief efforts (assuming you do those things)? Who are you to say that the world would be a better place if we dig people out from under collapsed buildings? Why not just let them die? Do you know better than God?
@@Venaloid LMAO..Well you just lost the debate by trying to insult me.Pathetic.Hypodermic needles are not raining down so you are aligning with god .People do dig people out of collapse buildings so again you are aligning with what is and God.No I dont know better than god,you think you do.You cannot give reason and evidence to prove the world would be better without cancer and your examples in no way show evidence of that.Do you know the reason that cancer exists?.
@@Venaloid If I thought people should let them die while people are pulling them out,then I think I know more than God.I dont.You do. When you burn your hand when you touch fire do you think the justifies not believing in a loving God.lol.If not what is the difference between that and cancer?
@@daviddeida Please put a space after your punctuation marks. When you don't put a space after your periods, my browser thinks they are links.
Please go on Joe Rogan! I think you change a lot of minds with such a big audience
Joe Rogan is too scared of being really challenged. 🤔
I'd also like to add, even if you found a farmer who was super sweet to their animals and cared for them heaps and they had a great life, chances are they suck for the environment and / or they are a waste of food that humans could eat.
For every 10 calories we feed an animal, we get 1 calorie back into our meat product. Even if you assume half of the animal feed is not edible by humans, it's still 5 times more efficient to eat the feed directly.
I can already hear people talking about grass-fed cows. Cows are basically the worst for methane production. Grass-fed cows generally use a lot more water and produce way more methane than grain-fed cows.
Anyway, this idea is a fantasy. If you read this and eat animals, you are almost certainly supporting factory farming.
yes! exactly! ^^^ i’m so heartened by seeing vegans online because i know none irl.
" chances are they suck for the environment"
the enviroment that is heating up to explode in a few decades because of too high co2, a gas that is at a historical low point and near starvation levels
your clown movement has to be a practical joke right?
Thanks for answering my question on where to draw the line on moral decisions vs convenience. It was great to hear your thoughts on this, and would love to hear more on this question if you ever get the time.
There's no moral accountability if a person believes in hard determinism. Alex is apply double standards.
@@shuaibmohammed3256 _"required to explain actions or decisions"_ Merriam-Webster.
_"Accountable means obligated to explain, justify, and take responsibility for one's actions, and to answer to someone, such as a person with more authority."_ dictionary com.
Hmmm. I don't see how determinism would hinder any of that stuff. Explaining, justifying, and taking responsibility are all things that can occur whether or not determinism is true.
The “atheist community” always says that that we must be willing to have difficult conversations, that we must be willing to challenge the beliefs we already hold.
But the moment you try to have a conversation about animal rights and veganism, and challenge what people believe on this issue, then you've gone too far. Now it's a cult-like or religious thing (they say “veganism is a cult/religion!”).
Think of the serious irony of saying “ *You should not question* people choosing to fund the killing & exploitation of innocent animals”, and then accusing anyone who does question it - of being cult-like.
Have you heard of anything more ironic than that, this week?
Fancy seeing you here. You got some great videos man!
The thing that most atheists (who are vegan) fail to realize, is that the moral claim for veganism is actually a religious claim. Morality is an inherently metaphysical concept, which shares boundaries with spirituality. Every time someone talks about Good and Evil, they are manifesting a religious belief.
@@readysoldier6799 Under this view, can you even be an atheist without being braindead? Do we not all have at least one view on what is good/bad, should/shouldn’t be, is morally allowed/disallowed etc?
EDIT: Or rather, can you be non-religious?
Veganisum is a cult it's a belief they claim to be morally superior and are willing to use force for there beliefs on everyone else sound familiar also eating meat alone like Eskimos kills less animals than eating bread it's bonkers as for health well it's terrible but add obese to meat eaters who die at 30 amd vegans seem above average lol the oldest living people eat meat it's not a fair comparison
@@mil401 but why do you think they suffer have you visited a farm I have many and the animal's are happy they might have a short life but they don't know people suffer far more than any animal's yet we still want to exist
When you told that Sam Harris could apply skepticism for his diet and still told people that he won't become vegan, I got goosebump. It's like - whatever honourable we will do, we are still just humans.
