I love how Graham is so smart, and so well respected - yet also so down to earth and willing to show up in a hoodie for all kinds of podcasts large and small.
Bit of an idiot if you ask Neil degrase Tyson he believes we are in a simulation so a creation and we will make the same of course in our image. I think it's stupid if we are close to the most advanced life to ever exist in all of everything sure i suppose not that stupid
🐟 03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
I've been waiting for this one, Oppy is not only incredibly knowledgeable and erudite but in my opinion stands out for his serious lack of arrogance and ego
If a juror votes not guilty, it “could” be because he’s convinced that the person is innocent. However, a vote of not guilty could simply mean the juror is not convinced of the accused’s guilt based on the evidence presented. He’s not obligated to believe the accused is innocent just because he’s not convinced he’s guilty. What burden of proof could possibly be expected from a juror who is not convinced of someone’s guilt or innocence?
@@Infidelskeptic In a court room the burden of proof sits on the defence and procecution, the Jury is just there to weigh the 2 arguments. If the defence is able to provide enough evidence to put aspersion on the procecutions claims then they have met their burden of proof
@@virilian wrong. The defense has no burden of proof whatsoever and doesn’t have to even make a defense or testify. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is the one making the claim that the accused is guilty and the onus is on them and only them to prove their case.
Alex we seriously need you to host/moderate a debate or discussion between Oppy and Craig! Their discussion on the applicability of mathematics was delightful, both stimulating and entertaining. Would love to see these two intellectuals have another interaction publicly
Totally. So many philosophers on TH-cam start with their conclusion then use philosophy to get there. Oppy seems to genuinely consider arguments on their merit.
@@Zictomorph 🐟 03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur! Cont...
@@Zictomorph Oppy seems to bend over backwards to find rationalizations for things that do not correspond to reality. Is there really any Christian that thinks that the god Baal which requires child sacrifice is actually Yahweh? Why do they call Baal a false god? Why are all the other polytheist gods called false gods. Why have I never heard any Christian claim that the pantheon of Viking gods are actually referring to the Christian god. His rationalization is so ridiculous it can be used to argue atheists are "worshipping the Christian God" by not murdering their babies. It is stupid in the breath of idiotic claims it could encompass.
You guys should've talked more about intuitions. There's reasons for why people believe something, whether that's atheism or theism, but I've found that quite often when we get down through the reasons, there's this kindof bedrock place where there just aren't any explicable reasons for having a particular belief. In those cases, it's often described as being an intuition that led someone to a belief, and so I wanted to explore more about what intuitions are and how beliefs can form from intuitions.
I think about this a lot, especially when I see some religious people seem to earnestly believe that atheists are lying and must feel a secret intuition of god’s existence, and vice versa. And I know personally for me ever since I was a very young child despite being told the christian God was real I didn’t believe it, and have never since even when trying in my most difficult times been able to truly believe. I have wondered because of this if there is something different in the neurological makeup between me and someone ardently religious. That perhaps I am even missing something there that they have. Not to suggest I think this is definitely true and certainly not that it is a hard rule, but it does seem that some are predisposed to be drawn to spirituality, religion and other types of belief like that more than others and I think there has to be something more than just culture going on.
@@galaxychar i had a similar affect at sunday school. I believe that theirs internal stimuli produced for some and not for others. To me thats just proof their is no fair Higher being. Which sounds like the universe itself
I also think that, in the case of the bear example, what is at play for Oppy in the discussion is the idea of prior probability - as he said how unlikely it would be for a bear to be in the room next door, given all sorts of considerations. Not spelling out each of those is NOT the same as intuitively saying it is wrong and not giving (having) any reasons. You still could, though. So while it may seem at first like he is "absolving himself of the burden of proof", he is not actually, and the defendant has their own reasons for why they believe there is a bear. And let us not forget, the talk was initiated with the intent by the defendant to convince the other person. It is not the same as a discussion about whether something is true or not. Oppy would then not be providing evidence or reasons for why it is not the case, with the aim of justifying his own belief and convincing Alex he is wrong, but mainly to the former goal. So perhaps it is a poor analogy, but in any case, I think it would be difficult to provide one that is noticeably better.
I think he knows what BoP is! 🙂 He's just saying that weaponising it as some kind of 'debate bro' tactic doesn't really move the conversation forward. if you HAVE a view on a proposition (believe true, believe false, or undecided) you should be able to *defend* (or justify) the view that you have. So in this sense, the BoP (your obligation to justify that the position you hold is reasonable) is on anyone and everyone.
@@russellsteapot8779 right. I agree that's what he thinks, but then what is the process to decide whether you can simply assert your own belief without supporting it. It's the whole point of bop.
@@skepticcoach5960 If you HAVE a view on a proposition (believe true, believe false, or undecided) you should be able to defend (or justify) the view that you have. That justification (the reasons why you believe what you believe), IS the support. If someone makes a bald assertion that some p is true, and you understand p and agree that p is either T or F, then you'll have some view on that p (p is T, p is F, or undecided). You'd likely ask them how they come to make this assertion, and if NO justification is forthcoming from them, that's pretty weak sauce on their part, BUT - you still have YOUR view on p.
We like to frame the question as "Does god exist? - yes or no." And if we do so, then prudence dictates that the person answering "yes" has a greater burden than the person answering "no." But this is not really the question - the actual question is "Why am I an atheist or a theist?" Framing the question this way reminds us that the "burden" is shared equally and the point of the question is not to determine what is "really real," but rather to share the kind of people we want to be.
As Christian I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Alex's approach of late is really wonderful to see, as he knows the views well from both sides. What makes sense to one person won't to another, to which this is how we were all made.
"What makes sense to one person won't to another, to which this is how we were all made" Well that nice and fluffy and all. But "both sides" can not be true, though both sides can be wrong.
@@buckiesmalls 💯 agree. Ultimately either mind created matter or matter created mind, no other options available. Depends which of those two options makes the most sense to the individual, not exercising freewill of course because we dont actually have such a thing 🤦♂️
@@daveyofyeshua I think that these are not the only options. It doesn't have to be the case that matter makes mind. It really depends on how you view mind: as a substance, as a property, or as a process. Mind can be a separate substance from matter, it can be a property of matter, be it an emergent or inherent one, or it might just be a process carried out by material things like brains.
In a very rare case of his getting something wrong, I think Alex misrepresents Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience. Matt didn't reject callers' propositions by saying he just didn't get it "for whatever reason" but rather gave generally very cogent reasons why not, putting many believers on the spot and at a loss for words. By the way, kudos on having Oppy on the show. This guy is a low-key but big hitter.
Agreed. I have never heard Matt Dillaunty state that he is unmoved by evidence provided just out of hand. He considers the evidence provided, which, considering the level of arguments the callers typically provide, is almost never persuasive, and agrees that while it may qualify as evidence, technically, it isn't compelling evidence.
I only watched a couple episodes of The Atheist Experience because the exact behavior Alex describes is what I was noticing. That and I found that Matt could be a bit rude and start making fun of the people calling in. I didn't want to watch any more of it after that. Would you say that's uncharacteristic of the majority of episodes? Because I found that he has poor reasoning skills when it comes to the few debates I've seen him in, too, so I've been walking around with a pretty negative impression of the guy. Edit: And I guess another thing I've noticed about him is that when he does present a logical argument, it's a really basic one that pretty much any atheist would know yet he seems incredibly arrogant and proud of himself for using it. Super turn off for me.
@@lexaray5 I think Dillahunty sounded rude to some callers because it was the first time their beliefs were publicly examined. If you were brought up religious and your life revolved around the church, a close encounter with Dillahunty could be traumatic. Also some callers were dumb as rocks whilst Dillahunty is a smart dude. If I was going up against a Christian Dillahunty on "The Christian Experience", I'd take great care to marshal my atheist arguments, well aware that I'm no Graham Oppy.
@@lexaray5 Well, if they're dumb as rocks, no amount of wokeness will turn them into Einstein and it won't get us anywhere. As Harari says, never underestimate the power of stupidity. That doesn't mean I make the mistake of thinking atheists are smarter than believers, and atheists need to stop saying that.
You guys are very charitable towards Peterson. Peterson's position: "You're not a rapist and a murderer? Oh - you are clearly really a Christian." He takes the subtlety of your charitable position and drives his Zamboni right over it.
It's a great pleasure to finally hear from the man on his thought regarding religion and god. It was also a pleasure to work on the translation of his book "Arguing about God" into Bahasa Indonesia recently. I had no idea that the man is so well-received and well-known up until I started working on the translation 😅 I guess, the more I know (?)
Why do you not know what a God is? Have you suspended belief about the topic? You seem to be the 3rd type of agnostic who may want to be part of the discussion but dont believe you have a burden to prove your suspension of belief based on you weighing out any claims
@stephengarrett4193 how can I know if someone's particular god makes sense. Its not up to an atheist to come up with a god to knock down. Otherwise, I'd be required to list each and every god I don't believe in and why, which is not feasible is it. For example, you don't have to explain that you don't believe in invisible elephants, invisible unicorns, visible unicorns.. etc etc etc ad nauseum. Similarly, I don't see the issue for me to say, I don't believe in a god, but maybe you've one I haven't heard of, or a new piece of evidence for one I previously thought unproven. If so, happy to hear about your particular god and why, but I can't possibly do that for each of the thousands of gods people have believed in. So I would say, none of the gods presented to me have met their burden of proof such that I was convinced they exist and started believing in them.
FYI: since you mention it several times near the beginning of the interview... While "the Atheist Experience" does still for a regular show, Dillahunty is no longer on it; but Matt does still do a regular weekly call-in show (Sundays on "the Line"), just on a different channel.
A lack of belief only needs to be justified if the contrary position has overwhelming evidence. Lack of belief in gravity requires justification since evidence for gravity is overwhelming. Lack of belief in god does not require justification since there is no evidence for god.
@@Insane_ForJesus At what point in the video does someone refute this point? Granted I'm only 15 minutes in, but it's a poor showing from both of these guys so far.
@@LastBastian "Lack of belief" falls apart once one is asked, "What do you think about the proposition that God does not exist?" because if one thinks the proposition is true he needs positive reasons and evidence for it. Also the claim of the original poster is ridiculous. The claim that there is no evidence for any proposition is false according to bayesianism/probability theory on which science builds itself. For example the claim that "there is no evidence for God" is completely dogmatic since there a number of evidences put forth such as fine-tuning, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from consciousness, arguments from applicability of mathematics and order, etc. What the OP should say instead is that the evidence is either insufficient or not convinced.
Apologists love quoting Oppy because he basically reinforces their negative stereotypes about atheism. I wish he would touch on the concepts of falsifiability and the null hypothesis, which is the basis of agnostic atheism. For the same reason I can’t prove vampires don’t live on Alpha Centauri, but don’t believe they do, I can’t prove gods don’t exist, but I don’t believe they do. Oppy is harming the atheist community, in my opinion, by misrepresenting our actual positions as egregiously as bad faith theists do. Maybe it’s just something about traditional concepts in academic philosophy, but I’d argue such concepts are simply outdated in comparison to the philosophy of science.
So does that mean they are acting in the wrong or against conscience as if say agnostics can conscientiously object to the belief in the belief in God and in the non belief in the belief in God or does belief/non belief in one being either right or wrong, have to stay off the table according to the rules of objectivity or logical argument? A belief in an existent vs a non existent God seems to present somewhat of a dilemma that cannot be resolved because you can't have a god and argue for its non existence or have no god, and argue for one's existence or argue its non existence, out of existence, or I don't think so. 8:51
@@janeproctor5542, well, Slave, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings. One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇
@@FilipinaVegana yes, interesting, that we seem so obsessed with truth, our selves, I guess, yet stand in the way of it, at the same time. It's the excellence of being human that we misunderstand, maybe confusing truth with perfection, or a perfect understanding of it, at least, one that fits our individual tastes?🥰 But, getting back to truth or objectivity, or staying on topic, ...the truth of "what"?, or the truth of truth, itself? For instance, a belief in a deity, which you seem to be suggesting is a higher truth, ( at least emoji-wise), in that it confers a higher degree of value to the truth, also makes it possible for (lower value), mundane relative truth to "exist". So, that would suggest that , no belief of a deity is a mundane, relative, "slave" truth of a higher truth (or) is equal or "free", because it simply does not acknowledge it's existence. Is that what you mean?
Wow. I should have known better than to start this video when I was going to bed in "10 minutes". Like a book that is impossible to put down, I just couldn't pry myself away. Thank you both.
Totally agree with him. It's a learned response from internet atheism. Normal people didn't talk like that when I was younger, say 30 years ago. People just said they thought god didn't exist or he did. Over the years they've learned to take the non position as it's philosophically unassailable. I've said this for a while and got shouted down on various atheist forums. I'm atheist and I'm happy to take a position on it. I believe gods don't exist.
Fair enough, but I think the point is this: Yes, all atheists can explain WHY they are an atheist. We can elaborate on why we find theist arguments or evidence unconvincing, in the same sense that we can elaborate on why we don't find evidence for loch ness monster convincing, even though some people do. This is Oppy's point. However, this explanation is not the same as "proving god doesn't exist," which is just as silly as "proving loch ness monster doesn't exist." And yet, a common theist tactic is to consider it a "win" to simply point out that my reasons for not believing are not "proof that god doesn't exist." Which then motivates the atheist to reply, "yes, but I have no burden to make such a proof."
@@HarryNicNicholas i don't mean to sound dismissive of academic degrees at all here, but something that came to my head regarding someone who is so concerned about academic qualifications is from the late, Amazing James Randi's talk a long time ago at CalTech i believe, and the part in his talk where James talks about people with PhD's and other academic titles, and how it suddenly turns some of them into dictators of the knowledge, sometimes even being provably wrong. this can be by accident, meaning the person simply confidently believes they're correct when they are not, or it could be intentional, meaning that for example someone intended to get a PhD in physics in order to have a more trustworthy reputation to speak on their beliefs of Jesus Christ as being the son of God. :P James Randi was a master of deceptive presentations, and i think he is a fantastic voice that speaks for honesty that will long surpass the already amazing legacy of a life that he had.
As an igtheist-atheist I disagree with this assessment. It isn't possible for me to have a belief of existence for ontologically meaningless propositions. I don't believe God exists because "belief of existence" requires me to have an ontological understanding for what God is. Beliefs are positive notions, but you can't derive what I do believe merely by me telling you what I don't believe. If I tell you I don't believe "x". That doesn't mean I'm simultaneously claiming to believe the dichotomous opposite. A popular example is if I tell you I don't believe there is an even number of gumballs in a jar. That then doesn't imply that I'm claiming to believe there is an odd number in that jar. If you think i am, then you are conflating ontology with epistemology. God is presented as an ontological state of affairs. When asked to provide an ontological referent to help me understand what it is, I am only ever presented with ontologically meaningless abstractions or concepts.
You aren’t willfully engaging in good faith with the Ontologically meaningless abstractions and concepts Accept that they are meaningless abstractions, don’t be frustrated or resistant to the abstract or the meaningless They seem meaningless BECAUSE you BELIEVE they are, ironically If you, however, believe you CAN find meaning in them, you certainly will Extinguish all beliefs, believe everything, rinse and repeat 🙏
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:39 🤔 Graham Oppy, a prominent atheist philosopher, emphasizes that his atheism addresses all gods, not just a specific deity. 02:32 📚 Graham Oppy discusses the evolution of his philosophy, moving from academic debates to engaging with a broader public audience. 03:00 📖 Defining atheism: Oppy defends the position that atheism is the claim that there are no gods, rejecting the "lack theism" definition that merely asserts a lack of belief. 04:46🤔 Oppy critiques the "lack theism" position, arguing that it leaves important philosophical questions unanswered and lacks a well-thought-out stance. 07:43 🧐 Agnostics, according to Oppy, need to defend their position by articulating why the balance of considerations neither favors atheism nor theism. 09:07 🤨 Oppy challenges the idea that withholding judgment doesn't require justification, asserting that engaging in meaningful conversation necessitates articulating reasons for one's stance. 15:11 🤷♂ Oppy discusses the need for atheists to provide reasons for withholding belief when presented with arguments for the existence of God, akin to discussions on shows like "The Atheist Experience." 18:24 🤔 Comparing belief justification: Oppy explores the asymmetry between defending a positive claim (e.g., the existence of a bear) and withholding judgment, highlighting the proactive and defensive nature of each position. 28:39 🤷 Oppy delves into the challenges of defining agnosticism, discussing the All-or-Nothing conception of belief and the credence conception, highlighting the difficulty in mapping these concepts onto each other. 36:47 🕵 Oppy reflects on cases where individuals may be mistaken about their own beliefs, citing George Ray's argument that religious believers may be self-deceived, exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with professed beliefs. 45:27 📚 Oppy touches on Richard Dawkins' quote about atheism, expressing reservations about its framing and discussing common theistic arguments that claim others are essentially worshipping the same God with mistaken beliefs. 57:12 🤨 Oppy argues against the idea of compelling reasons for everyone to be a theist, rejecting the notion of proofs in favor of recognizing diverse perspectives and subjective influences on religious beliefs. 01:06:11 🛑 Oppy presents his position, arguing that naturalistic worldviews are simpler and equally supported by available data, leading him to reject theism while acknowledging the complexity and contestability of such judgments.
The phrase "make a fetish out of words" is an idiom. While it generally means to become overly attached to or fixated on the exact meaning and usage of words, often to the detriment of clear communication and understanding, I believe that in this case Oppy was referring to the words "atheism" and "atheist" themselves (i.e. the labels / mouth sounds and written symbols). He says that what really matters are the *positions that are being adopted.* A rose (the signified) is a rose by any other name/word (the signifier) afterall. We don't want to get hung up on or overly attached to the labels we're using so long as the position is clearly understood by the recipient. Consider a scenario where John, an accountant with no prior knowledge of biology, engages in a heated debate with an evolutionary biology professor, asserting that the professor is misusing the term "fitness." While the professor is employing the term within its specialized context, understood by fellow evolutionary biologists to signify: _"reproductive success, reflecting an organism's adaptation to its environment"_ John is simply interpreting it in the context of health sciences, say the way 'Joe Schmo the Gym Bro' tends to use it. This exchange exemplifies the fallacy of equivocation, where distinct meanings of a word are inadvertently conflated. If John the accountant continues to insist that the evolutionary biology professor is misusing the word fitness, this is an example of *"making a fetish out of words."* The reverse would be true as well, as they are both legitimate ways of using the term in different domains or contexts. To facilitate constructive dialogue, it would be most beneficial for either Interlocuter A or B to adopt the other's interpretation of the term for the sake of allowing the discussion to progress seamlessly. Similarly, if a scientist, during a scientific discourse, utilizes the word "theory" to convey: _"an extensively tested and corroborated explanation of a natural phenomenon, adhering to the scientific method and employing accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results,"_ John's objection that a theory is merely a hunch would be invalid. While dictionaries may include this colloquial definition of theory, it represents a distinct concept from its scientific usage. Experts, including doctors, scientists, and philosophers, employ specialized terminology, jargon, and nomenclature for a specific purpose. These linguistic shortcuts facilitate more efficient, comprehensive, and concise communication within their respective fields. While it's essential to maintain linguistic precision in formal contexts, engaging in prolonged debates over the exact meaning of a word can be unproductive. Philosophers, like any other language users, are capable of employing words in a non-technical, colloquial manner in certain situations.
