ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Value - Chad | Street Epistemology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มิ.ย. 2024
- Chad and David open up David's Can of Words and explore Chad's views about Value during the Sound Epistemology Adventure Tour. To support the tour, donate here:
venmo.com/u/te...
PayPal email: tex21122002@yahoo.com
Street Epistemology is a civil way to explore the quality of one’s reasoning.
Street Epistemology is also a movement that encourages our communities to engage in this exercise with each other and with ourselves.
- LINKS -
Sound Epistemology TH-cam Channel -
/ soundepistemology
Sound Epistemology Facebook Group -
www.facebook.c...
Sound Epistemology Twitter -
/ sndepistemology
Sound Epistemology Instagram -
/ sound_epistemology
Free Street Epistemology Course -
www.navigating...
The Official Street Epistemology
TH-cam Channel -
/ streetepistemology
Street Epistemology Website -
streetepistemo...
Street Epistemology Discord -
/ discord
Street Epistemology Survey -
se-survey.web....
Street Epistemology Reddit -
/ streetepistemology
Recovering From Religion -
www.recovering...
The Secular Therapy Project -
www.secularthe...
The Clergy Project -
clergyproject....
Thanks so much for watching! Please consider making a donation to keep the current SE tour going:
venmo.com/u/tex21122002
(Last four: 0457)
PayPal email: tex21122002@yahoo.com
Thank you for sharing this interview, very interesting!
Note: Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
This is the best SE video I've ever seen! Thank you so much for sharing these, and please keep them coming! 🙏
58:20 special circumstances = special pleading
Naturalism is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but rather realistic. 🤔
Definitely one of the best and honest conversations yet in recent times. The young man was familiar with formal philosophical terms as well which is impressive.
“It makes sense” therefore it’s the best explanation.
I know it seems like an odd question, but I would like to ask “why does something making sense, therefore make it true?” Or “is it possible for things to not make sense, and yet be true?”
Christians often say that it makes sense, until you point out logical inconsistencies with their god, and they claim it doesn’t have to make sense to be true. (E.g. gods ways are not our ways)
To the young gentleman. You can ask any biblical scholar and it is generally agreed upon that we actually do not know who wrote the Epistles.
5:00 A little confused to what he means about the spreading of religions equally. Especially in an area that is so dominated by one religion?
58:00 It seems to strange to me to to hear someone say that a God showing better evidence for something is “humoring them” as if that in any way is trivial and not about critical decisions in your life. It is rarely true belief until you have some way of testing it. Otherwise saying that you know something means very little.
1:24:00 That was interesting the part about “surely there are things that can’t be tested and you still believe” and showing how that ties to the level of confidence. Also I liked that he said “that’s fair" when you showed it shouldn't get you up to a 99% confidence.
I'm not sure why you focus multiple times on "does the author say they've witnessed it personnally". Chad didn't mention it, and I can't possibly believe you yourself would find that convincing. If it's just a story made up by people, they can just as easily pretend they witnessed it personnally and write down those few words. Why does it matter ?
Chad seems to first mention it in the 36th minute during the main part of the SE interview and then again in the 50th minute and 51st minute when Chad asks me for reasons I’ve been given by others and when we explore the “unique verification method question”, and way after we explore the quality of the main reason Chad gives for his 99% confidence, which shifted from 100%.
Sometimes going bottom up (Jesus rose from the dead) instead of top down (the universe was created by a God) can help restructure the confidence more accurately. If someone has been told these were eyewitnesses and it turns out that there were no eyewitnesses, and that’s a main reason, what should that do to everything that is supported by that claim?
Also, it seems like most people are mistakenly convinced the gospels are eyewitnesses and that’s what they use to support their god being real, and if I’m reasonable, being convinced that they were actually eyewitnesses could cause my confidence to raise, even if it’s just a little. Instead of seeing it as an on/off switch, I see it as a gradient of confidence, like a dimmer knob. I should be willing to adjust my confidence as much as I’m suggesting they should based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. Thanks again for watching.
@@SoundEpistemology At both those times, he says the gospel was written by witnesses. At that point the only 2 questions I would ask are "how important is it for your belief that they were witnesses/would you be less confident if you found out they weren't actually witnesses" and "How can we tell if a story was actually written by its witnesses ?". I wouldn't bring in myself a method for determining that, because maybe he doesn't care if the author states it. At that point, why mention it at all ?
Maybe he believes by faith, maybe he knows they were witnesses because he has a time machine, or anything else. I suspect your own epistemology might have crept in, maybe "the author stating it" is what YOU would expect. In fact maybe he doesn't care for the very reason in my first comment : because it doesn't prove anything and he knows it.
It's like theists trying to convince atheists of God's existence by showing holes in evolution. But those atheists don't care about evolution, it's not the reason they are atheists. So who cares if the holes are real or not, it won't change anything, and we only talk about evolution because the interviewer came up with it. The interviewee doesn't care, which explains Chad's reaction.
In fact, I think I've got a good argument : If it was hidden SE -> "I believe X because there was a witness" -> you wouldn't have asked "did the witness say they were a witness". You would have probably asked "'how do you know"
Your SE experience clearly shows, when you yourself recognized it's a tangent as you were saying it.
Good job in any case handling a talk that could have easily derailed once you were the one answering.
@@LogicalKip Right, he brought it up and I suggested we explore that claim another time. And I think you’re right about Hidden Claim and how using that may have helped focus on the epistemology and not so much on the claims.