Skepticism does not require a specific morality.
@@paddleed6176 it's about being skeptical about what we've been taught about morals to begin with. And we've been told non-human animals don't matter morally as much as humans or at all.
Sam Harris should stop shoving tortured flesh into his mouth. Period.
"How to be an ACTUAL Skeptic" I'm very skeptical about this proposition.
Excellent analysis! @CosmicSkeptic ........ *If you haven't yet, please consider interviewing Jamie from the Sentientism channel!*
I like the way Alex says the word 'right' almost imperceptibly.
ty alex stay blessed
Alex is 🔥 and clever.
He is not actually. Because he believes in hard determinism and applies double standards
@@shuaibmohammed3256 He in fact does not believe in hard determinism. He doesnt believe in free will yes, but he also recognizes that quantum physics show that some things in the universe may be random, so he's not a determinist. Also, what double standards exactly? Either way, everyone makes mistakes, we're all human after all. Saying Alex is not a clever person is rather absurd. He's very clever, especially for his age.
Always interested in Alex's insights
A true skeptic is skeptical about his or her own skepticism.
I hope to interview you one day on my channel. You're my inspiration as a fellow TH-cam skeptic!
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
I love this guy.
I think calling meat eating an addiction is a very accurate representation. I've been clean from a life of heavy drug use (opiates+amphetamines) for a few years now, and I can recognise the similarities. I acknowledge that eating meat causes suffering of animals, but I will rationalise, make excuses, and try to limit my consumption exactly the same way I did when I was spending every last cent on drugs.
Perhaps that's why the conversations between vegans and meat eaters become so volatile, or why the arguments for eating meat so fallacious. Try telling a drug addict that they are a morally reprehensible person because of their drug use, and see how effective that is at getting them to stop..
Hopefully I don't need to explain why that isn't an effective way of reducing drug use.
If we can all agree that we would like to reduce the amount of animals being slaughtered, then I genuinely believe that encouraging a reduction in eating meat is more productive than trying to convince people that what they are doing is wrong. Sure, it may have worked for you, and maybe it will work for some percentage of people, but if it's 10x more successful to spread a message of reduction, then that would result in less suffering than trying to spread a message of going vegan. I guess it would depend on how much more successful each message is, but, yeah, just thinking out loud
Strong words comming from someone addicted to eating plants. Vegans acknowledge the suffering required even in the production of plant-based foods, but will try toi rationalise and make excuses.
Many vegans are addicted to their veganism. I've have vegans concede grass-fed beef might actually involve the least amount of suffering and still try to rationalise we ought to eat plant-based only. They'll oppose meatless mondays as insufficient, even tough 8people doing a meatless monday make more of a difference than 1 vegan.
All eating is, by definition, an addiction.
@@hibernopithecus7500 that would depend on how you define addiction, but typically it means the compulsion to do something to the point of causing harm.
@@bdnnijs192 These points you brought up aren't very good if you give it some thought. If you are a regular viewer of Alex, you would know that the goal of veganism isn't the elimination of suffering, but the minimization of unnecessary suffering. This says nothing about necessary suffering; suffering that might just need to exist as an unfortunate reality. It never seems to be vegans who want to eradicate all animal suffering, but their critics who claim it is hopeless. This is telling.
Many vegans are activists, which is not the same as being "addicted to their veganism."
Grass fed beef might be less suffering, just as being executed by firing squad is probably less suffering that being executed by drowning in acid. It doesn't mean they are not both bad, so there is no inconsistency.
Meatless Mondays doesn't do enough, but anything is certainly better than nothing.
I agree with you, talking about reducing meat consumption and not a full stop is a better approach. People will start to connect the dots little by little if you treat them with empathy and not as criminals. The same with drugs.
Congrats by the way. Stay strong!
42:24 I love how Alex addresses Ed as a colleague
With the older generation of rational thinkers like Dawkins reaching their twilight years, it's good to know the next generation are equally brilliant.