The question in the title. “Do agnostics have a burden of proof” the answer is No, Until they make a statement that requires an explanation to demonstrate the validity of their position. They can always default to that they personally are not convinced,do to lack of evidence to support the God Proposition. And because the God Proposition is unfalsifiable. Why would anyone try to defend that position. All I could say about this subject is that that the universe that I personally observe, and interact with has properties that we labeled as Constance, like the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity, and maybe some more that I’m not aware of. While I believe that anything is possible that the properties of the universe allow for. I am not saying that anything is possible because I don’t believe that. While the universe has properties and does things, I see no evidence that it can want to do, so it just does. It seems to me that the universe lacks agency. The Theist on the other hand is making a positive claim for the existence of some kind of powerful being labeled as a God. They then must define what they mean by that, and then make a case to Support their position of why they believe that’s true. Because I start with the position that the only things that are possible are those things the the property’s of the universe allow for I don’t believe that there is any such thing as supernatural. I will change my position on this if I have sufficient evidence that convinces me otherwise.
lol, the opening "why do you talk so much about something you don't believe in" is funny, a bit like asking picasso 'why do you spend so much time painting things that don't exist.' everyone has got to be somewhere.
There is a LOT of evidence, it's just evidence that you have rejected and have not found satisfactory. So, if you are to participate in the discussion, a justification for your denial of the "bad" evidence is not only helpful but necessary for productive discussion.
@Arphemius who says there's zero evidence? You? Okay... why have we been debating about an existence for God for thousands of years with no evidence? Get real. You do have a burden of proof as well, whether you like it or not.
@stephengarrett4193 they've been debating it exactly because you have no evidence. If you did there would be no need to debate. I don't need to provide evidence against a baseless claim.
The thing about "atheists just go one god further": It's an appealing argument if you want to show someone how there's a spectrum, how there's a lot of overlap, and how there's only one last notch to go (i.e., atheists and theists are not so different after all). _But_ it's silly when looked at from another angle: it's like what would happen if a person insistent on not procreating and not rearing children went up to someone who was raising one child and said "Look. You're already not the parent of more than eight billion people on the Earth. I just go one step further. See? It would be so easy. You're so close to being child-free, like me. You can do it. We're not so different. Just admit that your attitudes toward parenthood are almost identical with mine": the only thing that matters is whether the number is zero or more than zero, not whether it's one or five or ten, or eight billion.
@@ZER0-- go talk to darth for ten minutes, even if you're christian, even if you're sensible, polite, intelligent and aware you'll wind up being muted or kicked. i thought everyone knew that, even the janitor at the local jail.
@@ZER0--he’s a Christian presuppositionist. Basically he believes everyone already believes in his version of Christianity, but they are just pretending to act as if they don’t know if his version of Christianity is true. So the debate basically is him using round about questions to claim the other person is a liar.
Oppy has had a conversation with Darth, so even he will extend that courtesy. Perhaps that's the only time he will converse, but saying it's not worth it is counter to oppys decision to have that conversation.
To be fair. Oppy told DD over and again that his question made no sense and his was using bizarre definations that had nothing to do with philosophy. @@virilian
Love this discussion. Great questions asked. If we contend that we all are limited minds that have loads of ignorance, and also with different ways to map the world, I would say we can find some questions already agreed upon enough. But we still argue cause we simply don't like the POV of the other, meaning the language and emphasis of parts of the other thinker isn't like our own. Here I'm thinking of things like atheism and panentheism. Both agree on the obvious things. The universe exist and minds exist. The exact way of how they interact is if we're being honest so shrouded in mystery today that I don't think one view has leverage over the other. With how much science has been able to improve our lives, there is this physicalism prevalent, where a question about the origin of mental is handwaved as probably a produce of particles. If that should be a serious proposition, then I don't see why panentheism shouldn't be a serious proposition too. Maybe we are too dumb to even have good propositions
The problem is that we have been justifying our lack of belief for a long time. We've experimented and researched and generally conducted science and we've found the mechanisms by which we believe the earth formed and life began and how and when we evolved. We've found evidence to countermand the religious explanation and timeline of the universe, and if nothing else this brings us back to a state of lacking belief in religion. Which is what atheism is. Atheism is at it's core the statement "we don't know the cause of everything", agnosticism is more like "we don't know the cause of everything, and I'm willing to believe that it may be some kind of supernatural entity" . These are fairly self evident statements to anyone who isn't indoctrinated into a religious belief system.
For me, the relevant question is not whether or not you believe there’s a bear in the room next door, but whether or not you believe there’s a unicorn next door
@@tgenov _"Falsifiability doesn't make sense when we are talking about truth, does it?"_ _"You exist."_ _"How is that falsifiable?"_ That kind of gives me the impression that you don't know what falsifiability means... In essence, it's simply "How can we test whether this statement is true?" So, how would you test whether "You exist" is true or not? First of all, I assume the idea is that _you_ need to be able to test whether _I_ exist, since it doesn't make any sense for me to do that (due to Descartes' "Je pense, donc je suis"). Next, I guess it depends on what you mean with "you" - if "I" were a chatbot, would that still count? Does that "you" refer necessarily to an actual, living being that's writing this comment - what if I die 5 seconds after I post it? I _could_ of course just assume what you mean, but I've had a few too many conversations like this where the other person kept moving the goalpost, no matter what I did. So I now insist up front on planting those goalposts firmly into a specific position - something that's an absolute necessity in any scientific publication, by the way.
@@Wolf-ln1ml You not only give me the impression, you absolutely affirm that you have no clue what falsifiability means. What you are describing is testability. Different to falsifiability. Falsifiability is simply observable counter-examples. If I believe that all swans are white - observing a black swan would falsify it. If I believe that you exist (you are talking to me, even if you are a chatbot- some entity is making comments in English). What would falsify it?
My thoughts on the asymetry: I think it arises from initially weighing both propositions: regardless who is making the claim and who is responding to it. The asymetry can go both ways. If the proposition is: "the earth is round", you have mountains of evidence behind your claim and if the claim is "the earth is flat" the evidence is against your claim. So basing the burden of proof on the perspective, of who is making a claim is incorrect. I think this is what Dr. Oppy meant. Burden of proof is not based on your role in an arguement (proponent or responder) but rather on the existing preconceptions regarding said proposition.
The issue is about different positions. When you ask somebody like Matt Dillahunty to provide arguments in support of position "God does not exist" you are missing the point about his position which is about the lack of valid and sound arguments in support of the position the God exists. This is a falsifiable position, just present 1 such argument. And he does not need to provide evidence in this case, he just need to show why the best arguments of the opponent do not work. So, the debate goes to something more tangible. From does God exists or does not exist to do we have justifiable reason to believe in God. Which is really the only thing we can try to test and which matters to us in practice.
@@dmitriy4708 I agree. My analogy didn't include a position of proving a negative. Of course in god's case, Matt's position is the right one. The question becomes "why should I believe in _any_ proposition, for which there is literally _no_ evidence"?
Most Americans are not religious, but will tell you they are to avoid discussion. The only ones that want to be religious are the evangelicals who are all idol worshipers, they worship their own interpretation of the Bible. When you put the Bible before reality, you have made it an idol
We approximate and euphemise the most-obvious truth that: All is Self By clinging to religion, or atheism We can validate our egoistic intuition with intellectualism or mysticism Each faction approaches the same transcendent object, in the same way Yet they debate, as if there is a debate to be had
@kolo5836 yes they do, they do so by seeking truth at all When Truth is obvious already Anyone SEEKING truth doesn’t yet know it there is only One Way, yet you insist there are multiple “ways” As if these factions could seek truth differently
@@jacksonelmore6227 Not really. Everything needs justification on some level. If an assertion is made, it needs backing. Religion asserts without backing. Atheism in turn asserts there is no backing from religious assertions.
@@antinatalope on some level” You’re still operating on “levels” What you said IS contextually true, at “some level” you assert And THIS, is its justification: it’s contextual seeming truth Operate on One thing, not many levels, unless your One Be Many
@@antinatalope What I Say Is The Truth In your world of Twos, Ye Shall Justify Yet All: Is: One; Nothing Need Be Justified For All: Is: I Am When One becomes Two, Shall Ye Justify The All He Who Has Eyes, Let Him Read 📱👀
Great conversation! Honestly, listening to this was one of the most stimulating of the brain cells I've had in a long time! I love deep conversations like this. Conversations that are deep, about important subjects, with interesting people, is one of the reasons I live. I disagree slightly with some things Graham Oppy said, but for the most part I'm on the same page as him about most things. Atheism sure is freeing! :)
The justification for my atheism is the lack of justification for any god claim I’ve ever heard in my life. Why do theists think they get to sidestep that burden of proof?
You don't justify a position from the lack of justification for another. That's called justification from ignorance. Imagine a creationist saying, "Well there is no scientific explanation/evidence for how the first life started so my belief that God created the first life is justified based on the lack of justification for a scientific explanation for the first life"
@@Insane_ForJesus That’s not the same thing. The ACTUAL equivalence would be “there is no scientific explanation/evidence for how the first life started [which there is, by the way], therefore I don’t believe in abiogenesis (“life from nothing”)”, mirroring my implied “therefore I do not believe in godly creation.” I’m not saying “I don’t believe that, I believe this,” I’m saying “I don’t believe that, period.”
"Sin begins with a perverted love of self. But love of self can grow monstrous, a sort of idolization of self, crowding out the love of all else and capable of turning into hatred of God." -Frank Sheed from his book, Theology for Beginners
As a Theist, I'd like to say that I do think that the idea of a burden of proof is valid. I also think that the level of evidence required to meet that burden is variable based on factors surrounding the nature of the claim. The atheist who says "I'm just not convinced by the evidence or arguments that there is a God," doesn't have much of a burden at all. He has considered the claim, its evidence and its reasoning and has remained unconvinced or skeptical. There's not much burden there. The moment he says, "I've weighed the evidence, and determined that it is unconvincing or insufficient," is where he adopts a type of burden. If he goes so far as to say, "There is no convincing evidence that God exists because there is no god or gods." That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. "There was no bear in that room because you couldn't prove to me that there was." Well, that's invalid but I don't think it's all that clear that even if there IS a god, what convincing evidence would even be. You opening the door and being mauled by the bear is pretty convincing. I'm not sure I can think of the type of proof necessary for the existence of even a very specific spiritual entity such as the Christian God, let's say. Witnessing someone rise from the dead, then ascend into the sky is pretty good, but even then, does that necessarily prove it? I'd say it doesn't.
I agree that convincing evidence for the Christian God would be hard to come by and, as you point out, it's hard to even define what would qualify. I suppose the rapture actually happening would be a strong contender. What I appreciated about this interview is that it made it clear to me that agnostics have a burden of proof also, which is not something I seriously considered before. You have no burden for simply professing a belief. You do if you're trying to convince others your belief is justified. The interesting agnostic position is not "I'm not convinced either way" but rather "given the information available to me, neither position is justified". In some sense this makes the agnostic position stronger than both theism and atheism. I think the tendency of atheists to deny their burden of proof comes in part from an assumption that atheism is somehow the default position, and that evidence is needed to move away from this default. I suspect this assumption of default is somewhat dubious, although it appeals to my intuition: surely the default position on any question regarding the existence of a thing should be that the thing does not exist? Or would a more reasonable default be agnosticism?
@TESTCHANNEL-qg8qn yes, if you claim there is a god i call you a liar. now what? you have to show you aren't and you can't. and it's UTTERLY STUPID to try, if anyone tries to prove god exists they are going against their own god - god has been hiding to preserve my free will, how can ANYONE prove he exists when he doesn't allow it????
@TESTCHANNEL-qg8qn yes. But they could say they haven't been convinced personally without necessarily calling anyone a liar. Maybe they are mistaken, maybe certain experiences have been attributed falsely, etc.
Where does falsifiability come into it? The claim that there’s a round Earth is a falsifiable claim. Show evidence that the Earth is flat, and round Earth claim goes poof. The claim of gods seems to be unfalsifiable; there is nothing that can be put forward to falsify the claim. So, how could there ever be a burden of proof on atheism if theism is not a falsifiable position?
the dumb thing is god (if he were rel) doesn't allow proof, it would screw up my free will which seems to be of paramount importance to every religist, so why people waste their lives going against their own god in the hope of making a name for themselves is bewildering. trying to prove god doesn't exist is noble - the current gods are immoral, trying to prove god does exist is blasphemy.
The person who's trying to change the mind of the other person is the "active" person, and has the obligation to present evidence supporting the proposition they favor.
Whoever is trying to convince another has already “lost the debate” If the atheist seeks to convince, they are “at fault” If the theist seeks to convince, they are “at fault”
@@Ploskkky no one can be convinced of anything For there is only Knowing I put at fault in quotations to emphasize that it’s NOT a sin, but can be EXPERIENCED as a sin if you are perhaps ignorant to liberation, (not saying you are) To seek to convince shows hollow weakness of egoistic ideology The truth itself is obvious and needs no convincing, for it is Known
No position in any mind is passive. The border of integrity can not be fully sealed. The mind is being changed and challenged all the time whether one is aware or not.
I'm glad Graham Oppy still is breathing. After seeing his debate with Ed Feser and Andrew Loke, I sometimes feel the need to hug him and tell him dude everything will be ok, don't worry, you're awesome
@@extremelylargeslug4438got devastated and annihilated, even there was a moment when he couldn't take it anymore and put his hand in his head trying to breathe well
@@extremelylargeslug4438He’s probably just making a point about how Oppy is willing to basically just talk with anybody on any topic at any time. He’s epic like that
It seems to me that to be a theist is to actively believe and anything short of that is to be an atheist. To withhold judgement for any reason or in any way is to say one does not believe it to be so even if it's a possibility. One can honestly claim agnosticism is logically neutral but that is still entirely lacking belief. Theologically you’re either in or you’re not. The lack of quantifiable evidence or data for the supernatural or any mechanism for such to affect the natural world seems sufficient justification for finding such a belief to be irrational. It certainly sufficient to not accept it as factual. What will convince anyone of anything is unknown.
@@skepticcoach5960 i agree. he's literally saying that atheists are commonly known (commonly misunderstood) to believe that there is no God, therefore people who simply aren't convinced there is a God somehow aren't allowed to call themselves atheists. he is actually definitively wrong. the term he is talking about is known as "positive" or "hard" atheism, and of course since positive and hard are the additive terms here, the root term atheism simply means a lack of belief. i honestly found that this topic was presented by Graham such a way which almost seems to borderline intending to confuse the audience with pedantics/semantics than to educate logical philosophy or even linguistics.. (massive edit, sorry) to be fair to Alex though, i actually think he was trying to probe Graham on this idea though around 27:50 , trying to get him to consider the suspending judgement version of atheism more than the hard atheism, which he actually does at 29:00, then goes on to say that there will be some other factors suggesting you to slightly believe or disbelieve in one side or the other despite this suspended position. i understand what Graham is talking about and actually do partially agree in the sense that for example, i am reasonably sure that fairies don't actually exist, though not strictly believing there are no fairies because this would be closed minded. however, this is where i would say that ultimately people rarely intend to disbelieve in things they suspend belief in, though it is the default state of knowledge as opposed to believing that the thing does exist. for another example different than fairies, before we observed micro organisms with a microscope, it would be reasonable to suspend the belief in micro-organisms, unless you seen something strongly suggestive of small behaviour, such as a moss growing. THOUGH, even then we do have to be very careful, because some things which grow in size and appears to behave like micro-organisms might not be micro-organisms. this is why very specific and detailed observation is required, and also why i believe that even if there is a God, the hope of discovering compelling evidence of their existence, might not even "exist" in the sense that it's attainable for us to understand.