Dawkins is inane
@@cablecar10 But not delusional.
Scepticism (in philosophy) is strictly speaking about knowledge. The quintessential sceptic would be Hume and it basically deals with whether or not knowledge is actually possible and if yes, to what extend !!!
Ta Alex. Quality points. As a society we should critically analyse the information we are presented before coming to a balanced and informed opinion. But that does take a little cognative effort.
This is one of the many reasons I’m excited for the advent of sustainable meat. Maybe a decade or so away from being able to transition from animals to cellularly synthesized meats.
If we can synthesize meat, there would be no moral issue with eating meat!
Btw have you heard that there is a milk alternative made up of the same proteins as dairy milk?
@@disneybunny45 Exactly and it’s already being done but as with any new technology it’s prohibitively expensive at the moment. But that will come down in time and we can eat all the chicken, steak, turkey, pork we want without killing a single animal.
But no I haven’t heard of that milk. I actually stay away from dairy for health reasons. That’s one part of veganism that stayed with me. Almond/flax milk for me haha. But I’m intrigued to hear about this substitute. Milk protein consists of Whey and Casein, of which as a body builder I do intake whey protein.
Tell me about this alternative.
Yes me also.Will be interesting to see how many animals survive this transition.Its not like people will have pet chickens.
Looking forward to your next video!
On the point about ecosystem stability:
Cycles of predatory and prey populations always include "overpopulation" for either the predator or prey at some point. This just balances itself out over time because either overpopulated prey gives ample resources for predator reproduction or overpopulated predators starve from a lack of prey. Human intervention is completely unnecessary in these cycles.
I agree, but I still think the reintroduction of predators would do a lot of good.
Isn't this the worst form of population control ethically speaking?
@@sebtanner4975 Unless we create robots that simulate prey and grow meat on their bodies, allowing natural life/death cycles is oodles more ethical than going out, killing an animal, and calling it 'eco-friendly' or something. I.E. the animal a hunter kills still had opportunities to enjoy its life, even though it would still suffer. Humans are moral agents, so hunting needlessly is immoral.
@@charliet9490 Well obviously hunting would be necessary if predation is but with less suffering. Further human involvement could reduce the suffering even more
@@sebtanner4975 Do you mean that hunters should kill prey that are already in the jaws of a predator, leaving the food to the predator? That might make sense since the predator would be able to eat, and the prey would suffer less. If a hunter takes the prey's body, that just means the carnivore will kill another prey or starve from lack of finding one.
Hey I go to Dundee! I had no idea
I remember Harris saying he had a difficult time of going down the vegetarian/vegan road due to health/diet issues. He is also an investor in ethically derived meat products. So I don’t think he discounts the treatment of other moral beings, which would be inconsistent with his ethics. I think your skepticism in this example is misguided.
What health issues? I refuse to believe there are any if you use supplements and have a balanced diet
@@sithius99 you can refuse to believe what you want but this was his statement. He tried for years to eat a plant based diet, more than once, and gave up. Using him as an example of someone who is either not skeptical or a liar is unfair and Alex should think about it a bit deeper.
@@austinm419 But it's not unfair. Since it's simply not true that a vegetarian/vegan diet brings health/diet issues, Harris must be either not skeptical or a liar.
@@GeroG3N ok Dr. Contrarian.
He said he felt sick. This is obviously because he was on a bad vegan diet. The problem is the “bad” part, not the vegan part. I don't think this is a valid excuse.
If millions of people, most of whom not only far less wealthy than Harris but also just below average in terms of wealth, can manage to be healthy on a vegan diet; why can't Harris with all his wealth and all his intelligence?
Your answer on the topic of free speech was a really intresting perspective - hope you'll publish that segment in cosmic clips
Alex is so awesome. I've been watching him from the very beginning.
In my opinion, we don't need proof for whether or not God exists. We need proof that God is something other than a made up story that our ancestors made up to try to pass down ethics, knowledge, etc. Though it's almost the same thing, I think this distinction is important.
If we want to know whether God is a made up story by our ancestors, then wouldn't we be discussing whether God exists?
Seems a bit redundant to me. Wouldn’t having proof that God exists be proof that God is something other than a made up story?
Thanks so much for posting this. Alex O'Connor is a great thinker at a relatively young age, and I congratulate him on that and on his highly articulate visions. I think, too, that I may have just become a vegan.
Did you go vegan yet?
For starters, you should be skeptical of people telling you how to be skeptical.
I'm going to begin by being skeptical of you.
For actual starters he cannot say people to be skeptical because he believes in hard determinism. That is, people don't have free will and everything is a result from an uninterrupted causal chain.
@@shuaibmohammed3256 Doesn't it also follow then that he can't *not* tell people to be sceptical?
24:14 "it's made so much harder when it comes to animals, because these theodicees don't even apply"
The somewhat consistent answer I got from christians about this question is that the fall of man actually changed the metaphysic of the entire world, including animals.
And that animals in eden were not causing any suffering nor were they suffering themselves.
In other words, here again, it is human free will (that of Adam) that is eventually responsible for animal suffering. So in that case, the theodicee do indeed apply.
Ah yes, the razor sharp teeth of dinosaurs were definitely meant for eating veggies.
@@JM-us3fr Yeah, that response doesn't really address the theist's answer, because he would just ask :
The razor sharp teeth of the dinosaurs after the fall or before the fall ?
If you answer "after the fall", then you just made his point for him.
If you answer "before the fall", he will then ask you why you believe dinosaurs had razor sharp teeth before the fall.
Granted that the theist's answer is unfalsifiable, it seems nevertheless consistent (at least to me).
@@MrGustavier Different Christians have different views on this. When I was a Christian, I didn’t believe anything particularly specific about the fall of man, just that it happened. Depending on what they believe, the fall could explain everything, or nothing. jmo
The fall of man represents when man became self conscious and bound in polarity.Hence suffering.What is the root of all suffering?.Wanting something to stay the same,wanting something different.
39:46 "it turns out that it is in our own best interest as human beings to stop factory farming"
I've seen that factory farming's carbon print is by far the lowest among farming methods.
There is therefore an argument to be made that we should ban all other kind of farming (animal husbandry).
I assume you mean "among *ANIMAL* farming methods"?
@@fetterkeks2796 I am using "farming" in the same manner as Alex O'Connor in the video.
*Asserting the absolute truth, of something you can't demonstrate in reality, is not being skeptical at all.*
No true skeptic fallacy? 😆
Great video. Thanks for the thoughtful rhetoric.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Hi Alex, I usually enjoy your videos with your well thought out and presented logical arguments.
However your rationality fades when you speak about veganism or more specifically animal suffering.
Using emotive or distasteful language like referring to milk as a secretion or suggesting that venomous snakes tear their prey apart cheapen your argument.
I totally support your free choice to be a vegan. that is no doubt a position arrived at based on your moral reasoning. Please just be as sure of your facts as far as practically possible before adjusting and sharing your morals.
Humans have evolved as omnivores. this will not necessarily always be the case in the future but at the present most people consume animal products.
The vast majority of livestock producers like animals and do their utmost to ensure a happy, healthy, pain free life. I won't try to defend factory farming.
Modern abattoirs don't use gas. Cattle, sheep and pigs are killed individually and instantly with a bolt gun.
My livestock have a great life followed by one oblivious moment.
My morality isn't lessened by producing and consuming animal products. It's just another aspect of being human.
Kind regards, keep up the good work.
PS Loved your summary on free speech or should I say freedom to hear other points of view
I've already watched it on Dundee's channel hehe. I liked the ideas Alex put forward.
Please be more skeptical of utilitarianism and materialism, Alex
William Lane Craig feels dishonest in how he avoids questions or just changes the subject. He is better than many and at least have semi-rational arguments, but respect is not something I would say one should have for him
The indifference to animal suffering is similar to indifference to reason. They are both appeals for pleasure and for eternal life. It shows we are not as reasonable as we think we are. I will add that going vegan yourself is not hard and not much of a sacrifice. Prevailing on your family to go vegan is a bigger price. You can take it a step further and withdraw your money from investment institutions that help grow your money through investing in meat restaurants and animal farming. Any vegan willing to do that last one?