38:39 I beg to differ. One can delude themselves into believing something they don’t believe at the time into actually believing it. Ask an arrogant team in sports how they compare to another team that all metrics point to them losing to them. Firstly they’re gonna believe it is a lie but play along with it. Later they’ll actually believe they will win in if the chance presents itself. Ask them then, after they believe it in their hearts genuinely, that they’re better than them, if they do want to face the other team. I tell you man, we do believe the lies we tell ourselves, but at the same time when we’re faced with (but do you *actually* believe your belief, that you’re gonna win in this instance, is true? Or if we’re getting technical, do we have good reasons that we’ll win or have a seriously high chance say %70 of us being true and winning the match). When we’re faced with the (but do you actually believe it?) question, don’t you consider that as a (we do believe things, that we don’t really believe, deep in our hearts that is). So yes. I don’t want to offend theists, only to prove this "foolish" attitude of believing lies, isn’t at all, and I mean *ISN’T AT ALL* exclusive to theists, but I deeply rooted in us as human beings. I mean, many people do it out of desperation, but how many people actually believe they’re gonna win the lottery for real out of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands participating in?! I hate to use condescending language, but if we call theists foolish for taking a chance over which religion to follow, and they’re at most 5,000 religions, why are we not shaming lottery participants as fools of the neighbourhood for believing they’re gonna actually win a bet of 10x-100x times less likely than that?! Do we not, purely as human beings, believe lies we don’t really, deeply in our hearts, believe? Are we not deluded into believing we actually believe those things? I’m not even talking about not having good enough reasons. All I did is just put him into the situation that he does know before I even open my mouth, that the team IS much stronger than us, and the chance of winning the lottery is practically zero. He does know that; I didn’t present any arguments to him. I don’t want to sound Peterson-y in this narrow example, and say but you don’t really disbelieve in god, but my point is much more general, that we’re so insecure about some of our beliefs that we start to believe we believe otherwise. One may argue, they believed, we just made them switch theirs so quickly by asking or examining them, but how is that any different from (you think you don’t believe in god, yet X, Y and Z proves you do) and he quickly realised he does. How is that quick shift from believing not X to believing X, different from believing X right from the start? Are we not justified in saying both believe in X, even if A did not realise he actually? 40:40 I’m sorry, but that’s a really, really bad argument from whoever brought them up. As much as I love Alex, I’m sorry to say he unfortunately didn’t think it through. People I know don’t grieve for thinking they lost their loved ones forever, but that they’ll miss them so much for as long as they’re alive. Just hunk of this hypothetical case. You love a friend so much you can’t imagine living a day without seeing them. You two pet paths and go to different colleges in a different country, and for sake of rhetorical magnitude, assume in a different planet that you can’t in anyway communicate. But hey, assume you have good reasons you know they’re, say sending morse code style. Assume also there are no computers or automating tools such that only humans can send that code, and he and only he knew what that code is. In simpler terms, you know he’s alive for sure and moreover he is doing as well as you are. Riddle me this, even if you know you’ll meet 10 years later, wouldn’t you grieve his loss (and I mean loss as in forever loss) exactly like you do a dead one that, from the viewpoint of atheists, I gone forever? And to anyone who says that’s inconsistent with someone who "allegedly" belie they’ll see their loved ones in the afterlife, would you call this person missing his friend for 10 years with no possible way of really communicating with them, inconsistent with someone who believe they’ll meet one day? I don’t think I’ll do that. Am I saying all those who claim they believe they’ll see them will think this way? Not at all. Some are happy they’re gonna leave this life as they believe they’ll see their loved ones, which don’t fit this description of self-delusion. Some do fit this and fear death for the very belief they think this life is all there is, and seeing their loved ones is out of reach for them. Those I do concede exist and don’t really believe what they claim and profess they believe. 54:55 in that sense, that sentence no longer is an argument but merely an explanation to how atheism feels. It’s like explaining how dream feel to someone who never experienced dreams (or doesn’t remember them as I think we all do but some don’t recall at all), so they go (remember when you experience something so long time ago and have a vague memory of what it was? That’s exactly how I feel after waking up from a dream. And the dream itself is just as real as real life itself, but sometimes things happen that defy how people act and how things work). This word doesn’t argue for anything, all it does is make the feeling closer and more relatable to those who never experienced it before. So hearing this from a theist on this interpretation isn’t targeted to convince them to change their mind; only to express to them how atheists feel about not believing in any gods. But I don’t think Dawkins meant it in this way. I mean, we all know Dawkins isn’t wasting time nor playing around. He might be an eloquent speaker, but is eloquent for a reason: to preach and spread atheism. I don’t think he’s going around giving parables of how atheism feels to those who adopt that worldview. In the same breath, I can’t. I know I’m being interpreted as saying backhandedly about Alex he’s looking for excuses to Dawkins, despite I asserting he readily brought this point for criticism so I’m the first to assert Alex isn’t doing that, but for those who think I am, know that I love Alex too much I just can’t even let that idea cross anyone’s mind. 1:16:40 as a curious person about what could be reality, I’m not sure, in fact I think I’ll be on the no side to that take. Let’s oversimplify stuff to the extremes. Say F=ma and F=G m1 m2/r^2. Suppose the second was proposed somehow some way, and the Newtonian law was found to equally explain the motion and gravity on earth, which means we somehow knew the earths’s mass. Two questions arise: 1) Does that mean the other is overcomplicating stuff, and hence deserves to be thrown away? 2) Does that mean the first is better than the other, given it’s simpler in terms of steps or assumptions (that acceleration isn’t good enough and we have to know 3 quantities instead of just 1)? Now get back in time and try to convince people thinking this way that simpler isn’t always better, *even if it explained stuff just as strongly as the simpler one, or even if it required less assumptions .* I’d argue, it’s better for the observations we had at the time, but that doesn’t justify throwing it away nor considering it better as long as it can explain something. Even if it failed at points, there’s still some truth in false things. I hear you, "but he stated equally simple but explains more than the other, not your strawan of equally explanatory but more assumptions or not as simple.” Fair point, but if you take two different approaches yet reach kinda the same results (I’m thinking around the competing theories today) deserve to be on the shelf, despite one getting it more rightly than the other? Suppose you have a mechanical scale with 99% accuracy (error is kept at most within 1% + or - reading given) and one which uses electric impulses from your hands to the other (nothing you stand on or sly pressure vertically to. It’s not you conventional electronic screen with a plate to stand on scale) with 70%. I do concede the mechanical one is better at giving accurate readings, but does that mean the electric one is to be considered a failure? It’s a path worth pursuing on the long run.
Did anyone else notice that GO didn't provide an answer to Alex's compound question at 3:29 which was essentially asking GO for his reasoning why he advocates for his/the academic definition of atheism and why is the lack theism definition so popular in colloquial atheism community's despite saying; "so thats- Sorry that was a bit rambling but that was my answer to your question" at 7:38? I would like to know what GO means by "have to" in the statement at 5:09; "And so the the people who call themselves lack theists have to give an answer to that question". What constituents in this universe require a necessity to have an answer to one's "attitude" towards the proposition that there are no gods if one is to call themselves "lack theists"? 5:23 "but then that just sounds to me like a position that's intermediate now between atheism and theism. You're suspending judgment about two propositions". "And so the idea that the position that you're defending now an atheistic one rather than a theistic one seems kind of odd". "odd" yes. BUT ONLY IF you define atheism as the claim "there are no gods". The question Alex asked was Why are you advocating for the definition of atheism that there are no gods? GO's response has circumvented Alex's question and presupposes GO's own position. 6:12 "If you reject the other one tho, now your position starts to look incoherent, right[?], because, um, your rejecting the claim, that, [brief exhalation] there are no gods seems to commit you to the claim there are gods, right[?], so that the suspension of judgment position to be coherent has to be suspending judgment about both of these propositions". Again, this is only describing what results from the definition that GO is advocating for and not WHY GO is advocating for his advocated definition of atheism... unless the outcomes that GO is describing are the reasons why he advocates for his advocated definition of atheism it isn't clear to me that these outcomes are his reasons or that the outcomes he describes are favorable or valuable for him to advocate in favor of. 6:56 GO's statement doesn't engage directly with Alex's question, GO only provides the outcome of accepting his definition of atheism and not WHY said outcome is preferred or WHY he advocates for said outcome. GO's reasoning to Alex's question might be imbedded in his statement at 4:04 and 3:59. In academic philosophy, that is just what atheism is and at 3:59 says: "how the linguistic community that you belong to uses those words" appealing to a sense of "community" and 'belonging' (a sense of socially validated identity). Supposedly GO identifies himself with a certain community (an "academic philosophy" community) and feels a sense of belonging to that "community" and that feeling has influenced his avocation of a particular definition of atheism. But if this is his reasoning he spends far less time discussing those reasons only briefly referencing these variables and chaffing (Gregg Hartley term) with details non-pertinent to Alex's question. This might be what Chase Hughes would identify as detail spike and detail valley. What information in being hidden and what information is the interlocutor comfortable with discussing? 7:52 "there might be the kind of agnostic that says something like you know I sort of think there no good evidence either way and I can't make my mind up" sounds the same as "I don't think there is any good evidence either way and therefore I sort of remain sat sat on the fence". 8:34 "I think the first two are in need of defence. The third one, if you just want to say well Iook I don't care and I don't want to think about it, um that's, let's grant that's a defensible attitude to have, but it takes you out of the conversation" It does remove oneself from the conversation but (as GO hesitantly acknowledged) disinterest does not negate the legitimacy of that type of agnosticism. Not everyone has the time to invest/waste in philosophical exploration. 9:52 Not understanding a topic does not necessitate removal of self from conversation about said topic. Curiosity. Inquisitiveness. Even if poor comprehension of topic matter did necessarily result in an exclusion from participating in such dialogue, that exclusion from conversation does not nullify illegitimacy of agnosticism.
If the topic being discussed is a proposition, which explicitly has binary truth value, and someone tries to engage with the conversation by saying "I don't agree with either," then what conversation can be had? At that point maybe the objection should be that to frame it as a proposition is wrong?
@@chairwood Commencing Dissertation: Question 1. "If the topic being discussed is a proposition, which explicitly has binary truth value, and someone tries to engage with the conversation by saying, "I don't agree with either," then what conversation can be had?" I appreciate your 1st question. My first thought was to deploy SE (Street Epistemology). If I was in this situation I would likely use SE alongside what I have retained from consuming statement analysis content, behavioral analysis content, interrogations and interviews. In your question regarding "binary truth value" you indirectly referenced or appealed to what I will refer to in this conversation as an objective reality. That is, in your question you said that the topic was a proposition with a "binary truth value" as in the quality of 'X' (the proposition) IS 'Y' (binary truth) independent of anyone's opinion. You did not reference if any of the interlocutors held any opinions or considerations that 'X' is 'Y', only that 'X' is 'Y'. Within the parameters of your question it is possible that 'X' is 'Y', but none of the participants of the discussion have even come close to considering that 'X' is 'Y' and all have completely wrong ideas concerning the topic of the discussion. I have been wrong many times before and my intuition has been demonstrated to be faulty. Furthermore, generations of society's have been susceptible to superstition and flawed ideas. Just like what might seem logical to a chimpanzee might be outdated by humans, I ponder if what seems logical to us now might be outdated by higher intelligent beings and/or future generations of humans. Whilst I might have high confidence in a particular proposition (independent if I think the prop. has binary truth value), I have learned to caution conviction and confidence with humility, skepticism and curiosity. As such, along with what I have retained from SE and interrogations, I might consider approaching the discussion with low status/ego (eager to learn, not defend a position) and infectious curiosity. I might subtlety prompt my interlocutor to fall into a position where they feel like they have authority, power and the information of value and they are in a position where they feel like they can pontificate the secrets of the universe to an audience who admires their wisdom. I might collect a handful of contradictions (assuming I found some) than with a attitude of confusion, test the contradictions, inquire if interlocutor has considered [insert pushback], and ask my interlocutor for their opinions/critics to alternative explanations. This largely depends on the personality type of interlocutor. I note that in your first question was the statement; "I don't agree with either". From what I have retained (note that I did not say 'learned') from Peter Hyatt's (Statement Analyst) TH-cam content, statements stated in the negative are given a high priority. Imagine subject A asks subject B if they feel happy and subject B responds with; "Well, I don't feel sad". Subject B made a negative statement as they expressed something they weren't and not what they were, the latter being more concise and direct. The interlocutor in your question was expressing what they don't agree with. To agree with a proposition you need to be aware of that proposition. Consider the quantity of propositions that has not entered their consciousness and therefore could not possibly agree with and add to that the quantity of propositions that they have considered but don't agree with. Perhaps it's worth considering asking the interlocutor what statements expressed during the conversation they do agree with (if any). Also, not agreeing could just be the result of withholding judgement pending persuasive arguments/evidence. It is possible within the parameters of your question that the interlocutor might not yet understand the concept of a binary truth value yet capable of grasping it and is eager to learning about it. If subject C says; "something is either 'A' or not 'A'" and subject D says; "I don't agree that something is either 'A' or not 'A'" the statement made by subject D does not indicate that subject D holds an opposing/alternative view (although that could be the case), the statement itself indicates that subject D is yet to be convinced of the proposition that subject C proposed.
@@chairwood Your second question made less sense to me, but after dissecting it, I think I understand your inquiry. It has a question mark at the end, but it is more of a statement expressed with uncertainty and encouragement for a 2nd opinion than a question. In case you perceive I'm criticising this component of your comment, I'm not. Presenting a statement as a question is neither good nor bad. "At that point mabey the objection should be that to frame it as a proposition is wrong?" "At that point". At what point? What is "that point" you are referring to? "the objection" What objection? There was no objection in the premise of your 1st question. Not agreeing with a proposition is not the same as objecting to a proposition. Not agreeing is simply a state of not being convinced. "should" David Hume is/ought (don't pay attention to me pointing out this detail. I'm being criminally pedantic). "is wrong" I'm being pedantic here as well. I might consider swapping "is wrong" to 'could be phrased better'. Now that I've dissected and processed your 2nd inquiry, I think if someone says they don't agree with the binary nature of what you perceive to be a binary proposition proposition, I think it is still valid to frame the proposition as a proposition furthermore, I think the framing of the proposition as a proposition or other is largely irrelevant. I think it is more important to clarify with the interlocutor in question if when they say; "I don't agree with either" that they are simply passively withholding judgment (not convinced) or actively opposing the proposition (convinced of and/or arguing in favor of an alternative/opposing proposition). But perhaps I have misunderstood your inquisitions. I'm also open to the idea that many statements I have posted here are inaccurate and every occasion where I pointed components of your comment was unjustified and result from poor comprehension on my part.
@@chairwood I think there is some confusion introduced here, it SHOULD be a binary of "god exists, true or false", but its often phrased as "does god exist, yes or no" the former being a binary true/false proposition and the latter being 2 opposing propositions (with a tertiary middle ground position) in the latters case you can not agree with either proposition and still sit in the "unconvinced" third position.
Oppy is my favourite atheist ...gives his arguments with great respect . he is of course correct when he says there are no ''proofs'' in the mathematical /scientific sense...but , as he points out, belief can still be reasonable...it is also worth bearing in mind that scientific conclusions and proofs also rely on certain assumptions without which the enterprise would collapse.
Another reason to prefer a simpler theory or hypothesis to a complex one is that probability favors it. Assume that each part of each hypothesis has probability less than one. Let's be generous and say that each part has probability of 0.99. A one-part hypothesis is 99% likely to be true. A five-part hypothesis is 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 ≈ 95% likely to be true. Is it likelier that I crashed my car (A) because my worn tires had poor traction on the ice or (B) because the space-laser reptiles who run the government had been monitoring my brainwaves and thereby had learned that I intended to expose their nefarious plot and therefore had installed a remote-control oil-sprayer on my car to lubricate the tires, which was activated by someone in the dark van driving behind me? A has fewer parts than B. We may be able to disprove A (e.g., maybe we can show that my tires weren't worn), and B may be true-but showing the likelihood of B takes more work (e.g., even if we show that the tires were oily and that there was an oil-sprayer under the car, we still also have to show that it was attached to a remote control, that that control was activated, that it was activated by a person, that the person was in that van behind me, that the person did it because the reptiles knew my plan, that they knew my plan because they'd been monitoring my brainwaves, that the reptiles existed, that they ran the government, and that they had a nefarious plot).
What a great conversation. Matt Dillahunty and AXP will cry, hearing these two affirming that agnostics and agnosticism are a real thing. I totally agree with Alex and Graham on that.
"Søren Kierkegaard defined faith as “a passion for the impossible.” Is God opposed to reason? Absolutely not; God gave us the gift of reason. Does God want us to be unrealistic? No; he wants us to use all of our powers of imagination and analysis. But faith goes beyond reason; it is a passion for what reason can’t see." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (12/04/23)"
@12:22, I don't know of too many instances in which Matt Dillahunty so casually would reject the premise as to say "it just doesn't move me." On the contrary, he usually adently asserts that the caller must demonstrate it to be true, or rejects the premise as illogical and/or contradictory.
Matt is convinced by his own ego This is not a criticism This is an observation He is not enlightened, in the technical sense But he is certainly on his way
@@jacksonelmore6227 Could you elaborate on that? I like Matt Dillahunty a lot, though I disagree with him a little. What would you say the difference between an egotistic position and an enlightened one? I’ve never heard of this distinction
@@pphaver871 an egoistic position is ANY position that can be identified An “enlightened position” is one that need not identity Matt is an identity who identifies with his identity, rather than acknowledge the Self The One transcendeth
@@jacksonelmore6227 Identity is useful so we can know what we are talking about no? How useful can a enlightened position be if it can not be identified, talked about, or acted upon? Where are you getting this dichotomy from? I am curious that I am not understanding where you are coming from at all. You almost sound like a trickster God from a fable or a Buddha giving a paradox riddle
@@pphaver871 it can be identified TO THE DEGREE it MAY Be, Here, in a context Yet THIS position Knows NOR Need context Your analogy to the Buddha is a good one You say an enlightened position might be useful I Am Useless
Bro I love how I'm like 'oh damn, I can only imagine the insanely genius calculations that are going on behind that intense stare!' And then Oppy's just like 'i don't remember lol' 😂 45:40
I think the refrigerator thing was off the mark as there’s a huge difference between a relatively inconsequential singular behavior and a pattern of relatively consequential behaviors.
12:10 this is a nice point. I agree with his statement, even though it is nice to have these rules of "burden of proof", in the end there is just proof, and how the pieces are lain out and put together. It comes down to the intentions of the persons engaging in debate: do I want to convince or find truth?
This is the smartes Atheist I have ever heard. Especially in the last section, his points where outstanding and very unique! This should be the popular face of Atheism. Oppy the Rational and not Dawkins the biologist or Hitchens the charmeur.
His GPT video argument is flawed. He assumes presentism when he says if time extended infinitely into the past then we would never reach this point. There is no reason to think presentism is true and in fact science suggests eternalism/four-dimensionalism.
I think a theme that underlies much of this interview but doesn’t seem to be directly discussed is the distinction between personal beliefs and philosophical arguments. Dillahunty’s famous “I’m not convinced” and this whole “I lack belief” is kind of disgusting to Oppy, because he doesn’t care what you believe, he cares what arguments there are that increase the probability that gods exist and what arguments there are that decrease that probability. The whole “burden of proof” also does not fit into that conceptualization at all. Richard Swinburne seems to think a similar way, from a theistic perspective.
I don't think Oppy is correct here. In order to make a meaningful statement in the form: "I don't believe X exists", one must first have a clear understanding of what 'X' is. While most of us are familiar with the more popular deities, including of course the god of Judeo-Christian theism, there are countless other deities we are not acquainted with. Their number includes not just the many deities of the more obscure religions which still have some subscribers, but also the many deities that were worshipped by civilizations which left us no record of them. How could one possibly have a disbelief about a deity he's never heard of? The definition of an atheist as merely 'someone who lacks belief in a god or gods' would cover those cases, since it describes a cognitive attitude which does not presuppose knowledge of any and every deity that there has ever been invented or that will ever be invented.
Great points. As someone who doesn't yet accept the claims of religion, I think withholding belief until such a time as I have made my mind up is reasonable. I have a busy life and don't always have time to spend investing in this topic and if someone of faith is trying to convince me of something they are usually a bit pushy and trying to get people to commit without thinking about it too much. It's also fun to completely waste their time with indecision to save other people from falling victim to their scam.
I agree with truth matters. It sounds like youre withholding belief for ulterior motives other than you simply havent decided yet. As a NON religious believer in God, id encourage you to take an incredibly deep dive into philosophy to see where you land on the matter. -Regards, non pushy believer
Nope. Atheism is a position one takes after considering the philosophical arguments. Your definition of atheism is useless, because then a rock is an atheist. It’s silly and an obvious rhetorical device. Rise above your biases and engage in good faith. This stuff is just cringe
@@zak2659if no one introduced the concept of religion and God to children, they would most likely not believe in them though. They are taught about a certain religion and a certain God so they become a follower of a certain religion.
@@4451t4_ The issue is that atheism and theism are philosophical positions. If you haven't considered the relevant philosophical considerations, then slapping a label on yourself (declaring that you have a philosophical position) despite knowing nothing about the philosophy is just silly.
Really great interview Alex! As an atheist that is a big fan of Oppy, I found myself wanting more from some of his explanations and I think you did a great job pressing him on some of these points. I especially found his take on the Dawkins quote to be uncharitable at best and intentionally obtuse or pedantic at worst. It seems clear to me that the quote isn’t about the exact definition of atheism and is more a justification or elucidation of atheistic perspective. This interview also makes me rethink my stance on how to define atheism in terms of “lacktheism” or active disbelief. How would I know that there isn’t some conception of god that could ultimately convince me of their existence if only I had access to the idea. You don’t know how much you don’t know and this seems to commit one to a agnostic position (assuming they subscribe to the active disbelief definition of atheism). A “lacktheist” interpretation seems to be the only one that doesn’t render the term completely toothless. Great job with the questions and I’m sure I’ve missed plenty in my understanding of Graham’s ideas but I’ll gladly rewatch and try to keep learning!