I actually really wish I could do that last one. My mom invested for me, and she wouldn't allow me to withdraw that money and stop investing.
@@RetryAgainAgain haha
I do the last one, well as far as I'm aware anyway. But I also only started investing just before I went vegan so it's not too difficult
50:41 that is a very interesting point. I just started my PhD in Bioengineering so I am well exposed to the use of animals in research. I won't actually be involved in that because I'll be doing computational research, but it's something that I'm constantly reminded of in my classes and in the papers that I read, so as a vegan it's something that I've thought a lot about. I'm honestly not certain where I land on the topic but the one conclusion that I have come to is that I think it would be a lot better if the scientific community at least had the goal of minimizing the use of animals as far as possible. I don't know if biology and medicine could continue to progress at a reasonable rate without using animals in research, but we'll never know because we never tried.
@Reggie Warrington Are you suggesting clinical trials don't occur or only occur on humans?
@Reggie Warrington They don't owe us anything, no one has said they do. They don't hold the same value as a human life.
No atheism isn't the default skeptic position that's agnosticism. Typical of Alex to pretend that atheism is agnosticism to avoid justifying his BELIEF system as an atheist.
Atheism is the null-hypothesis. It's the position of not believing in something until it has been demonstrated. Agnosticism is a claim to knowledge, not belief. Not believing in something is by definition the default skeptic position.
@@seanrogers8547
No that's agnosticism try to remember agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a Creator(God) because such things are unknown and maybe unknowable(origins).
*"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."*
@@tyronelol In philosophical literature, agnosticism and atheism are not on the same spectrum. Agnosticism is a claim to knowledge while atheism is a claim to belief. For example, you can be an agnostic atheist who thinks there’s no way of knowing if a God exists and therefore doesn’t believe. But you can also be an agnostic theist. You think the secrets of the universe are unknowable and therefore place your belief in a higher power. When it comes to a belief in God there are only two options, it’s a binary. You either believe (theist) or you don’t believe (atheist). You are either convinced of a proposition or you aren’t.
@@tyronelol As an example, let’s take a hypothetical example. Imagine there was a person locked in a basement all their life who had never seen the sky. Imagine I told them that the sky was blue. The “theist” position in this analogy would be to believe me that the sky is blue. The “atheist” position would be to NOT believe me that the sky is blue, because I haven’t provided sufficient evidence to this person beyond simply telling them. You could also claim that this person would be “agnostic” as to the sky’s color because they lack knowledge of its color. This further shows that atheism and agnosticism are not on the same spectrum. When it comes to belief, there are two positions. You either believe or you don’t. And not believing is the base skeptic position. It’s on the believer to prove their case to be true.
@ValentineFrey Atheism is just a philosophical label. You are free so associate whatever you want with it. It’s not a monolith. There are self-proclaimed atheists that are super fucking annoying; I agree. But don’t let them define whats simply a philosophical position. And for what it’s worth, I would definitely call myself an “anti-flat earther” if the United States Congress was full of flat earthers attempting to pass legislation based on flat earth doctrine. Beliefs matter, because they become policies that have tangible impacts on people’s lives. This is the world we live in with modern Christianity.
Regarding the point about separating the calf from its mother to get milk: it's not even necessary! Dairy cows produce far more milk than their calves can drink. I think the figure I heard was something like 7L per day for the calf and 100L per day from the cow. The separation is down to just pure greed.
Apart from the amount a calve needs and what a cow produces, the cow is bred to produce way more milk than is natural. As for human adults, or children, there is no evolutionary reason to suckle milk from another species anyway.
51:00 Regarding "rights" being inviolable, legally this is almost entirely not true. Only torture is an "absolute" right. All other rights can be violated if certain criteria are in place. For instance, the right to life. Neither you nor the government may end another person's life. However, imagine a scenario where the person is going to kill you, and the only way to stop that person from killing you is either you or the government (police/military) kills the person first, then that is legally permissable. Same goes for all other rights. Typically, the criteria for legally violating a person's right has to do with whether the violation is necessary for a democratic society, if the damage of the action is proportionate to the need of the action, and whether it's a last resort. I think there were some other criteria as well, but I cannot think of them of the top of my head right now.
Basically, human testing has more to do with the power dynamics rather than rights. People can consent being tested on for certain types of tests, but not others. If the tests will cause you so much damage, either psychologically or physically, as to be permanent an cause significant loss of quality of life, then you cannot consent to it. However, a scientist can always test on themselves. A person cannot consent to having another person kill them (euthanasia), but a person is legally allowed to kill themselves. Similarly in testing, a person cannot consent to having a scientist test on them by dropping acid in their eyes, but the scientist can do so on themselves.
So, when people insist on claiming that animal testing is needed to save human lives, I simply say that the scientists can test on themselves instead. It's both morally and legally permissable. So, scientists, stop being cowards, hiding behind mountains of animals, and start doing that groundbreaking research by putting yourselves on the line.
58:00 Technocally the driver allows the two patients to die. They would presumably die on their own.
Richard Dawkins actually brought up the problem of animal suffering during a conversation I watched here on TH-cam
Alex has a conversation with him on his channel and he challenges Dawkins directly on the matter if you're interested.
@@uselessgarbagehandler I've seen it. And it's quite good. I'm drawing from my memory of being obsessed with new atheism talks. What I'm referring to was prior to that conversation. And I even remember Hitch taking about the ruthlessness of mother nature to take down that theodicy
Thank goodness your audio is ok (bit quiet), I was worried it was going to just be like the first guy...I couldn't understand a fucking thing he said, the mic is so bad.
The point at 5:00 is great, that religious people can be sceptic too. Kind of refreshing!
Sure ,very skeptical of atheists who have never studied the bible and make arguments such as Alex.His knowledge is kinder garden level.
I think, even though we can't impircally prove that we exsist or that god doesn't, we can at least choose to believe what the best available evidence points to and change our beliefs accordingly instead of improvably clinging to whatever speculation we find most comforting or convient to our biases.
Excellent video excellent points!
The way to be a skeptic is to NEVER seek truth, and to pretend that the things you stumble upon haphazardly ARE true -
scepticism about food choices, news source and current employment? All the time! Those are my main areas of scepticism in my life!
45:46
"I think the most respectful way to kill an animal is to not kill the animal"
Just noticed this probably should have been worded differently.
I enjoyed listening to Alex J'oconnor.
The problem with any form of critical or philosophical thought is that it goes round in circles like a puppy chasing its tail. David Bohm able to step out of his box as a physicist had this to say: ' Thought is constantly creating problems and then tries to solve them, but as it tries, it makes matters worse because it doesn't notice that it is creating them; the more it thinks, the more problems it creates... I call this sustained incoherence.' In other words our thinking separates us from the experience of pure being. Nobody much notices that Religion has been replaced by Reason with it's own fiercely defended dogma.
No way! I go to Dundee uni and I had no idea you were speaking
Me too ahhh
Not causing unnecessary suffering raises the question of how suffering but also of necessity. What is necessary? I know of no way of even where to begin answering that question. I have some confidence that that sciences answer to how we can to be is correct. If that is the case necessity is something we invent, something is necessary only because we decide it is.
Suffering on the other hand, we can make some estimation of suffering can be made. We know something about what suffering is in terms of physical processes. It's reasonable to conclude from the similarities between other animals and humans that animals suffer. But it's not reasonable to conclude that animals suffer like humans suffer because there are differences. Judging how similar or how different involves a lot of guessing but at least we have something to work form, unlike deciding what is necessary and what is not. Are humans necessary? Are pigs?
@Reggie Warrington That's as good and as subjective answer as any. But notice "high quality" might be used to justify inflicting some suffering. How much and how much quality it achieves is in the eye of the justifier.