I think going for exotic conceptions of god can in some sense escape the framing of the conversation insofar as those conceptions map onto what the theist conceptualizes as a god, and in that sense, you're not *really* being an agnostic. Here's an example of what I mean. As far as we know, the hottest place in the observable universe is a particle collider smashing protons together at high speeds. As far as we know, the coldest place in the observable universe is a laser cooling apparatus. Natural phenomena don't tend to randomly arrange themselves into extremes that push what is physically possible. We can extrapolate from this that, if it *is* physically possible to create universes, most of the time it happens, it does so by artificial means, and thus those universes have creators. And since this is iteratively true for each created universe in turn, we ourselves are significantly more likely to be in an artificially created universe than a naturally occuring universe. Someone who believes this might give a credence of around 20% that the universe has a Creator. But when he thinks "creator", he is going to think "extradimensional mortal scientist dude", not "supernatural all powerful entity". In fact, his credence of the *latter* case might be as low as 0.00001%. So in that case, the theist talking to him, who actually DOES put most of his probability mass in the latter conception of a god, if he says "gotcha, so you're not actually an atheist", is basically equivocating.
I'm very glad I found this comment. His take on the Dawkins quote frustrated me as well, how he acted as though he genuinely believed Dawkins was trying to give a dictionary definition of atheism when any reasonable reader would see that was not the case. I found it hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood such a simple point so spectacularly.
this is what i like about graham oppy of him being an atheist. he is calm and straight to the point definition. unlike this "new atheist movement" of dawkins or the lacktiesm per se, which are all about laziness by escaping any explanation about their belief. and mostly hateful.
About ones beliefs being best revealed by behaviour or speech, I would probably take the position that we inherently have at least two sources of beliefs, intellectual belief and emotional/instinctual belief, where the first is likely to dominate your speech and the latter is likely to dominate your behaviour. As an example, suppose you have some childhood trauma that makes you instinctually distrust other people and although after you have grown up you have since found that, in general, people are trustworthy, you still find yourself struggling to do so because of said trauma. Does that mean that you are only deceiving yourself in that you now find people to be trustworthy, or that you have a hard time dismantling deeply ingrained defense mechanisms? I think it can also be the other way around. I'd also say that Christianity claims this to be the case in multiple ways: 1) In Romans 7, Paul writes, "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." 2) Jacob writes, "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ... In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder." Jordan Peterson has also used this the other way round, ala if you truly believe in God, you should be incomprehensibly virtuous. In the past, I think he has used this to claim religious people don't truly believe their own claims, but it also seems to me that Peterson is looking for a way to deify Jesus the human rather than believing him inherently divine.
Atheism (lack of belief) is the Null Hypothesis. It is the proposition that must be overcome by any Theistic proposition. One never needs justification for the Null Hypothesis. Anti-Theism (belief that there is no god), on the other hand, does require justification. Theism, Atheism, and Anti-Theism are positions about BELIEF in god(s), not positions about EXISTENCE of god(s) Graham Oppy tries to argue that these words are about the EXISTENCE of god(s). They are not.
This is nonsense. Beliefs are propositional attitudes, so any belief you have is going to be directed towards some proposition or other. Theism is a propositional attitude directed towards "God exists." If atheism is supposed to be non-theism, or negate theism, it is likewise a propositional attitude towards the proposition "God exists." If atheism is anything else, then the atheist isn't gonna be very interesting in a conversation with someone defending theism.
@@veridicusmind3722 One problem with associating Theism with the proposition "God exists" is that there are many thousands of God's, and each one needs it's own proposition, and to accept the proposition "Yahweh exists" necessitates accepting the proposition "Zeus does not exist", and vice versa, which would make all Theists also Atheists. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods", note that the emphasis is on BELIEF, not EXISTENCE. The negation of "belief in the existence of a god or gods" is "lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods" Atheism is not accepting or rejecting an existence proposition, it is the "show me" position - the null hypothesis. When one is representing Atheism in a debate, one is not arguing against the Thristic ptoposition, one is pointing out that the opponent presented no admissible evidence and that the philosophical arguments are invalid and/or unsound. If you make a logical argument and the first proposition is X = NOT X, I don't have to listen any further. You just posited a contradiction, and from a contradiction one can "prove" anything. The argument is both invalid and unsound. If you try to philosophically prove Y, and your first preposition requires that Y be true, I don't have to listen any further. You have committed a logical fallacy (specifically begging the question, which is putting the conclusion in the premise), and your argument is unsound. Theism/Atheism is about your avowed beliefs in god or gods. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about your professed knowledge of god or gods. These are orthogonal definitions.
@@aaronbredon2948 You have not addressed what I wrote: beliefs are propositional attitudes. A theist is someone who has a belief in God (believes the proposition "God exists"). "and to accept the proposition "Yahweh exists" necessitates accepting the proposition "Zeus does not exist", and vice versa, which would make all Theists also Atheists." Firstly, I don't see how Yaweh existing necessitates anything of the sort. Secondly, if you define atheism as a lack of belief in God or gods, then this doesn't make any theist an atheist, irrespective of which gods they might not believe in (re-read your definition!). If anyone who does not believe in some designated god is an atheist, then everyone is an atheist on this definition, which is utterly absurd. A theist is someone who believes there is at least one god, not someone who believes in every god possible. "Atheism is not accepting or rejecting an existence proposition, it is the "show me" position - the null hypothesis." You claimed atheism was a lack of belief in God or gods. Nothing about *that* definition requires an atheist to have the attitude of requiring evidence from a theist (a "show me" position). If you want to add that into the definition, you must likewise hold that any person who does not believe in God, but does not have such an attitude towards theists is not an atheist, which is also absurd. And that atheism is "the null position" (whatever that's supposed to mean) just goes unargued for in your comments. You haven't made any consideration in favor of it, nor of your particular definitions (which you should have in this context, considering Oppy has written extensively in favor of his views and against yours). No idea what the logical contradiction rant was about. Nowhere did I express contradictory claims? Also, begging the question is an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy. Either way, it's not relevant to anything I've written so far.
@@veridicusmind3722 the definition of Yahweh is that Yahweh is the ONLY God. The same spplies to Allah. Therefore, if you believe in the proposition “Yahweh exists”, that means you cannot also believe “Zeus exists” without believing a contradiction. The null hypothesis is the concept that in order to establish X as worth considering, you have to have sufficient evidence to show that there is significant difference between the results of X and NOT X that overcomes pure statistical error., AND that evidence must make X more likely. There was a study on the effects of prayer on medical outcomes if the patient knew they were being prayed for. The results did overcome the null hypothesis BUT they showed WORSE results for known or believed prayer than for unknown prayer or no prayer (which were indistinguishable from each other). So the proposition “telling someone you prayed for them will help cure them” has evidence against it. With regards to a proposition being debated, there are 3 positions: 1. I accept the proposition (true position) 2. I reject the proposition (false position) 3. I withhold my judgement until valid, sound arguments are made. (“Show me” position) With regards to a given God existing: 1. Theism of that God is “accept” 2. Anti-Theism and Theism of an incompatible God is “reject” (Anti-Theism is “there are no gods”). A Muslim is required to hold the position of “reject” on “Kali exists” because "there is no God but Allah” 3. Atheism is “show me”. An Agnostic can hold any of the three positions with the qualifier “it is impossible to know, but I believe” A Gnostic can hold any of the three positions with the qualifier “and I know that for sure”. Philosophers like to remove the element of “belief” from Theism/Atheism, but that makes the whole concept of Theism fragment into a multiplicity of incompatible propositions. And everyone becomes an Atheist for every incompatible God, because every Theist proposition has a contrary Atheist proposition. This is only tenable when arguing about one God, and that falls apart when the opponent uses the same exact argument in favor of another God. Every Philosophical argument for any given God can be used to EXACTLY the same effect for any OTHER God. And that means there is no way to resolve the debate. If you maintain Theism as belief in one or more gods, then Theism is a single proposition, but then Atheism is simply a lack of belief. This is the position Atheists hold and debate based upon.
@@aaronbredon2948 I still have no idea how you define the null hypothesis. Whether something is worth considering depends on where you stand on the epistemic landscape, your background knowledge, etc. You haven't *defined* the null hypothesis (H is a null hypothesis iff ... what exactly?), nor have you given any consideration in favor of atheism being such an hypothesis. Look, I suggest you go read an introduction to epistemology. You make a bunch of claims here without remotely arguing in favor of them, so there really isn't much I need to say about them. Argue for your claims! You have the onus of justification here. Philosophers don't remove belief from theism, this is utter bullshit (read any SEP entry on theism/atheism).
Do I have to prove that zombies are not real … or does my inability to disprove that they exist equate to my being expected to believe that they do? What about Zeus … I can’t prove for certain that he does not exist, therefore I should dedicate my life to believing that he’s real, but is invisible, intangible and apparently, incapable of making his presence felt. And Odin? What about Ganesh, or Sauron, or Big Foot, or Santa? I cannot prove that I cannot fly and my plunging to my death from a 50 storey building is actually PROOF that I just don’t believe it enough. Not believing in something until you see some credible proof should be the default position, otherwise we would believe EVERYTHING that we hear or read. After thousands of years, not ONE piece of credible evidence has been provided for a SINGLE claim by a SINGLE religion. I can’t believe in magic and spooky supernatural beings without a bit of proof.
Great interview. As Alex put to him about Matt Dillahunty and the Athiest Experience I would love to see those two have a conversation about this idea that athiesm must be the assertion that there are gods. Would be a great discussion I think! I tend to think that we can just dismiss specific claims on their own merits as not having enough evidence. I don't quite follow why, unless he's just saying if you are a philosopher, one needs to assert that no gods exist. I don't go around trying to prove that there is no god, but if it exists I would like some good evidence there is a god, otherwise why would I believe? Seems pretty simple for the layperson.
A simple way of looking at it is via the 'doxastic attitudes' that a person can have on a proposition. In pysch and phil, the standard view is that there are three of them: 1 - believe that p is true/likely true; 2 - believe that p is false/likely false, or 3 - be undecided (suspend/withold judgement). If p = "at least one god exists", then you can label them up with 1 as 'theist', 2 as 'atheist' and 3 as 'agnostic'. It's pretty simple, and only gets messy if you're more concerned about the label as some kind of 'badge' than you are about the position it stands for. If your position on p is that you're 'undecided' (ie, your view is neither 'p is true' nor 'p is false') then you're 'agnostic on p'. Calling this position 'atheist' is just confusing and inaccurate (using doxastic attitudes as a basis), as that's not how the word is used.
@@russellsteapot8779 I don't think it is that simple. There is a big difference between believe that p is false and likely false for example. And there are many nuances. Like there are a lot of different definitions of God or gods, even within a single religion like Christianity. So, how can anyone really believe there is no gods if the term "god" is not a properly singularly defined? Therefore defining atheism as a belief that there is no gods is nonsensical. Which gods? How are they defined? Maybe somebody accepts Universe as a god, so they are not atheists anymore? This works only in philosophical debates when the terms are properly defined and both sides agree on definitions. That is probably why philosophical definition of atheism is not applicable in real life usually. Add igtheism to this. Most of the definitions of God are incoherent. So, the very question "do you believe in God" makes no sense. Both answers Yes and No presuppose that the God in question makes sense and has a coherent definition accepted by people, however that is not the case. Each person has their own definition of God, most of them incoherent, others usually mundane or tautological like Universe is the God.
@@dmitriy4708 Igtheism and theological noncognitivism generally view all god talk as meaningless gibberish, so although "at least one god exists" LOOKS like a proposition, it isn't a genuine one because it's not truth-apt. This makes any and all attitudes towards such a proposition equally daft, as there's no meaningful content to be weighed up. On 'false vs likely false', it may just depend on whether your justification is deductive or inductive, as any inductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the conclusion, but establishes likelihood. I agree that there isn't a 'fixed' definition for what a 'god' is, but a supernatural creator of the universe (or creator-sustainer), or anything *relevantly similar* would be the thing that an atheist is denying. If someone postulates Nature as 'God', then that wouldn't really count, as (philosophical) atheists wouldn't deny the existence of the natural, physical world (unless they were atheistic idealists of some sort).
@@russellsteapot8779And I would ask: what is supernatural? It is a vague term. Natural vs supernatural does not make sense to me. How do we define both of them? If there are ghosts and they behave according to some rules why are they supernatural? They are part of reality as well. Usually supernatural is used in cases when we do not understand something, so some time ago lightning was supernatural, in this case it is related to our knowledge and useless in our discussion. So, you just replaced undefined God with undefined supernatural.
@@russellsteapot8779 Igtheism is a cancerous philosophical idea. It dismisses "God" on the grounds that the word has no coherent and uambiguous definition; but by that standard you can dismiss just about everything. The notion of "meaning" has no coherent, unambiguous definition. The notion of "morality" has no coherent, unambiguous definition. The notion of "philosophy' has no coherent, unambiguous definition. The notion of "truth" has no coherent, unambigyous definition. Come to think of it there is no such thing as cannonical, well-defined unambiguous definition even in Mathematics. I guess this makes any and all attitudes towards meaning, morality, philosophy, truth and Mathematics to be equally daft, as there is no meaningful content to be weighed up. That's quite the own goal...
You don’t need a well-thought out explanation/position for a lack of knowledge of there not being any gods because there simply isn’t any extraordinary knowledge to begin with.
Interesting Alex. It's always nice to listen to Graham Oppy's work 😊 Next, I recommend you to invite this person which I think is quite resonate with your podcast topic: 1. Rupert Sheldrake, known for his skeptism of scientism paradigm and his endorsment about supernatural experimentation. 2. Shelly Kagan, well known for his ethics class at Yale University and his debate with William Lane Craig is fascinating to watch fyi 3. Ed Fesser, you already know who he is If you considered my comments here, thank you! ❤
Suspending judgement, and holding high skepticism to an extraordinary idea is the correct action to take if you can’t find good warrant to accept either the positive or negative position on the concept. If you have a position that says “I think no gods exist” and I say “why?” And you can’t come up with an actually good reason, then I shouldn’t believe you. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, nor that I believe the opposite claim instead. It just means that you have an idea that you arrived to in an unjustified way.
Someone lacking a belief in a God is an atheist. There's no need for the term "lacktheist". The a- prefix means without. A-theism is without belief in the existence of a God.
@@anteodedi8937 Atheism comes from the Greek atheos. The A means without. Romans have called early Christians atheists for not believing in the Roman gods. Here in lies the issue. Some want to say agnostic means without knowledge but then do not do the same courtesy for atheist.
@@DevinMacGregor Yep, that's what I said. It is a view that contains no god (a-theos+ism/without god + ism). It's not a-theism/lack theism or whatever.
![ถามตรงๆ กับ อาจตุพร ทำไม ประเทศไทย ใครเป็นนายก ก็โดนด่า พอออกเเล้วคนคิดถึง!!?? l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3YFLMXxBGAs/mqdefault.jpg)
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
Alex face when oppy said there is no compelling arguments for neither side 🤣
I love how Graham is so smart, and so well respected - yet also so down to earth and willing to show up in a hoodie for all kinds of podcasts large and small.
Bit of an idiot if you ask Neil degrase Tyson he believes we are in a simulation so a creation and we will make the same of course in our image.
I think it's stupid if we are close to the most advanced life to ever exist in all of everything sure i suppose not that stupid
Just like PH?!?
🐟 03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
We praise people for wearing sweatshirts now? That’s a weird new level of simping that no one could have possibly predicted.
@@zaddyjacquescormery6613
💯
Love how Alex keeps referring to food inthe fridge, and Graham keeps shifting the reference to beer. Australia rules!
This was the cherry on top.
I've been waiting for this one, Oppy is not only incredibly knowledgeable and erudite but in my opinion stands out for his serious lack of arrogance and ego
Jake, what is this “EGO” of which you speak? 🤔
Indeed we used to call it good manners!
@@FilipinaVegana2 comments below>replies
I think thats what he was referring to.
@@FilipinaVegana ego: a conscious thinking being/subject
Fully agree. And he has debated online with a completely vacant bookshelf behind him...
If a juror votes not guilty, it “could” be because he’s convinced that the person is innocent. However, a vote of not guilty could simply mean the juror is not convinced of the accused’s guilt based on the evidence presented. He’s not obligated to believe the accused is innocent just because he’s not convinced he’s guilty. What burden of proof could possibly be expected from a juror who is not convinced of someone’s guilt or innocence?
Well I suppose you could explain which evidence is insufficient and why you believe it to be insufficient.
@@2001Pieps but am I obligated to? Do I have a burden to “prove” why I’m unconvinced? With more evidence I could be swayed either way.
@@Infidelskeptic In a court room the burden of proof sits on the defence and procecution, the Jury is just there to weigh the 2 arguments. If the defence is able to provide enough evidence to put aspersion on the procecutions claims then they have met their burden of proof
@@virilian wrong. The defense has no burden of proof whatsoever and doesn’t have to even make a defense or testify. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is the one making the claim that the accused is guilty and the onus is on them and only them to prove their case.
Very nice analogy 👋 😎
Alex we seriously need you to host/moderate a debate or discussion between Oppy and Craig! Their discussion on the applicability of mathematics was delightful, both stimulating and entertaining. Would love to see these two intellectuals have another interaction publicly
Dr. Oppy is my favourite atheist philosopher. Such a refreshing and original voice in the philosophy of religion.
Totally. So many philosophers on TH-cam start with their conclusion then use philosophy to get there. Oppy seems to genuinely consider arguments on their merit.
@@Zictomorph
🐟 03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
Cont...
Are you a theist or something?
@@Zictomorph Oppy seems to bend over backwards to find rationalizations for things that do not correspond to reality. Is there really any Christian that thinks that the god Baal which requires child sacrifice is actually Yahweh? Why do they call Baal a false god? Why are all the other polytheist gods called false gods. Why have I never heard any Christian claim that the pantheon of Viking gods are actually referring to the Christian god.
His rationalization is so ridiculous it can be used to argue atheists are "worshipping the Christian God" by not murdering their babies. It is stupid in the breath of idiotic claims it could encompass.
I think you misunderstood his argument @@brianmacker1288
IT'S FINALLY HERE. OPPY and Alex. I've waited years for this, and it's finally here 😭😭
i am in actual disbelief
@@justchris9883
haha good one 😂
Wonderful conversation, you really got some new juices out of Dr. Oppy!
You guys should've talked more about intuitions. There's reasons for why people believe something, whether that's atheism or theism, but I've found that quite often when we get down through the reasons, there's this kindof bedrock place where there just aren't any explicable reasons for having a particular belief. In those cases, it's often described as being an intuition that led someone to a belief, and so I wanted to explore more about what intuitions are and how beliefs can form from intuitions.
💯
read the stanford page
I think about this a lot, especially when I see some religious people seem to earnestly believe that atheists are lying and must feel a secret intuition of god’s existence, and vice versa.
And I know personally for me ever since I was a very young child despite being told the christian God was real I didn’t believe it, and have never since even when trying in my most difficult times been able to truly believe. I have wondered because of this if there is something different in the neurological makeup between me and someone ardently religious. That perhaps I am even missing something there that they have.