18:52 - Do people really need to be able to *do* evil things, or do people just need to be able to *desire* to do evil things, even if they can't act on those desires? After all, didn't Jesus say that lusting in your heart is just as bad as actually committing adultery? From this teaching of Jesus, I think it's clear that, within Christianity, moral agency does not require that we can *do* evil things, just that we can *desire* to do evil things. So the question remains: why would God allow us to *do* evil things (which harm other people), when he could have only allowed us to *desire* evil things and thereby prevented a lot of suffering?
Good question! 👌
The answer is when man left the garden and became a separate entity,it allowed him to choose good and evil and free to suffer the consequences.
@@daviddeida That doesn't answer why, it just describes what happened according to a particular interpretation of the Bible.
@CosmicSkeptic Do you have any videos regarding the moral nature of crop deaths?
Alex my Hero.
People can be skeptical on any subject. If they avoid one that doesn't make them overall bad skeptics that's not required.
I like Sean Carroll's justification for meat eating. He notes it is the lessor moral option hands down, we should focus on reducing animal suffering for farmed meat (what I wish FS would focus on vs. just veganism hard push). We are apart from other animals because we are conscious creatures where we can imagine a better life, and suffer from knowing the difference, and imagine a future we would miss if killed and suffer from the knowing. I have reduced my meat eating but my being an animal that evolved to eat both I feel it's best to continue that, but greatly look forward to lab grown meat.
How is studying at oxford like? Can a student be a part of multiple colleges at the same time? Like I think Alex is from St. John's. Stephen Hawking was from University College. So can a student be part of multiple colleges at the same time?
The minute you arrive at a perceived truth you're no longer a skeptic. Any belief is religion. Beauty is only found in the mystery
Without sounding sycophantic I have to say that I really like what Alex has to say about animal welfare . One of the thing I find very frustrating about the eco movement is that it is so human centric . Even if you put aside the fact that as a species we depend on biodiversity , I very rarely ( if ever ) hear eco warriors mentioning about the misery human activity causes to wildlife . A photo in the media yesterday showed some elephants scavenging and dying on rubbish tips in Sri Lanka due to loss of their natural habitat . Do you remember a couple of years ago one of the supermarket chains made a wonderful advert about the loss of habitat on Orangutans . Naturally it was banned from being shown on TV - astonishing when you think of all the horrendous adverts that are on TV . Ps please note that my county of Kent - once called the ' garden of England ' - is basically being concreted over . Still I guess there is a compelling need for 5 bedroom detached houses with plenty of room to park your eco friendly 4x4.🕊️
We need a masterclass from Alex!
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
cosmic skeptic wht do you think of marxism? most people for some reason dismiss historical materialism as nonsense but is it? it sounds more logical that history is driven by material conditions than ideas, which themselves emerge from the former
Thank you.👍
The vegan argument you put forward seem to be a utilitarian one, i.e. that we morally ought to maximize happiness/minimize pain. Furthermore you seem to take for granted that this is an ethical position most people intuitively have (because you seem to be baffled by people who are not vegans). My impression, however, is that hedonistic utilitarianism is not a widespread position (regardless of whether it's adopted "subconsciously" or after deep reflection). Thus, I think you must spend more time on convincing people to become utilitarians in the first place, before you can convince them to become vegans. Or even further than that, you have to convince them of the value of adopting a thought out and consistent moral position in the first place, because an overwhelming majority of people ar not even there yet.
I'd agree if everyone acted based on reason. But there are some people out there who act on emotion, and can't be convinced to act rationally. Some of these people would go vegan because animal suffering makes them sad, but wouldn't do it to make sure their actions fit a consistent moral framework. At least I believe there's a good amount of people like that.
@@RetryAgainAgain Then there are entirely rational people with no conscience whatsoever. They do not care that animals suffer and they do not care that they should "do something" about it.
@@RetryAgainAgain I don't think anyone acts entirely based on reason. Reason is usually applied after the action. Most of our actions don't even involve thought, and those that do often involve the action first and then the thought.