Not to suggest I think this is definitely true and certainly not that it is a hard rule, but it does seem that some are predisposed to be drawn to spirituality, religion and other types of belief like that more than others and I think there has to be something more than just culture going on.
@@galaxychar i had a similar affect at sunday school. I believe that theirs internal stimuli produced for some and not for others. To me thats just proof their is no fair Higher being. Which sounds like the universe itself
I also think that, in the case of the bear example, what is at play for Oppy in the discussion is the idea of prior probability - as he said how unlikely it would be for a bear to be in the room next door, given all sorts of considerations. Not spelling out each of those is NOT the same as intuitively saying it is wrong and not giving (having) any reasons. You still could, though. So while it may seem at first like he is "absolving himself of the burden of proof", he is not actually, and the defendant has their own reasons for why they believe there is a bear. And let us not forget, the talk was initiated with the intent by the defendant to convince the other person. It is not the same as a discussion about whether something is true or not. Oppy would then not be providing evidence or reasons for why it is not the case, with the aim of justifying his own belief and convincing Alex he is wrong, but mainly to the former goal. So perhaps it is a poor analogy, but in any case, I think it would be difficult to provide one that is noticeably better.
He's saying he doesn't believe in Burden of proof and then goes on to explain the burden of proof using different words.
I think he knows what BoP is! 🙂 He's just saying that weaponising it as some kind of 'debate bro' tactic doesn't really move the conversation forward. if you HAVE a view on a proposition (believe true, believe false, or undecided) you should be able to *defend* (or justify) the view that you have. So in this sense, the BoP (your obligation to justify that the position you hold is reasonable) is on anyone and everyone.
@@russellsteapot8779 right. I agree that's what he thinks, but then what is the process to decide whether you can simply assert your own belief without supporting it. It's the whole point of bop.
@@skepticcoach5960 If you HAVE a view on a proposition (believe true, believe false, or undecided) you should be able to defend (or justify) the view that you have. That justification (the reasons why you believe what you believe), IS the support. If someone makes a bald assertion that some p is true, and you understand p and agree that p is either T or F, then you'll have some view on that p (p is T, p is F, or undecided). You'd likely ask them how they come to make this assertion, and if NO justification is forthcoming from them, that's pretty weak sauce on their part, BUT - you still have YOUR view on p.
We like to frame the question as "Does god exist? - yes or no." And if we do so, then prudence dictates that the person answering "yes" has a greater burden than the person answering "no."
But this is not really the question - the actual question is "Why am I an atheist or a theist?" Framing the question this way reminds us that the "burden" is shared equally and the point of the question is not to determine what is "really real," but rather to share the kind of people we want to be.
@@ericb9804 but our beliefs should at least almost always match reality to the best of our ability
13:22 why do I feel this anxiety that if Alex keeps asking similar questions the interviewee will suddenly stand up and leave!!
"You are obsessed with the burden of proof!"
As Christian I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Alex's approach of late is really wonderful to see, as he knows the views well from both sides.
What makes sense to one person won't to another, to which this is how we were all made.
Yep, and we all need to just respect that.
"What makes sense to one person won't to another, to which this is how we were all made"
Well that nice and fluffy and all. But "both sides" can not be true, though both sides can be wrong.
@@buckiesmalls 💯 agree. Ultimately either mind created matter or matter created mind, no other options available. Depends which of those two options makes the most sense to the individual, not exercising freewill of course because we dont actually have such a thing 🤦♂️
@@daveyofyeshua I think that these are not the only options. It doesn't have to be the case that matter makes mind. It really depends on how you view mind: as a substance, as a property, or as a process. Mind can be a separate substance from matter, it can be a property of matter, be it an emergent or inherent one, or it might just be a process carried out by material things like brains.
This is my favorite interview of yours yet!
In a very rare case of his getting something wrong, I think Alex misrepresents Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience. Matt didn't reject callers' propositions by saying he just didn't get it "for whatever reason" but rather gave generally very cogent reasons why not, putting many believers on the spot and at a loss for words. By the way, kudos on having Oppy on the show. This guy is a low-key but big hitter.
Agreed. I have never heard Matt Dillaunty state that he is unmoved by evidence provided just out of hand. He considers the evidence provided, which, considering the level of arguments the callers typically provide, is almost never persuasive, and agrees that while it may qualify as evidence, technically, it isn't compelling evidence.
I only watched a couple episodes of The Atheist Experience because the exact behavior Alex describes is what I was noticing. That and I found that Matt could be a bit rude and start making fun of the people calling in. I didn't want to watch any more of it after that. Would you say that's uncharacteristic of the majority of episodes? Because I found that he has poor reasoning skills when it comes to the few debates I've seen him in, too, so I've been walking around with a pretty negative impression of the guy.
Edit: And I guess another thing I've noticed about him is that when he does present a logical argument, it's a really basic one that pretty much any atheist would know yet he seems incredibly arrogant and proud of himself for using it. Super turn off for me.
@@lexaray5 I think Dillahunty sounded rude to some callers because it was the first time their beliefs were publicly examined. If you were brought up religious and your life revolved around the church, a close encounter with Dillahunty could be traumatic. Also some callers were dumb as rocks whilst Dillahunty is a smart dude. If I was going up against a Christian Dillahunty on "The Christian Experience", I'd take great care to marshal my atheist arguments, well aware that I'm no Graham Oppy.
@weeringjohnny "also some callers were dumb as rocks while Dillahunty is a smart dude" yeah, that's the attitude I'm complaining about though.
@@lexaray5 Well, if they're dumb as rocks, no amount of wokeness will turn them into Einstein and it won't get us anywhere. As Harari says, never underestimate the power of stupidity. That doesn't mean I make the mistake of thinking atheists are smarter than believers, and atheists need to stop saying that.
You guys are very charitable towards Peterson.
Peterson's position: "You're not a rapist and a murderer? Oh - you are clearly really a Christian."
He takes the subtlety of your charitable position and drives his Zamboni right over it.
It's a great pleasure to finally hear from the man on his thought regarding religion and god. It was also a pleasure to work on the translation of his book "Arguing about God" into Bahasa Indonesia recently. I had no idea that the man is so well-received and well-known up until I started working on the translation 😅 I guess, the more I know (?)
Just ordered the translated book, can't wait to read it. Thanks for your work
Mantap
5:14 - I have a well-thought-out position. my position is, ”I don’t know what a God is. Can you define it? Can you show me one? I’ll wait”
Why do you not know what a God is? Have you suspended belief about the topic? You seem to be the 3rd type of agnostic who may want to be part of the discussion but dont believe you have a burden to prove your suspension of belief based on you weighing out any claims
@stephengarrett4193 how can I know if someone's particular god makes sense. Its not up to an atheist to come up with a god to knock down. Otherwise, I'd be required to list each and every god I don't believe in and why, which is not feasible is it. For example, you don't have to explain that you don't believe in invisible elephants, invisible unicorns, visible unicorns.. etc etc etc ad nauseum.
Similarly, I don't see the issue for me to say, I don't believe in a god, but maybe you've one I haven't heard of, or a new piece of evidence for one I previously thought unproven. If so, happy to hear about your particular god and why, but I can't possibly do that for each of the thousands of gods people have believed in.
So I would say, none of the gods presented to me have met their burden of proof such that I was convinced they exist and started believing in them.
@@stephengarrett4193
Because every theist seemingly believes in a different god to some extent. It’s up to the theist to define what the god is.
@@stephengarrett4193 What do you mean when you say someone has "a burden to prove your suspension of belief" ?
@@stephengarrett4193no, how can I know what a god is if you can’t show me it exists?
This was a great conversation This guy knows what he's talking about.
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
FYI: since you mention it several times near the beginning of the interview... While "the Atheist Experience" does still for a regular show, Dillahunty is no longer on it; but Matt does still do a regular weekly call-in show (Sundays on "the Line"), just on a different channel.
Alex , the professional of asking questions to keep someone talking interestingly 😊
A lack of belief only needs to be justified if the contrary position has overwhelming evidence. Lack of belief in gravity requires justification since evidence for gravity is overwhelming. Lack of belief in god does not require justification since there is no evidence for god.
False. Watch the video
@@Insane_ForJesus False.
@@nagranoth_ Yup
@@Insane_ForJesus At what point in the video does someone refute this point?
Granted I'm only 15 minutes in, but it's a poor showing from both of these guys so far.
@@LastBastian "Lack of belief" falls apart once one is asked, "What do you think about the proposition that God does not exist?" because if one thinks the proposition is true he needs positive reasons and evidence for it. Also the claim of the original poster is ridiculous. The claim that there is no evidence for any proposition is false according to bayesianism/probability theory on which science builds itself. For example the claim that "there is no evidence for God" is completely dogmatic since there a number of evidences put forth such as fine-tuning, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from consciousness, arguments from applicability of mathematics and order, etc. What the OP should say instead is that the evidence is either insufficient or not convinced.
Apologists love quoting Oppy because he basically reinforces their negative stereotypes about atheism.
I wish he would touch on the concepts of falsifiability and the null hypothesis, which is the basis of agnostic atheism. For the same reason I can’t prove vampires don’t live on Alpha Centauri, but don’t believe they do, I can’t prove gods don’t exist, but I don’t believe they do.
Oppy is harming the atheist community, in my opinion, by misrepresenting our actual positions as egregiously as bad faith theists do. Maybe it’s just something about traditional concepts in academic philosophy, but I’d argue such concepts are simply outdated in comparison to the philosophy of science.
No idea who Oppy is or why Alex thought it worth interviewing him, but clearly it's a total waste of time!
One can act against their own belief if they also believe that in general it is possible for themselves to be wrong
Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
So does that mean they are acting in the wrong or against conscience as if say agnostics can conscientiously object to the belief in the belief in God and in the non belief in the belief in God or does belief/non belief in one being either right or wrong, have to stay off the table according to the rules of objectivity or logical argument?
A belief in an existent vs a non existent God seems to present somewhat of a dilemma that cannot be resolved because you can't have a god and argue for its non existence or have no god, and argue for one's existence or argue its non existence, out of existence, or I don't think so. 8:51
true like someone can believe it is rational to be healthy but still like unhealthy food
@@janeproctor5542, well, Slave, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings.
One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇
@@FilipinaVegana yes, interesting, that we seem so obsessed with truth, our selves, I guess, yet stand in the way of it, at the same time.
It's the excellence of being human that we misunderstand, maybe confusing truth with perfection, or a perfect understanding of it, at least, one that fits our individual tastes?🥰
But, getting back to truth or objectivity, or staying on topic, ...the truth of "what"?, or the truth of truth, itself?
For instance, a belief in a deity, which you seem to be suggesting is a higher truth, ( at least emoji-wise), in that it confers a higher degree of value to the truth, also makes it possible for (lower value), mundane relative truth to "exist".
So, that would suggest that , no belief of a deity is a mundane, relative, "slave" truth of a higher truth (or) is equal or "free", because it simply does not acknowledge it's existence.
Is that what you mean?
The collab we were all waiting for :')
Wow. I should have known better than to start this video when I was going to bed in "10 minutes". Like a book that is impossible to put down, I just couldn't pry myself away. Thank you both.
Totally agree with him.
It's a learned response from internet atheism. Normal people didn't talk like that when I was younger, say 30 years ago. People just said they thought god didn't exist or he did. Over the years they've learned to take the non position as it's philosophically unassailable.
I've said this for a while and got shouted down on various atheist forums. I'm atheist and I'm happy to take a position on it. I believe gods don't exist.
Fair enough, but I think the point is this: Yes, all atheists can explain WHY they are an atheist. We can elaborate on why we find theist arguments or evidence unconvincing, in the same sense that we can elaborate on why we don't find evidence for loch ness monster convincing, even though some people do. This is Oppy's point.
However, this explanation is not the same as "proving god doesn't exist," which is just as silly as "proving loch ness monster doesn't exist." And yet, a common theist tactic is to consider it a "win" to simply point out that my reasons for not believing are not "proof that god doesn't exist." Which then motivates the atheist to reply, "yes, but I have no burden to make such a proof."
@@ericb9804 God is the "Uncreated" while fairies , monsters , gods, man , etc are all created beings. At least get basic theology right.
@@smidlee7747 uh no, fairies are clearly uncreated.
@@ericb9804 "A fairy is a type of mythical being or legendary creature found in the folklore of multiple European cultures."
@@smidlee7747 wrong again. a fairy is ultimate source of all existence. duh.
I'm impressed by his clarity of thought. No matter what you ask him, he always seems to have a well reasoned response.
Alex has two degrees one in religion and one in philosophy. Right? At what level B.A., M. A., or PHD?
@@joannware6228 there is this new thing called google where you can type letters and get answers to questions. if they make sense that is.
@@joannware6228 i know you're lazy so i did it for you:
a BA (Hons) in philosophy and a BSc in mathematics
so is he not qualified enough or what?
@@HarryNicNicholas i don't mean to sound dismissive of academic degrees at all here, but something that came to my head regarding someone who is so concerned about academic qualifications is from the late, Amazing James Randi's talk a long time ago at CalTech i believe, and the part in his talk where James talks about people with PhD's and other academic titles, and how it suddenly turns some of them into dictators of the knowledge, sometimes even being provably wrong.
this can be by accident, meaning the person simply confidently believes they're correct when they are not,
or it could be intentional, meaning that for example someone intended to get a PhD in physics in order to have a more trustworthy reputation to speak on their beliefs of Jesus Christ as being the son of God. :P
James Randi was a master of deceptive presentations, and i think he is a fantastic voice that speaks for honesty that will long surpass the already amazing legacy of a life that he had.
@@HarryNicNicholas Thanks. I thought he said in the why he doesn't believe video that he had a degree in religion.
As an igtheist-atheist I disagree with this assessment.
It isn't possible for me to have a belief of existence for ontologically meaningless propositions. I don't believe God exists because "belief of existence" requires me to have an ontological understanding for what God is. Beliefs are positive notions, but you can't derive what I do believe merely by me telling you what I don't believe.
If I tell you I don't believe "x". That doesn't mean I'm simultaneously claiming to believe the dichotomous opposite. A popular example is if I tell you I don't believe there is an even number of gumballs in a jar. That then doesn't imply that I'm claiming to believe there is an odd number in that jar. If you think i am, then you are conflating ontology with epistemology.
God is presented as an ontological state of affairs. When asked to provide an ontological referent to help me understand what it is, I am only ever presented with ontologically meaningless abstractions or concepts.
You aren’t willfully engaging in good faith with the Ontologically meaningless abstractions and concepts
Accept that they are meaningless abstractions, don’t be frustrated or resistant to the abstract or the meaningless
They seem meaningless BECAUSE you BELIEVE they are, ironically
If you, however, believe you CAN find meaning in them, you certainly will
Extinguish all beliefs, believe everything, rinse and repeat 🙏
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:39 🤔 Graham Oppy, a prominent atheist philosopher, emphasizes that his atheism addresses all gods, not just a specific deity.
02:32 📚 Graham Oppy discusses the evolution of his philosophy, moving from academic debates to engaging with a broader public audience.
03:00 📖 Defining atheism: Oppy defends the position that atheism is the claim that there are no gods, rejecting the "lack theism" definition that merely asserts a lack of belief.
04:46🤔 Oppy critiques the "lack theism" position, arguing that it leaves important philosophical questions unanswered and lacks a well-thought-out stance.
07:43 🧐 Agnostics, according to Oppy, need to defend their position by articulating why the balance of considerations neither favors atheism nor theism.
09:07 🤨 Oppy challenges the idea that withholding judgment doesn't require justification, asserting that engaging in meaningful conversation necessitates articulating reasons for one's stance.
15:11 🤷♂ Oppy discusses the need for atheists to provide reasons for withholding belief when presented with arguments for the existence of God, akin to discussions on shows like "The Atheist Experience."
18:24 🤔 Comparing belief justification: Oppy explores the asymmetry between defending a positive claim (e.g., the existence of a bear) and withholding judgment, highlighting the proactive and defensive nature of each position.
28:39 🤷 Oppy delves into the challenges of defining agnosticism, discussing the All-or-Nothing conception of belief and the credence conception, highlighting the difficulty in mapping these concepts onto each other.
36:47 🕵 Oppy reflects on cases where individuals may be mistaken about their own beliefs, citing George Ray's argument that religious believers may be self-deceived, exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with professed beliefs.
45:27 📚 Oppy touches on Richard Dawkins' quote about atheism, expressing reservations about its framing and discussing common theistic arguments that claim others are essentially worshipping the same God with mistaken beliefs.
57:12 🤨 Oppy argues against the idea of compelling reasons for everyone to be a theist, rejecting the notion of proofs in favor of recognizing diverse perspectives and subjective influences on religious beliefs.
01:06:11 🛑 Oppy presents his position, arguing that naturalistic worldviews are simpler and equally supported by available data, leading him to reject theism while acknowledging the complexity and contestability of such judgments.
Thanks ❤
A philosopher without a word fetish??
I nearly dropped my bundle laughing there.
The phrase "make a fetish out of words" is an idiom. While it generally means to become overly attached to or fixated on the exact meaning and usage of words, often to the detriment of clear communication and understanding, I believe that in this case Oppy was referring to the words "atheism" and "atheist" themselves (i.e. the labels / mouth sounds and written symbols). He says that what really matters are the *positions that are being adopted.* A rose (the signified) is a rose by any other name/word (the signifier) afterall. We don't want to get hung up on or overly attached to the labels we're using so long as the position is clearly understood by the recipient.
Consider a scenario where John, an accountant with no prior knowledge of biology, engages in a heated debate with an evolutionary biology professor, asserting that the professor is misusing the term "fitness." While the professor is employing the term within its specialized context, understood by fellow evolutionary biologists to signify:
_"reproductive success, reflecting an organism's adaptation to its environment"_
John is simply interpreting it in the context of health sciences, say the way 'Joe Schmo the Gym Bro' tends to use it. This exchange exemplifies the fallacy of equivocation, where distinct meanings of a word are inadvertently conflated. If John the accountant continues to insist that the evolutionary biology professor is misusing the word fitness, this is an example of *"making a fetish out of words."* The reverse would be true as well, as they are both legitimate ways of using the term in different domains or contexts. To facilitate constructive dialogue, it would be most beneficial for either Interlocuter A or B to adopt the other's interpretation of the term for the sake of allowing the discussion to progress seamlessly.
Similarly, if a scientist, during a scientific discourse, utilizes the word "theory" to convey:
_"an extensively tested and corroborated explanation of a natural phenomenon, adhering to the scientific method and employing accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results,"_
John's objection that a theory is merely a hunch would be invalid. While dictionaries may include this colloquial definition of theory, it represents a distinct concept from its scientific usage. Experts, including doctors, scientists, and philosophers, employ specialized terminology, jargon, and nomenclature for a specific purpose. These linguistic shortcuts facilitate more efficient, comprehensive, and concise communication within their respective fields. While it's essential to maintain linguistic precision in formal contexts, engaging in prolonged debates over the exact meaning of a word can be unproductive. Philosophers, like any other language users, are capable of employing words in a non-technical, colloquial manner in certain situations.
@@ConceptCollection word
The question in the title. “Do agnostics have a burden of proof” the answer is No, Until they make a statement that requires an explanation to demonstrate the validity of their position. They can always default to that they personally are not convinced,do to lack of evidence to support the God Proposition. And because the God Proposition is unfalsifiable. Why would anyone try to defend that position. All I could say about this subject is that that the universe that I personally observe, and interact with has properties that we labeled as Constance, like the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity, and maybe some more that I’m not aware of. While I believe that anything is possible that the properties of the universe allow for. I am not saying that anything is possible because I don’t believe that. While the universe has properties and does things, I see no evidence that it can want to do, so it just does. It seems to me that the universe lacks agency. The Theist on the other hand is making a positive claim for the existence of some kind of powerful being labeled as a God. They then must define what they mean by that, and then make a case to Support their position of why they believe that’s true. Because I start with the position that the only things that are possible are those things the the property’s of the universe allow for I don’t believe that there is any such thing as supernatural. I will change my position on this if I have sufficient evidence that convinces me otherwise.
Absolutely wonderful content as always Alex!
lol, the opening "why do you talk so much about something you don't believe in" is funny, a bit like asking picasso 'why do you spend so much time painting things that don't exist.'
everyone has got to be somewhere.
Ooooooh, no. You can't say that a lack of belief in something without any evidence, whatsoever, requires justification.
There is a LOT of evidence, it's just evidence that you have rejected and have not found satisfactory. So, if you are to participate in the discussion, a justification for your denial of the "bad" evidence is not only helpful but necessary for productive discussion.
@@stephengarrett4193 There is zero evidence. Unless you mean empty claims, which are technically "testimonial evidence" I suppose.
@Arphemius who says there's zero evidence? You? Okay... why have we been debating about an existence for God for thousands of years with no evidence? Get real. You do have a burden of proof as well, whether you like it or not.
@@stephengarrett4193 there is nothing even approaching evidence. Only logical fallacies and lies. And these have been explained over and over...
@stephengarrett4193 they've been debating it exactly because you have no evidence. If you did there would be no need to debate. I don't need to provide evidence against a baseless claim.
The thing about "atheists just go one god further": It's an appealing argument if you want to show someone how there's a spectrum, how there's a lot of overlap, and how there's only one last notch to go (i.e., atheists and theists are not so different after all). _But_ it's silly when looked at from another angle: it's like what would happen if a person insistent on not procreating and not rearing children went up to someone who was raising one child and said "Look. You're already not the parent of more than eight billion people on the Earth. I just go one step further. See? It would be so easy. You're so close to being child-free, like me. You can do it. We're not so different. Just admit that your attitudes toward parenthood are almost identical with mine": the only thing that matters is whether the number is zero or more than zero, not whether it's one or five or ten, or eight billion.
“There are lots of conversations not worth having”
Any discussion with Darth Dawkins, falls into this category.
How so?
@@ZER0-- go talk to darth for ten minutes, even if you're christian, even if you're sensible, polite, intelligent and aware you'll wind up being muted or kicked. i thought everyone knew that, even the janitor at the local jail.
@@ZER0--he’s a Christian presuppositionist. Basically he believes everyone already believes in his version of Christianity, but they are just pretending to act as if they don’t know if his version of Christianity is true.
So the debate basically is him using round about questions to claim the other person is a liar.
Oppy has had a conversation with Darth, so even he will extend that courtesy. Perhaps that's the only time he will converse, but saying it's not worth it is counter to oppys decision to have that conversation.
To be fair. Oppy told DD over and again that his question made no sense and his was using bizarre definations that had nothing to do with philosophy. @@virilian
Love this discussion. Great questions asked. If we contend that we all are limited minds that have loads of ignorance, and also with different ways to map the world, I would say we can find some questions already agreed upon enough. But we still argue cause we simply don't like the POV of the other, meaning the language and emphasis of parts of the other thinker isn't like our own. Here I'm thinking of things like atheism and panentheism. Both agree on the obvious things. The universe exist and minds exist. The exact way of how they interact is if we're being honest so shrouded in mystery today that I don't think one view has leverage over the other. With how much science has been able to improve our lives, there is this physicalism prevalent, where a question about the origin of mental is handwaved as probably a produce of particles. If that should be a serious proposition, then I don't see why panentheism shouldn't be a serious proposition too. Maybe we are too dumb to even have good propositions
The problem is that we have been justifying our lack of belief for a long time.
We've experimented and researched and generally conducted science and we've found the mechanisms by which we believe the earth formed and life began and how and when we evolved. We've found evidence to countermand the religious explanation and timeline of the universe, and if nothing else this brings us back to a state of lacking belief in religion. Which is what atheism is.
Atheism is at it's core the statement "we don't know the cause of everything", agnosticism is more like "we don't know the cause of everything, and I'm willing to believe that it may be some kind of supernatural entity" . These are fairly self evident statements to anyone who isn't indoctrinated into a religious belief system.
You’ve done an incredible job at interviewing him, Alex! Really great counter points raised.
For me, the relevant question is not whether or not you believe there’s a bear in the room next door, but whether or not you believe there’s a unicorn next door
Yet to get to the end of the video, but I haven't heard falsifiability of claim mentioned
@@eastchchkea6475 Falsifiability doesn't make sense when we are talking about truth, does it?
You exist.
How is that falsifiable?
"And if you look to your left you will see someone that completely missed the point of the analogy"
@@tgenov _"Falsifiability doesn't make sense when we are talking about truth, does it?"_
_"You exist."_
_"How is that falsifiable?"_
That kind of gives me the impression that you don't know what falsifiability means... In essence, it's simply "How can we test whether this statement is true?"
So, how would you test whether "You exist" is true or not? First of all, I assume the idea is that _you_ need to be able to test whether _I_ exist, since it doesn't make any sense for me to do that (due to Descartes' "Je pense, donc je suis"). Next, I guess it depends on what you mean with "you" - if "I" were a chatbot, would that still count? Does that "you" refer necessarily to an actual, living being that's writing this comment - what if I die 5 seconds after I post it?
I _could_ of course just assume what you mean, but I've had a few too many conversations like this where the other person kept moving the goalpost, no matter what I did. So I now insist up front on planting those goalposts firmly into a specific position - something that's an absolute necessity in any scientific publication, by the way.
@@Wolf-ln1ml You not only give me the impression, you absolutely affirm that you have no clue what falsifiability means.
What you are describing is testability. Different to falsifiability.
Falsifiability is simply observable counter-examples.
If I believe that all swans are white - observing a black swan would falsify it.
If I believe that you exist (you are talking to me, even if you are a chatbot- some entity is making comments in English). What would falsify it?
My thoughts on the asymetry: I think it arises from initially weighing both propositions: regardless who is making the claim and who is responding to it. The asymetry can go both ways. If the proposition is: "the earth is round", you have mountains of evidence behind your claim and if the claim is "the earth is flat" the evidence is against your claim. So basing the burden of proof on the perspective, of who is making a claim is incorrect. I think this is what Dr. Oppy meant. Burden of proof is not based on your role in an arguement (proponent or responder) but rather on the existing preconceptions regarding said proposition.
The issue is about different positions. When you ask somebody like Matt Dillahunty to provide arguments in support of position "God does not exist" you are missing the point about his position which is about the lack of valid and sound arguments in support of the position the God exists. This is a falsifiable position, just present 1 such argument. And he does not need to provide evidence in this case, he just need to show why the best arguments of the opponent do not work.
So, the debate goes to something more tangible. From does God exists or does not exist to do we have justifiable reason to believe in God. Which is really the only thing we can try to test and which matters to us in practice.
@@dmitriy4708 I agree. My analogy didn't include a position of proving a negative. Of course in god's case, Matt's position is the right one. The question becomes "why should I believe in _any_ proposition, for which there is literally _no_ evidence"?
Most Americans are not religious, but will tell you they are to avoid discussion. The only ones that want to be religious are the evangelicals who are all idol worshipers, they worship their own interpretation of the Bible. When you put the Bible before reality, you have made it an idol
We approximate and euphemise the most-obvious truth that: All is Self
By clinging to religion, or atheism
We can validate our egoistic intuition with intellectualism or mysticism
Each faction approaches the same transcendent object, in the same way
Yet they debate, as if there is a debate to be had
@kolo5836 yes they do, they do so by seeking truth at all
When Truth is obvious already
Anyone SEEKING truth doesn’t yet know it
there is only One Way, yet you insist there are multiple “ways”
As if these factions could seek truth differently
Atheism is justified for lack of opposing evidence.
If you have to justify something, could it have not stood on its own?
@@jacksonelmore6227 Not really. Everything needs justification on some level. If an assertion is made, it needs backing. Religion asserts without backing. Atheism in turn asserts there is no backing from religious assertions.
@@antinatalope on some level”
You’re still operating on “levels”
What you said IS contextually true, at “some level” you assert
And THIS, is its justification: it’s contextual seeming truth
Operate on One thing, not many levels, unless your One Be Many
@@jacksonelmore6227 You're just being obtuse now.
@@antinatalope What I Say Is The Truth
In your world of Twos, Ye Shall Justify
Yet All: Is: One; Nothing Need Be Justified
For All: Is: I Am
When One becomes Two, Shall Ye Justify The All
He Who Has Eyes, Let Him Read 📱👀
👏🙂
Yay Professor Graham Oppy.
Great video.
Keep up the amazing work Alex.
Considering considerations considerately considered, I agree with you.
Great conversation! Honestly, listening to this was one of the most stimulating of the brain cells I've had in a long time! I love deep conversations like this. Conversations that are deep, about important subjects, with interesting people, is one of the reasons I live. I disagree slightly with some things Graham Oppy said, but for the most part I'm on the same page as him about most things. Atheism sure is freeing! :)
The justification for my atheism is the lack of justification for any god claim I’ve ever heard in my life. Why do theists think they get to sidestep that burden of proof?
Atheism is a claim how ignorant can you be?
What proof are you looking for?
You don't justify a position from the lack of justification for another. That's called justification from ignorance. Imagine a creationist saying, "Well there is no scientific explanation/evidence for how the first life started so my belief that God created the first life is justified based on the lack of justification for a scientific explanation for the first life"
@@autisticphaglosophy7128 What is the claim of atheism?
@@Insane_ForJesus That’s not the same thing. The ACTUAL equivalence would be “there is no scientific explanation/evidence for how the first life started [which there is, by the way], therefore I don’t believe in abiogenesis (“life from nothing”)”, mirroring my implied “therefore I do not believe in godly creation.” I’m not saying “I don’t believe that, I believe this,” I’m saying “I don’t believe that, period.”
"Sin begins with a perverted love of self. But love of self can grow monstrous, a sort of idolization of self, crowding out the love of all else and capable of turning into hatred of God."
-Frank Sheed
from his book, Theology for Beginners
As a Theist, I'd like to say that I do think that the idea of a burden of proof is valid. I also think that the level of evidence required to meet that burden is variable based on factors surrounding the nature of the claim. The atheist who says "I'm just not convinced by the evidence or arguments that there is a God," doesn't have much of a burden at all. He has considered the claim, its evidence and its reasoning and has remained unconvinced or skeptical. There's not much burden there. The moment he says, "I've weighed the evidence, and determined that it is unconvincing or insufficient," is where he adopts a type of burden. If he goes so far as to say, "There is no convincing evidence that God exists because there is no god or gods." That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. "There was no bear in that room because you couldn't prove to me that there was." Well, that's invalid but I don't think it's all that clear that even if there IS a god, what convincing evidence would even be. You opening the door and being mauled by the bear is pretty convincing. I'm not sure I can think of the type of proof necessary for the existence of even a very specific spiritual entity such as the Christian God, let's say. Witnessing someone rise from the dead, then ascend into the sky is pretty good, but even then, does that necessarily prove it? I'd say it doesn't.
I agree that convincing evidence for the Christian God would be hard to come by and, as you point out, it's hard to even define what would qualify. I suppose the rapture actually happening would be a strong contender.
What I appreciated about this interview is that it made it clear to me that agnostics have a burden of proof also, which is not something I seriously considered before.
You have no burden for simply professing a belief. You do if you're trying to convince others your belief is justified.
The interesting agnostic position is not "I'm not convinced either way" but rather "given the information available to me, neither position is justified". In some sense this makes the agnostic position stronger than both theism and atheism.
I think the tendency of atheists to deny their burden of proof comes in part from an assumption that atheism is somehow the default position, and that evidence is needed to move away from this default. I suspect this assumption of default is somewhat dubious, although it appeals to my intuition: surely the default position on any question regarding the existence of a thing should be that the thing does not exist? Or would a more reasonable default be agnosticism?
@TESTCHANNEL-qg8qn yes, if you claim there is a god i call you a liar. now what? you have to show you aren't and you can't.
and it's UTTERLY STUPID to try, if anyone tries to prove god exists they are going against their own god - god has been hiding to preserve my free will, how can ANYONE prove he exists when he doesn't allow it????
@@silberwolfSR71 I think that agnosticism is the most reasonable default position.
@TESTCHANNEL-qg8qn yes. But they could say they haven't been convinced personally without necessarily calling anyone a liar. Maybe they are mistaken, maybe certain experiences have been attributed falsely, etc.
If there is a god: the issue is why decent human being would worship such an evil entity.
It's really fortunate that the burden of proof always seems to be with the person saying something I already strongly disagree with.
If you can prove that your disagreement with me is stronger than my disagreement with you I'll take the burden back...
Where does falsifiability come into it?
The claim that there’s a round Earth is a falsifiable claim. Show evidence that the Earth is flat, and round Earth claim goes poof.
The claim of gods seems to be unfalsifiable; there is nothing that can be put forward to falsify the claim. So, how could there ever be a burden of proof on atheism if theism is not a falsifiable position?
the dumb thing is god (if he were rel) doesn't allow proof, it would screw up my free will which seems to be of paramount importance to every religist, so why people waste their lives going against their own god in the hope of making a name for themselves is bewildering.
trying to prove god doesn't exist is noble - the current gods are immoral, trying to prove god does exist is blasphemy.
Oh my science, finally you got Oppy in the podcast!
Lol everyone worships something!
The person who's trying to change the mind of the other person is the "active" person, and has the obligation to present evidence supporting the proposition they favor.
Whoever is trying to convince another has already “lost the debate”
If the atheist seeks to convince, they are “at fault”
If the theist seeks to convince, they are “at fault”
@@jacksonelmore6227 Why? Is convincing someone a "sin".
@@Ploskkky no one can be convinced of anything
For there is only Knowing
I put at fault in quotations to emphasize that it’s NOT a sin, but can be EXPERIENCED as a sin if you are perhaps ignorant to liberation, (not saying you are)
To seek to convince shows hollow weakness of egoistic ideology
The truth itself is obvious and needs no convincing, for it is Known
@@jacksonelmore6227 gee mr murgatroyd.
No position in any mind is passive. The border of integrity can not be fully sealed. The mind is being changed and challenged all the time whether one is aware or not.
I'm glad Graham Oppy still is breathing. After seeing his debate with Ed Feser and Andrew Loke, I sometimes feel the need to hug him and tell him dude everything will be ok, don't worry, you're awesome
What happened to him in that debate?
@@extremelylargeslug4438got devastated and annihilated, even there was a moment when he couldn't take it anymore and put his hand in his head trying to breathe well
@@extremelylargeslug4438He’s probably just making a point about how Oppy is willing to basically just talk with anybody on any topic at any time. He’s epic like that
It seems to me that to be a theist is to actively believe and anything short of that is to be an atheist. To withhold judgement for any reason or in any way is to say one does not believe it to be so even if it's a possibility. One can honestly claim agnosticism is logically neutral but that is still entirely lacking belief. Theologically you’re either in or you’re not.
The lack of quantifiable evidence or data for the supernatural or any mechanism for such to affect the natural world seems sufficient justification for finding such a belief to be irrational. It certainly sufficient to not accept it as factual. What will convince anyone of anything is unknown.
Great episode! Thanks to you Alex, and to Graham for the discussion!
Incredibly interesting discussion. It made me reassess all of my worldviews vis-à-vis religion. Thank you very much.
I love this man!! I disagree with him on so much, yet I am so grateful for his contributions to the discussion of philosophy of religion.
On what subject do you disagree?
@@user-vs9sd9vj1o I'm guessing the atheist part. He's lobbing softball arguments to theists.
@@skepticcoach5960 hey maybe I'm a moron but can U explain what U mean here pls?
@@bigol7169 I feel like he is making easily challenged arguments and that is why so many theists (or soft agnostics) like him.
@@skepticcoach5960 i agree. he's literally saying that atheists are commonly known (commonly misunderstood) to believe that there is no God, therefore people who simply aren't convinced there is a God somehow aren't allowed to call themselves atheists. he is actually definitively wrong. the term he is talking about is known as "positive" or "hard" atheism, and of course since positive and hard are the additive terms here, the root term atheism simply means a lack of belief.
i honestly found that this topic was presented by Graham such a way which almost seems to borderline intending to confuse the audience with pedantics/semantics than to educate logical philosophy or even linguistics..
(massive edit, sorry)
to be fair to Alex though, i actually think he was trying to probe Graham on this idea though around 27:50 , trying to get him to consider the suspending judgement version of atheism more than the hard atheism, which he actually does at 29:00, then goes on to say that there will be some other factors suggesting you to slightly believe or disbelieve in one side or the other despite this suspended position.
i understand what Graham is talking about and actually do partially agree in the sense that for example, i am reasonably sure that fairies don't actually exist, though not strictly believing there are no fairies because this would be closed minded. however, this is where i would say that ultimately people rarely intend to disbelieve in things they suspend belief in, though it is the default state of knowledge as opposed to believing that the thing does exist.
for another example different than fairies, before we observed micro organisms with a microscope, it would be reasonable to suspend the belief in micro-organisms, unless you seen something strongly suggestive of small behaviour, such as a moss growing. THOUGH, even then we do have to be very careful, because some things which grow in size and appears to behave like micro-organisms might not be micro-organisms. this is why very specific and detailed observation is required, and also why i believe that even if there is a God, the hope of discovering compelling evidence of their existence, might not even "exist" in the sense that it's attainable for us to understand.
38:39 I beg to differ. One can delude themselves into believing something they don’t believe at the time into actually believing it. Ask an arrogant team in sports how they compare to another team that all metrics point to them losing to them. Firstly they’re gonna believe it is a lie but play along with it. Later they’ll actually believe they will win in if the chance presents itself. Ask them then, after they believe it in their hearts genuinely, that they’re better than them, if they do want to face the other team. I tell you man, we do believe the lies we tell ourselves, but at the same time when we’re faced with (but do you *actually* believe your belief, that you’re gonna win in this instance, is true? Or if we’re getting technical, do we have good reasons that we’ll win or have a seriously high chance say %70 of us being true and winning the match). When we’re faced with the (but do you actually believe it?) question, don’t you consider that as a (we do believe things, that we don’t really believe, deep in our hearts that is).