I might be reading into it too much, but do I sense a tension between CosmicSkeptic and Rationality Rules? Because I remember that Stephen's conversation with Alex was what convinced Alex about Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights and ultimately Veganism... But he didn't credit Stephen with that. Was this intentional?
Amazing video, keep up the good work. Do a video an astrology!
Excellent video
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than Church-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect and ask us if Atheists shouldnt recommend-each-other more often stuff. So i offer here and now some Atheist-TH-camr, and on that note, also Science-Channel.
Our suffering is part of our evolution. We transcend our trauma,... Slowly but surely our suffering will ease... And while it may seem like a slow process, considering the evils of the 20th century it a blip when u consider the millions of years we've been evolving.
Alex, are you still a full-time student at Oxford? I enjoy your videos, and I’ve been following you for the past 2yrs (approx.).
You do not plan to be atheist or skiptic or religious. It is the accumulation of experience and interactions with the environment and culture who makes us what we are. On top of our mental state and capabilities.
You aren't quite correct on there isn't a threshold between things like middle-aged and elderly. For interaction with conceptual classifications there is always a delineating line. It can shift on the group doing the interaction with the classifications, based on whatever their views are about what that line is. You can't have classifications without the application of defined barriers, but you are right that the line can be moved based on the group referencing it and humans were likely able to breed with non-humans near that delineation point. But there is always a line decided upon what is human and it is dependent on the variables that a person or people wish to consider of what makes someone human. DNA, thought, societal bonds, etc.
Christianity is something that grows from tradition and environment, or when evangelism meets desperate need. The conditions need to be right, and it demands certainty, which is the opposite of the humility you say skepticism should have. Christians don't just start randomly sprouting in India as a result of skepticism and critical thinking. Your respectful discourse is more likely to persuade or promote productive conversation, but I simply can't agree that it's possible to be both a skeptic and a faithful Christian.
Such a person either knows things we don't, doesn't know things we do, or is not bound by reason in the same ways. If it's the first, they need to write a book (so far, all arguments fall short). If it's the second, they need to read a book. If it's the third, we simply can't be a skeptic without a foundation of reason. Perhaps personal experience could lead to this...but then... would that really be enough evidence for a skeptic?
More likely, they haven't yet brought themselves to recognize their agnosticism/atheism because of the culture they grew up with.
Many christians are very skeptical of atheists like Alec who has never studied the bible and draws childish conclusions.
@@daviddeida Alex has certainly studied the Bible. He has studied theology at Oxford.
@@aaronpolichar7936 That being the case,he does'nt seem to understand where the bible clearly states when man became self conscious and started seeing the world through polarity.Prior to this man did not perish.This is basic understanding.
Isn't a person's very existence contingent on suffering? Be that other people, animals, the environment. So moral perfectionism only comes through not existing.
As we want to exist there has to be an acknowledgement and acceptance to the suffering caused, and where you draw that line is dependent on the value you give it (and social acceptance).
I, personally, don't think veganism is the answer, though I do think I can do a lot better than I do.
A very good talk!
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect here.
One can be a skeptic and an agnostic both at the same time, right? I'm currently trying it really hard...and it works!😄
Great question, but it depends. If by "agnostic" you mean a nontheist without being an atheist, I think this is impossible, but for me nontheist and atheist mean the same thing. If instead you mean someone who doesn't believe in a god, but hasn't ruled it out either, while an atheist would be someone who believes they have ruled it out, then I think you can be an agnostic skeptic without being an atheist.
For me, there are four categories: agnostic theist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and gnostic atheist. The agnostic/gnostic category refers to whether one doesn't or does know. The theist/atheist category refers to whether one believes or disbelieves in a god. Personally, I consider myself an agnostic atheist; I don't know if a god exists, which means I haven't seen compelling evidence. Since I'm a skeptic, in the lack of compelling evidence, I also disbelieve in a god.
Procrastinated watching this out of fear my skeptic attitude would be crushed under his elegant voice but neh I think I seem to be on the right path so yay