So yes. I don’t want to offend theists, only to prove this "foolish" attitude of believing lies, isn’t at all, and I mean *ISN’T AT ALL* exclusive to theists, but I deeply rooted in us as human beings. I mean, many people do it out of desperation, but how many people actually believe they’re gonna win the lottery for real out of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands participating in?! I hate to use condescending language, but if we call theists foolish for taking a chance over which religion to follow, and they’re at most 5,000 religions, why are we not shaming lottery participants as fools of the neighbourhood for believing they’re gonna actually win a bet of 10x-100x times less likely than that?!
Do we not, purely as human beings, believe lies we don’t really, deeply in our hearts, believe? Are we not deluded into believing we actually believe those things? I’m not even talking about not having good enough reasons. All I did is just put him into the situation that he does know before I even open my mouth, that the team IS much stronger than us, and the chance of winning the lottery is practically zero. He does know that; I didn’t present any arguments to him. I don’t want to sound Peterson-y in this narrow example, and say but you don’t really disbelieve in god, but my point is much more general, that we’re so insecure about some of our beliefs that we start to believe we believe otherwise.
One may argue, they believed, we just made them switch theirs so quickly by asking or examining them, but how is that any different from (you think you don’t believe in god, yet X, Y and Z proves you do) and he quickly realised he does. How is that quick shift from believing not X to believing X, different from believing X right from the start? Are we not justified in saying both believe in X, even if A did not realise he actually?
40:40 I’m sorry, but that’s a really, really bad argument from whoever brought them up.
As much as I love Alex, I’m sorry to say he unfortunately didn’t think it through. People I know don’t grieve for thinking they lost their loved ones forever, but that they’ll miss them so much for as long as they’re alive. Just hunk of this hypothetical case. You love a friend so much you can’t imagine living a day without seeing them. You two pet paths and go to different colleges in a different country, and for sake of rhetorical magnitude, assume in a different planet that you can’t in anyway communicate. But hey, assume you have good reasons you know they’re, say sending morse code style. Assume also there are no computers or automating tools such that only humans can send that code, and he and only he knew what that code is. In simpler terms, you know he’s alive for sure and moreover he is doing as well as you are. Riddle me this, even if you know you’ll meet 10 years later, wouldn’t you grieve his loss (and I mean loss as in forever loss) exactly like you do a dead one that, from the viewpoint of atheists, I gone forever? And to anyone who says that’s inconsistent with someone who "allegedly" belie they’ll see their loved ones in the afterlife, would you call this person missing his friend for 10 years with no possible way of really communicating with them, inconsistent with someone who believe they’ll meet one day? I don’t think I’ll do that.
Am I saying all those who claim they believe they’ll see them will think this way? Not at all. Some are happy they’re gonna leave this life as they believe they’ll see their loved ones, which don’t fit this description of self-delusion. Some do fit this and fear death for the very belief they think this life is all there is, and seeing their loved ones is out of reach for them. Those I do concede exist and don’t really believe what they claim and profess they believe.
54:55 in that sense, that sentence no longer is an argument but merely an explanation to how atheism feels. It’s like explaining how dream feel to someone who never experienced dreams (or doesn’t remember them as I think we all do but some don’t recall at all), so they go (remember when you experience something so long time ago and have a vague memory of what it was? That’s exactly how I feel after waking up from a dream. And the dream itself is just as real as real life itself, but sometimes things happen that defy how people act and how things work). This word doesn’t argue for anything, all it does is make the feeling closer and more relatable to those who never experienced it before.
So hearing this from a theist on this interpretation isn’t targeted to convince them to change their mind; only to express to them how atheists feel about not believing in any gods. But I don’t think Dawkins meant it in this way. I mean, we all know Dawkins isn’t wasting time nor playing around. He might be an eloquent speaker, but is eloquent for a reason: to preach and spread atheism. I don’t think he’s going around giving parables of how atheism feels to those who adopt that worldview.
In the same breath, I can’t. I know I’m being interpreted as saying backhandedly about Alex he’s looking for excuses to Dawkins, despite I asserting he readily brought this point for criticism so I’m the first to assert Alex isn’t doing that, but for those who think I am, know that I love Alex too much I just can’t even let that idea cross anyone’s mind.
1:16:40 as a curious person about what could be reality, I’m not sure, in fact I think I’ll be on the no side to that take. Let’s oversimplify stuff to the extremes. Say F=ma and F=G m1 m2/r^2. Suppose the second was proposed somehow some way, and the Newtonian law was found to equally explain the motion and gravity on earth, which means we somehow knew the earths’s mass. Two questions arise: 1) Does that mean the other is overcomplicating stuff, and hence deserves to be thrown away? 2) Does that mean the first is better than the other, given it’s simpler in terms of steps or assumptions (that acceleration isn’t good enough and we have to know 3 quantities instead of just 1)?
Now get back in time and try to convince people thinking this way that simpler isn’t always better, *even if it explained stuff just as strongly as the simpler one, or even if it required less assumptions .*
I’d argue, it’s better for the observations we had at the time, but that doesn’t justify throwing it away nor considering it better as long as it can explain something. Even if it failed at points, there’s still some truth in false things.
I hear you, "but he stated equally simple but explains more than the other, not your strawan of equally explanatory but more assumptions or not as simple.” Fair point, but if you take two different approaches yet reach kinda the same results (I’m thinking around the competing theories today) deserve to be on the shelf, despite one getting it more rightly than the other? Suppose you have a mechanical scale with 99% accuracy (error is kept at most within 1% + or - reading given) and one which uses electric impulses from your hands to the other (nothing you stand on or sly pressure vertically to. It’s not you conventional electronic screen with a plate to stand on scale) with 70%. I do concede the mechanical one is better at giving accurate readings, but does that mean the electric one is to be considered a failure? It’s a path worth pursuing on the long run.
Great conversation. Hopefully this help finally put lacktheism to rest for good. Just be an agnostic. It's not so bad!
Did anyone else notice that GO didn't provide an answer to Alex's compound question at 3:29 which was essentially asking GO for his reasoning why he advocates for his/the academic definition of atheism and why is the lack theism definition so popular in colloquial atheism community's despite saying; "so thats- Sorry that was a bit rambling but that was my answer to your question" at 7:38?
I would like to know what GO means by "have to" in the statement at 5:09; "And so the the people who call themselves lack theists have to give an answer to that question". What constituents in this universe require a necessity to have an answer to one's "attitude" towards the proposition that there are no gods if one is to call themselves "lack theists"?
5:23
"but then that just sounds to me like a position that's intermediate now between atheism and theism. You're suspending judgment about two propositions". "And so the idea that the position that you're defending now an atheistic one rather than a theistic one seems kind of odd".
"odd" yes. BUT ONLY IF you define atheism as the claim "there are no gods". The question Alex asked was Why are you advocating for the definition of atheism that there are no gods? GO's response has circumvented Alex's question and presupposes GO's own position.
6:12
"If you reject the other one tho, now your position starts to look incoherent, right[?], because, um, your rejecting the claim, that, [brief exhalation] there are no gods seems to commit you to the claim there are gods, right[?], so that the suspension of judgment position to be coherent has to be suspending judgment about both of these propositions".
Again, this is only describing what results from the definition that GO is advocating for and not WHY GO is advocating for his advocated definition of atheism... unless the outcomes that GO is describing are the reasons why he advocates for his advocated definition of atheism it isn't clear to me that these outcomes are his reasons or that the outcomes he describes are favorable or valuable for him to advocate in favor of.
6:56
GO's statement doesn't engage directly with Alex's question, GO only provides the outcome of accepting his definition of atheism and not WHY said outcome is preferred or WHY he advocates for said outcome.
GO's reasoning to Alex's question might be imbedded in his statement at 4:04 and 3:59. In academic philosophy, that is just what atheism is and at 3:59 says: "how the linguistic community that you belong to uses those words" appealing to a sense of "community" and 'belonging' (a sense of socially validated identity). Supposedly GO identifies himself with a certain community (an "academic philosophy" community) and feels a sense of belonging to that "community" and that feeling has influenced his avocation of a particular definition of atheism. But if this is his reasoning he spends far less time discussing those reasons only briefly referencing these variables and chaffing (Gregg Hartley term) with details non-pertinent to Alex's question. This might be what Chase Hughes would identify as detail spike and detail valley. What information in being hidden and what information is the interlocutor comfortable with discussing?
7:52
"there might be the kind of agnostic that says something like you know I sort of think there no good evidence either way and I can't make my mind up" sounds the same as "I don't think there is any good evidence either way and therefore I sort of remain sat sat on the fence".
8:34
"I think the first two are in need of defence. The third one, if you just want to say well Iook I don't care and I don't want to think about it, um that's, let's grant that's a defensible attitude to have, but it takes you out of the conversation"
It does remove oneself from the conversation but (as GO hesitantly acknowledged) disinterest does not negate the legitimacy of that type of agnosticism. Not everyone has the time to invest/waste in philosophical exploration.
9:52
Not understanding a topic does not necessitate removal of self from conversation about said topic. Curiosity. Inquisitiveness. Even if poor comprehension of topic matter did necessarily result in an exclusion from participating in such dialogue, that exclusion from conversation does not nullify illegitimacy of agnosticism.
If the topic being discussed is a proposition, which explicitly has binary truth value, and someone tries to engage with the conversation by saying "I don't agree with either," then what conversation can be had? At that point maybe the objection should be that to frame it as a proposition is wrong?
@@chairwood
Commencing Dissertation:
Question 1.
"If the topic being discussed is a proposition, which explicitly has binary truth value, and someone tries to engage with the conversation by saying, "I don't agree with either," then what conversation can be had?"
I appreciate your 1st question. My first thought was to deploy SE (Street Epistemology). If I was in this situation I would likely use SE alongside what I have retained from consuming statement analysis content, behavioral analysis content, interrogations and interviews.
In your question regarding "binary truth value" you indirectly referenced or appealed to what I will refer to in this conversation as an objective reality. That is, in your question you said that the topic was a proposition with a "binary truth value" as in the quality of 'X' (the proposition) IS 'Y' (binary truth) independent of anyone's opinion. You did not reference if any of the interlocutors held any opinions or considerations that 'X' is 'Y', only that 'X' is 'Y'. Within the parameters of your question it is possible that 'X' is 'Y', but none of the participants of the discussion have even come close to considering that 'X' is 'Y' and all have completely wrong ideas concerning the topic of the discussion.
I have been wrong many times before and my intuition has been demonstrated to be faulty. Furthermore, generations of society's have been susceptible to superstition and flawed ideas. Just like what might seem logical to a chimpanzee might be outdated by humans, I ponder if what seems logical to us now might be outdated by higher intelligent beings and/or future generations of humans. Whilst I might have high confidence in a particular proposition (independent if I think the prop. has binary truth value), I have learned to caution conviction and confidence with humility, skepticism and curiosity.
As such, along with what I have retained from SE and interrogations, I might consider approaching the discussion with low status/ego (eager to learn, not defend a position) and infectious curiosity. I might subtlety prompt my interlocutor to fall into a position where they feel like they have authority, power and the information of value and they are in a position where they feel like they can pontificate the secrets of the universe to an audience who admires their wisdom. I might collect a handful of contradictions (assuming I found some) than with a attitude of confusion, test the contradictions, inquire if interlocutor has considered [insert pushback], and ask my interlocutor for their opinions/critics to alternative explanations. This largely depends on the personality type of interlocutor.
I note that in your first question was the statement; "I don't agree with either". From what I have retained (note that I did not say 'learned') from Peter Hyatt's (Statement Analyst) TH-cam content, statements stated in the negative are given a high priority. Imagine subject A asks subject B if they feel happy and subject B responds with; "Well, I don't feel sad". Subject B made a negative statement as they expressed something they weren't and not what they were, the latter being more concise and direct. The interlocutor in your question was expressing what they don't agree with. To agree with a proposition you need to be aware of that proposition. Consider the quantity of propositions that has not entered their consciousness and therefore could not possibly agree with and add to that the quantity of propositions that they have considered but don't agree with. Perhaps it's worth considering asking the interlocutor what statements expressed during the conversation they do agree with (if any).
Also, not agreeing could just be the result of withholding judgement pending persuasive arguments/evidence. It is possible within the parameters of your question that the interlocutor might not yet understand the concept of a binary truth value yet capable of grasping it and is eager to learning about it. If subject C says; "something is either 'A' or not 'A'" and subject D says; "I don't agree that something is either 'A' or not 'A'" the statement made by subject D does not indicate that subject D holds an opposing/alternative view (although that could be the case), the statement itself indicates that subject D is yet to be convinced of the proposition that subject C proposed.
@@chairwood
Your second question made less sense to me, but after dissecting it, I think I understand your inquiry.
It has a question mark at the end, but it is more of a statement expressed with uncertainty and encouragement for a 2nd opinion than a question. In case you perceive I'm criticising this component of your comment, I'm not. Presenting a statement as a question is neither good nor bad.
"At that point mabey the objection should be that to frame it as a proposition is wrong?"
"At that point". At what point? What is "that point" you are referring to?
"the objection" What objection? There was no objection in the premise of your 1st question. Not agreeing with a proposition is not the same as objecting to a proposition. Not agreeing is simply a state of not being convinced.
"should" David Hume is/ought (don't pay attention to me pointing out this detail. I'm being criminally pedantic).
"is wrong" I'm being pedantic here as well. I might consider swapping "is wrong" to 'could be phrased better'.
Now that I've dissected and processed your 2nd inquiry, I think if someone says they don't agree with the binary nature of what you perceive to be a binary proposition proposition, I think it is still valid to frame the proposition as a proposition furthermore, I think the framing of the proposition as a proposition or other is largely irrelevant. I think it is more important to clarify with the interlocutor in question if when they say; "I don't agree with either" that they are simply passively withholding judgment (not convinced) or actively opposing the proposition (convinced of and/or arguing in favor of an alternative/opposing proposition).
But perhaps I have misunderstood your inquisitions. I'm also open to the idea that many statements I have posted here are inaccurate and every occasion where I pointed components of your comment was unjustified and result from poor comprehension on my part.
@@chairwood I think there is some confusion introduced here, it SHOULD be a binary of "god exists, true or false", but its often phrased as "does god exist, yes or no" the former being a binary true/false proposition and the latter being 2 opposing propositions (with a tertiary middle ground position) in the latters case you can not agree with either proposition and still sit in the "unconvinced" third position.
I'm only sure of one thing...a grizzly bear ate all my food in the fridge.
Oppy is my favourite atheist ...gives his arguments with great respect . he is of course correct when he says there are no ''proofs'' in the mathematical /scientific sense...but , as he points out, belief can still be reasonable...it is also worth bearing in mind that scientific conclusions and proofs also rely on certain assumptions without which the enterprise would collapse.
Another reason to prefer a simpler theory or hypothesis to a complex one is that probability favors it. Assume that each part of each hypothesis has probability less than one. Let's be generous and say that each part has probability of 0.99. A one-part hypothesis is 99% likely to be true. A five-part hypothesis is 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 × 0.99 ≈ 95% likely to be true. Is it likelier that I crashed my car (A) because my worn tires had poor traction on the ice or (B) because the space-laser reptiles who run the government had been monitoring my brainwaves and thereby had learned that I intended to expose their nefarious plot and therefore had installed a remote-control oil-sprayer on my car to lubricate the tires, which was activated by someone in the dark van driving behind me? A has fewer parts than B. We may be able to disprove A (e.g., maybe we can show that my tires weren't worn), and B may be true-but showing the likelihood of B takes more work (e.g., even if we show that the tires were oily and that there was an oil-sprayer under the car, we still also have to show that it was attached to a remote control, that that control was activated, that it was activated by a person, that the person was in that van behind me, that the person did it because the reptiles knew my plan, that they knew my plan because they'd been monitoring my brainwaves, that the reptiles existed, that they ran the government, and that they had a nefarious plot).
Bit of a contrast with the Hitchens tantrum. Notice Oppy's responses to the exactly same interview style.
What a great conversation.
Matt Dillahunty and AXP will cry, hearing these two affirming that agnostics and agnosticism are a real thing. I totally agree with Alex and Graham on that.
Fantastic conversation.
"Søren Kierkegaard defined faith as “a passion for the impossible.” Is God opposed to reason? Absolutely not; God gave us the gift of reason. Does God want us to be unrealistic? No; he wants us to use all of our powers of imagination and analysis. But faith goes beyond reason; it is a passion for what reason can’t see."
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (12/04/23)"
@12:22, I don't know of too many instances in which Matt Dillahunty so casually would reject the premise as to say "it just doesn't move me." On the contrary, he usually adently asserts that the caller must demonstrate it to be true, or rejects the premise as illogical and/or contradictory.
Matt is convinced by his own ego
This is not a criticism
This is an observation
He is not enlightened, in the technical sense
But he is certainly on his way
@@jacksonelmore6227 Could you elaborate on that? I like Matt Dillahunty a lot, though I disagree with him a little. What would you say the difference between an egotistic position and an enlightened one? I’ve never heard of this distinction
@@pphaver871 an egoistic position is ANY position that can be identified
An “enlightened position” is one that need not identity
Matt is an identity who identifies with his identity, rather than acknowledge the Self
The One transcendeth
@@jacksonelmore6227 Identity is useful so we can know what we are talking about no? How useful can a enlightened position be if it can not be identified, talked about, or acted upon? Where are you getting this dichotomy from? I am curious that I am not understanding where you are coming from at all. You almost sound like a trickster God from a fable or a Buddha giving a paradox riddle
@@pphaver871 it can be identified TO THE DEGREE it MAY Be, Here, in a context
Yet THIS position Knows NOR Need context
Your analogy to the Buddha is a good one
You say an enlightened position might be useful
I Am Useless
Bro I love how I'm like 'oh damn, I can only imagine the insanely genius calculations that are going on behind that intense stare!'
And then Oppy's just like 'i don't remember lol' 😂 45:40
Haha, 100%
I think the refrigerator thing was off the mark as there’s a huge difference between a relatively inconsequential singular behavior and a pattern of relatively consequential behaviors.
12:10 this is a nice point. I agree with his statement, even though it is nice to have these rules of "burden of proof", in the end there is just proof, and how the pieces are lain out and put together. It comes down to the intentions of the persons engaging in debate: do I want to convince or find truth?
This is the smartes Atheist I have ever heard. Especially in the last section, his points where outstanding and very unique! This should be the popular face of Atheism. Oppy the Rational and not Dawkins the biologist or Hitchens the charmeur.
I love your questions, you're logically consistent, would love to see the opposite version of the GPT video
His GPT video argument is flawed. He assumes presentism when he says if time extended infinitely into the past then we would never reach this point. There is no reason to think presentism is true and in fact science suggests eternalism/four-dimensionalism.
I think a theme that underlies much of this interview but doesn’t seem to be directly discussed is the distinction between personal beliefs and philosophical arguments. Dillahunty’s famous “I’m not convinced” and this whole “I lack belief” is kind of disgusting to Oppy, because he doesn’t care what you believe, he cares what arguments there are that increase the probability that gods exist and what arguments there are that decrease that probability. The whole “burden of proof” also does not fit into that conceptualization at all. Richard Swinburne seems to think a similar way, from a theistic perspective.
I don't think Oppy is correct here. In order to make a meaningful statement in the form: "I don't believe X exists", one must first have a clear understanding of what 'X' is. While most of us are familiar with the more popular deities, including of course the god of Judeo-Christian theism, there are countless other deities we are not acquainted with. Their number includes not just the many deities of the more obscure religions which still have some subscribers, but also the many deities that were worshipped by civilizations which left us no record of them. How could one possibly have a disbelief about a deity he's never heard of? The definition of an atheist as merely 'someone who lacks belief in a god or gods' would cover those cases, since it describes a cognitive attitude which does not presuppose knowledge of any and every deity that there has ever been invented or that will ever be invented.
Great points. As someone who doesn't yet accept the claims of religion, I think withholding belief until such a time as I have made my mind up is reasonable. I have a busy life and don't always have time to spend investing in this topic and if someone of faith is trying to convince me of something they are usually a bit pushy and trying to get people to commit without thinking about it too much. It's also fun to completely waste their time with indecision to save other people from falling victim to their scam.
If you say it's a scam, then you are not witholidng belief, you are disbelieving, because if a religion is true it cannot be a scam.
I agree with truth matters. It sounds like youre withholding belief for ulterior motives other than you simply havent decided yet. As a NON religious believer in God, id encourage you to take an incredibly deep dive into philosophy to see where you land on the matter.
-Regards, non pushy believer
@@truthmatters7573 Hear, hear. Some of my favorite comments are the people who larp as thoughtful in-betweens and then expose themselves at the end.
@@angusmcculloch6653 What????dont get your comment
Atheist is default. Belief is learned.
Nope. Atheism is a position one takes after considering the philosophical arguments. Your definition of atheism is useless, because then a rock is an atheist. It’s silly and an obvious rhetorical device. Rise above your biases and engage in good faith. This stuff is just cringe
@@zak2659if no one introduced the concept of religion and God to children, they would most likely not believe in them though. They are taught about a certain religion and a certain God so they become a follower of a certain religion.
@@4451t4_ The issue is that atheism and theism are philosophical positions. If you haven't considered the relevant philosophical considerations, then slapping a label on yourself (declaring that you have a philosophical position) despite knowing nothing about the philosophy is just silly.
OPPY IS FINALLY HERE LETS GOOOOOO
No, atheism does not require a justification.
How would you respond to Graham Oppy's points he raised in the video?
Let me play with you a bit by suggesting that: YES, God requires NO justification for Atheism; NOR ANY manifest or unmanifest thing
Really great interview Alex! As an atheist that is a big fan of Oppy, I found myself wanting more from some of his explanations and I think you did a great job pressing him on some of these points.
I especially found his take on the Dawkins quote to be uncharitable at best and intentionally obtuse or pedantic at worst. It seems clear to me that the quote isn’t about the exact definition of atheism and is more a justification or elucidation of atheistic perspective.
This interview also makes me rethink my stance on how to define atheism in terms of “lacktheism” or active disbelief. How would I know that there isn’t some conception of god that could ultimately convince me of their existence if only I had access to the idea. You don’t know how much you don’t know and this seems to commit one to a agnostic position (assuming they subscribe to the active disbelief definition of atheism). A “lacktheist” interpretation seems to be the only one that doesn’t render the term completely toothless. Great job with the questions and I’m sure I’ve missed plenty in my understanding of Graham’s ideas but I’ll gladly rewatch and try to keep learning!
I think going for exotic conceptions of god can in some sense escape the framing of the conversation insofar as those conceptions map onto what the theist conceptualizes as a god, and in that sense, you're not *really* being an agnostic. Here's an example of what I mean.
As far as we know, the hottest place in the observable universe is a particle collider smashing protons together at high speeds. As far as we know, the coldest place in the observable universe is a laser cooling apparatus. Natural phenomena don't tend to randomly arrange themselves into extremes that push what is physically possible. We can extrapolate from this that, if it *is* physically possible to create universes, most of the time it happens, it does so by artificial means, and thus those universes have creators. And since this is iteratively true for each created universe in turn, we ourselves are significantly more likely to be in an artificially created universe than a naturally occuring universe.
Someone who believes this might give a credence of around 20% that the universe has a Creator. But when he thinks "creator", he is going to think "extradimensional mortal scientist dude", not "supernatural all powerful entity". In fact, his credence of the *latter* case might be as low as 0.00001%. So in that case, the theist talking to him, who actually DOES put most of his probability mass in the latter conception of a god, if he says "gotcha, so you're not actually an atheist", is basically equivocating.
I'm very glad I found this comment. His take on the Dawkins quote frustrated me as well, how he acted as though he genuinely believed Dawkins was trying to give a dictionary definition of atheism when any reasonable reader would see that was not the case. I found it hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood such a simple point so spectacularly.
I wish your dresser drawers where behind you. That would of made this interview even better. You have come a long way Alex. Great job you two!
😄 The trippy chest of drawers! Where are they now Alex?
this is what i like about graham oppy of him being an atheist. he is calm and straight to the point definition. unlike this "new atheist movement" of dawkins or the lacktiesm per se, which are all about laziness by escaping any explanation about their belief. and mostly hateful.
About ones beliefs being best revealed by behaviour or speech, I would probably take the position that we inherently have at least two sources of beliefs, intellectual belief and emotional/instinctual belief, where the first is likely to dominate your speech and the latter is likely to dominate your behaviour. As an example, suppose you have some childhood trauma that makes you instinctually distrust other people and although after you have grown up you have since found that, in general, people are trustworthy, you still find yourself struggling to do so because of said trauma. Does that mean that you are only deceiving yourself in that you now find people to be trustworthy, or that you have a hard time dismantling deeply ingrained defense mechanisms?
I think it can also be the other way around.
I'd also say that Christianity claims this to be the case in multiple ways:
1) In Romans 7, Paul writes, "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
2) Jacob writes, "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ... In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder."
Jordan Peterson has also used this the other way round, ala if you truly believe in God, you should be incomprehensibly virtuous. In the past, I think he has used this to claim religious people don't truly believe their own claims, but it also seems to me that Peterson is looking for a way to deify Jesus the human rather than believing him inherently divine.
peterson has become a nutjob.
How I worked through all of that
seems to be somewhat unique.
But I more or less agree with Graham about almost everything he said.
Atheism (lack of belief) is the Null Hypothesis. It is the proposition that must be overcome by any Theistic proposition.
One never needs justification for the Null Hypothesis.
Anti-Theism (belief that there is no god), on the other hand, does require justification.
Theism, Atheism, and Anti-Theism are positions about BELIEF in god(s), not positions about EXISTENCE of god(s)
Graham Oppy tries to argue that these words are about the EXISTENCE of god(s). They are not.
This is nonsense. Beliefs are propositional attitudes, so any belief you have is going to be directed towards some proposition or other. Theism is a propositional attitude directed towards "God exists." If atheism is supposed to be non-theism, or negate theism, it is likewise a propositional attitude towards the proposition "God exists." If atheism is anything else, then the atheist isn't gonna be very interesting in a conversation with someone defending theism.
@@veridicusmind3722 One problem with associating Theism with the proposition "God exists" is that there are many thousands of God's, and each one needs it's own proposition, and to accept the proposition "Yahweh exists" necessitates accepting the proposition "Zeus does not exist", and vice versa, which would make all Theists also Atheists.
Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods", note that the emphasis is on BELIEF, not EXISTENCE. The negation of "belief in the existence of a god or gods" is "lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods"
Atheism is not accepting or rejecting an existence proposition, it is the "show me" position - the null hypothesis.
When one is representing Atheism in a debate, one is not arguing against the Thristic ptoposition, one is pointing out that the opponent presented no admissible evidence and that the philosophical arguments are invalid and/or unsound.
If you make a logical argument and the first proposition is X = NOT X, I don't have to listen any further. You just posited a contradiction, and from a contradiction one can "prove" anything. The argument is both invalid and unsound.
If you try to philosophically prove Y, and your first preposition requires that Y be true, I don't have to listen any further. You have committed a logical fallacy (specifically begging the question, which is putting the conclusion in the premise), and your argument is unsound.
Theism/Atheism is about your avowed beliefs in god or gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about your professed knowledge of god or gods.
These are orthogonal definitions.
@@aaronbredon2948 You have not addressed what I wrote: beliefs are propositional attitudes. A theist is someone who has a belief in God (believes the proposition "God exists").
"and to accept the proposition "Yahweh exists" necessitates accepting the proposition "Zeus does not exist", and vice versa, which would make all Theists also Atheists."
Firstly, I don't see how Yaweh existing necessitates anything of the sort. Secondly, if you define atheism as a lack of belief in God or gods, then this doesn't make any theist an atheist, irrespective of which gods they might not believe in (re-read your definition!). If anyone who does not believe in some designated god is an atheist, then everyone is an atheist on this definition, which is utterly absurd. A theist is someone who believes there is at least one god, not someone who believes in every god possible.
"Atheism is not accepting or rejecting an existence proposition, it is the "show me" position - the null hypothesis."
You claimed atheism was a lack of belief in God or gods. Nothing about *that* definition requires an atheist to have the attitude of requiring evidence from a theist (a "show me" position). If you want to add that into the definition, you must likewise hold that any person who does not believe in God, but does not have such an attitude towards theists is not an atheist, which is also absurd.
And that atheism is "the null position" (whatever that's supposed to mean) just goes unargued for in your comments. You haven't made any consideration in favor of it, nor of your particular definitions (which you should have in this context, considering Oppy has written extensively in favor of his views and against yours).
No idea what the logical contradiction rant was about. Nowhere did I express contradictory claims? Also, begging the question is an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy. Either way, it's not relevant to anything I've written so far.
@@veridicusmind3722 the definition of Yahweh is that Yahweh is the ONLY God. The same spplies to Allah.
Therefore, if you believe in the proposition “Yahweh exists”, that means you cannot also believe “Zeus exists” without believing a contradiction.
The null hypothesis is the concept that in order to establish X as worth considering, you have to have sufficient evidence to show that there is significant difference between the results of X and NOT X that overcomes pure statistical error., AND that evidence must make X more likely.
There was a study on the effects of prayer on medical outcomes if the patient knew they were being prayed for. The results did overcome the null hypothesis BUT they showed WORSE results for known or believed prayer than for unknown prayer or no prayer (which were indistinguishable from each other). So the proposition “telling someone you prayed for them will help cure them” has evidence against it.
With regards to a proposition being debated, there are 3 positions:
1. I accept the proposition (true position)
2. I reject the proposition (false position)
3. I withhold my judgement until valid, sound arguments are made. (“Show me” position)
With regards to a given God existing:
1. Theism of that God is “accept”
2. Anti-Theism and Theism of an incompatible God is “reject” (Anti-Theism is “there are no gods”). A Muslim is required to hold the position of “reject” on “Kali exists” because "there is no God but Allah”
3. Atheism is “show me”.
An Agnostic can hold any of the three positions with the qualifier “it is impossible to know, but I believe”
A Gnostic can hold any of the three positions with the qualifier “and I know that for sure”.
Philosophers like to remove the element of “belief” from Theism/Atheism, but that makes the whole concept of Theism fragment into a multiplicity of incompatible propositions. And everyone becomes an Atheist for every incompatible God, because every Theist proposition has a contrary Atheist proposition.
This is only tenable when arguing about one God, and that falls apart when the opponent uses the same exact argument in favor of another God. Every Philosophical argument for any given God can be used to EXACTLY the same effect for any OTHER God. And that means there is no way to resolve the debate.
If you maintain Theism as belief in one or more gods, then Theism is a single proposition, but then Atheism is simply a lack of belief. This is the position Atheists hold and debate based upon.
@@aaronbredon2948 I still have no idea how you define the null hypothesis. Whether something is worth considering depends on where you stand on the epistemic landscape, your background knowledge, etc. You haven't *defined* the null hypothesis (H is a null hypothesis iff ... what exactly?), nor have you given any consideration in favor of atheism being such an hypothesis. Look, I suggest you go read an introduction to epistemology. You make a bunch of claims here without remotely arguing in favor of them, so there really isn't much I need to say about them. Argue for your claims! You have the onus of justification here. Philosophers don't remove belief from theism, this is utter bullshit (read any SEP entry on theism/atheism).
Do I have to prove that zombies are not real … or does my inability to disprove that they exist equate to my being expected to believe that they do?
What about Zeus … I can’t prove for certain that he does not exist, therefore I should dedicate my life to believing that he’s real, but is invisible, intangible and apparently, incapable of making his presence felt.
And Odin?
What about Ganesh, or Sauron, or Big Foot, or Santa?
I cannot prove that I cannot fly and my plunging to my death from a 50 storey building is actually PROOF that I just don’t believe it enough.
Not believing in something until you see some credible proof should be the default position, otherwise we would believe EVERYTHING that we hear or read.
After thousands of years, not ONE piece of credible evidence has been provided for a SINGLE claim by a SINGLE religion.
I can’t believe in magic and spooky supernatural beings without a bit of proof.
The reality though is it's like your friend is suggesting that there is a unicorn in the next room
Oppy!? Let’s go!
Great interview. As Alex put to him about Matt Dillahunty and the Athiest Experience I would love to see those two have a conversation about this idea that athiesm must be the assertion that there are gods. Would be a great discussion I think! I tend to think that we can just dismiss specific claims on their own merits as not having enough evidence. I don't quite follow why, unless he's just saying if you are a philosopher, one needs to assert that no gods exist. I don't go around trying to prove that there is no god, but if it exists I would like some good evidence there is a god, otherwise why would I believe? Seems pretty simple for the layperson.
A simple way of looking at it is via the 'doxastic attitudes' that a person can have on a proposition. In pysch and phil, the standard view is that there are three of them: 1 - believe that p is true/likely true; 2 - believe that p is false/likely false, or 3 - be undecided (suspend/withold judgement).
If p = "at least one god exists", then you can label them up with 1 as 'theist', 2 as 'atheist' and 3 as 'agnostic'. It's pretty simple, and only gets messy if you're more concerned about the label as some kind of 'badge' than you are about the position it stands for.
If your position on p is that you're 'undecided' (ie, your view is neither 'p is true' nor 'p is false') then you're 'agnostic on p'. Calling this position 'atheist' is just confusing and inaccurate (using doxastic attitudes as a basis), as that's not how the word is used.
@@russellsteapot8779 I don't think it is that simple. There is a big difference between believe that p is false and likely false for example. And there are many nuances. Like there are a lot of different definitions of God or gods, even within a single religion like Christianity. So, how can anyone really believe there is no gods if the term "god" is not a properly singularly defined? Therefore defining atheism as a belief that there is no gods is nonsensical. Which gods? How are they defined? Maybe somebody accepts Universe as a god, so they are not atheists anymore? This works only in philosophical debates when the terms are properly defined and both sides agree on definitions. That is probably why philosophical definition of atheism is not applicable in real life usually.
Add igtheism to this. Most of the definitions of God are incoherent. So, the very question "do you believe in God" makes no sense. Both answers Yes and No presuppose that the God in question makes sense and has a coherent definition accepted by people, however that is not the case. Each person has their own definition of God, most of them incoherent, others usually mundane or tautological like Universe is the God.
@@dmitriy4708 Igtheism and theological noncognitivism generally view all god talk as meaningless gibberish, so although "at least one god exists" LOOKS like a proposition, it isn't a genuine one because it's not truth-apt. This makes any and all attitudes towards such a proposition equally daft, as there's no meaningful content to be weighed up.
On 'false vs likely false', it may just depend on whether your justification is deductive or inductive, as any inductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the conclusion, but establishes likelihood.
I agree that there isn't a 'fixed' definition for what a 'god' is, but a supernatural creator of the universe (or creator-sustainer), or anything *relevantly similar* would be the thing that an atheist is denying. If someone postulates Nature as 'God', then that wouldn't really count, as (philosophical) atheists wouldn't deny the existence of the natural, physical world (unless they were atheistic idealists of some sort).
@@russellsteapot8779And I would ask: what is supernatural? It is a vague term. Natural vs supernatural does not make sense to me. How do we define both of them? If there are ghosts and they behave according to some rules why are they supernatural? They are part of reality as well. Usually supernatural is used in cases when we do not understand something, so some time ago lightning was supernatural, in this case it is related to our knowledge and useless in our discussion. So, you just replaced undefined God with undefined supernatural.
@@russellsteapot8779 Igtheism is a cancerous philosophical idea. It dismisses "God" on the grounds that the word has no coherent and uambiguous definition; but by that standard you can dismiss just about everything.
The notion of "meaning" has no coherent, unambiguous definition.
The notion of "morality" has no coherent, unambiguous definition.
The notion of "philosophy' has no coherent, unambiguous definition.
The notion of "truth" has no coherent, unambigyous definition.
Come to think of it there is no such thing as cannonical, well-defined unambiguous definition even in Mathematics.
I guess this makes any and all attitudes towards meaning, morality, philosophy, truth and Mathematics to be equally daft, as there is no meaningful content to be weighed up.
That's quite the own goal...
Nope - there is no need to justify not being convinced of someone else's opinions. If you're not convinced, then you're not convinced.
Tautology much?
@@samdg1234 You do realise that tautologies are by definition true, right?
@@1970Phoenix wow shows your intelligence. Thank you.
@@1970Phoenix repeating it over just makes you look foolish as hell
@@ishrendon6435 Thanks for noticing. You're clearly very perceptive.
You don’t need a well-thought out explanation/position for a lack of knowledge of there not being any gods because there simply isn’t any extraordinary knowledge to begin with.
You're OBSESSED with drugs, Alex
Interesting Alex. It's always nice to listen to Graham Oppy's work 😊
Next, I recommend you to invite this person which I think is quite resonate with your podcast topic:
1. Rupert Sheldrake, known for his skeptism of scientism paradigm and his endorsment about supernatural experimentation.
2. Shelly Kagan, well known for his ethics class at Yale University and his debate with William Lane Craig is fascinating to watch fyi
3. Ed Fesser, you already know who he is
If you considered my comments here, thank you! ❤
Suspending judgement, and holding high skepticism to an extraordinary idea is the correct action to take if you can’t find good warrant to accept either the positive or negative position on the concept. If you have a position that says “I think no gods exist” and I say “why?” And you can’t come up with an actually good reason, then I shouldn’t believe you. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, nor that I believe the opposite claim instead. It just means that you have an idea that you arrived to in an unjustified way.
Man I’m disappointed he didn’t get mad at Alex, call him disrespectful and leave
Someone lacking a belief in a God is an atheist. There's no need for the term "lacktheist". The a- prefix means without. A-theism is without belief in the existence of a God.
A-theo+ism, not A-theism. Or to put it differently nogod+ism.
@@anteodedi8937 What are you talking about?
@@anteodedi8937 Atheism comes from the Greek atheos. The A means without. Romans have called early Christians atheists for not believing in the Roman gods.
Here in lies the issue. Some want to say agnostic means without knowledge but then do not do the same courtesy for atheist.
@@DevinMacGregor Yep, that's what I said. It is a view that contains no god (a-theos+ism/without god + ism). It's not a-theism/lack theism or whatever.