As a devout "Donoghugonaut", I believe in a one and almighty Steve Donoghue (not to be mistaken with the Jockey). It is a monotheistic religion involving the various customs and disciplines of daily reading, watching the day's 30min book-haul sermons and praying for more starter-kits. Praise be to Steve ...Amen.
The Jockey! My nemesis! I've lost count of how many times I've had to tell people in the 21st century that I was not, in fact, a popular Victorian jockey!
I was a biology major and did a year of graduate work on entomology. Therefore, I taught evolutionary biology to undergrads. I have always accepted evolution. And I’m Roman Catholic. I highly recommend The Human Instinct by Kenneth Miller for a sophisticated, nuanced exploration of theism written by a molecular biologist. I don’t care if people are atheists. I follow people of a wide range of religious beliefs and non-beliefs. What I do care about, however, is the condescending attitude that public atheists take to those who have faith. It’s the reductionist portrayal of religious belief that’s such a huge turn off. That type of atheism is indistinguishable from religious fundamentalism. It’s also quite unscientific. It’s worth noting that Richard Dawkins, once a respected biologist in the science community, is generally dismissed by other evolutionary biologists for his rhetoric and some of his hypotheses (memes, for example). Theology is sophisticated. It’s easy to debate with science-deniers. But that’s also a cheap win. I want to see an atheist debate someone like Kenneth Miller, or a Jesuit with a sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology and evolutionary biology. I’d actually watch that.
Fariba - this joins Brian’s and Marc Nash’s as one of my favorite comments between Steve’s and Lukas’s comments sections on these videos. I’m not jumping into the fray, however much I’d like to - just going to see back with popcorn and Dr. Pepper and read what others write. 🙂
Dawkins and the others do debates with Rabbis who tend to not be science deniers. I saw one of his debates with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and it was very interesting. Sure, Dawkins isn’t as immersed in the world of theology as a religious scholar is, and you’re right that people forget exactly how deep that well is in terms of nuance & complexity, but he isn’t as stubborn as most people think. For example he tends to credit religion for its artistic and philosophical contributions. Of course I see your point, but I would just search a bit more and I’m sure you can find debates of public atheists vs. non-science-denying theists.
There are academic debates between professional philosophers on the subject of god all the time, all you have to do is google them a little bit or better yet read philosophy papers about the subject. If you think public atheist are condescending to theist you should see how condescending public Catholics like Phil Donahue are to atheist. Richard Dawkins is one of the most cited living scientist, he is extremely well respected among biologist. His public activism and rhetoric are irrelevant to his biological work. Memes are not a hypothesis there a metaphor that he came up with in a nonscientific book meant for the general public. It has nothing to do with biology or his scientific work. The overwhelming majority of the worlds most important scientist were wrong about there hypothesis, that is a strength of science and why it is superior to theology because it is actually able to be objectively improved over time. Saying Dawkins is no longer respected because he got something wrong is like saying Newton is no longer respected because he got everything wrong and Einstein is no longer respected because he never accepted the fact of the uncertainty principle which was demonstrably provable in Einsteins lifetime. Just because something is sophisticated does not mean its true. Idealism is sophisticated that does not mean its true.Hell the lord of the rings is sophisticated but that does not mean its true. I don't care if you believe in god what I care about is public Christians making laws restricting human rights and covering up the abuse of children like the Catholic church does. Or the killing of millions of people from aids due to the Catholic church advocacy against condom use in Africa.
This is very similar to my background if you swap Protestant for Roman Catholicism. I’ve always thought that learning more and more about science and biology generates a deeper appreciation for thinking through faith. Best, Jack
Oh Steve. Wading into the battle zone known as “religious discussion.” Brave man. Stupid, but brave. I grew up Hindu, but in the West. So it was a constant juggling act between the dichotomy of the rather strict Abrahamic structure (atheism vs believers) and the more lose “hippie” approach the Dharmics had. (Like, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, man.) One thing that I think is relevant to the discussion of religion in books for me, is that the myths and folktales were the easier gateway for me to understand my heritage. We don’t have bible studies, to read the scriptures is optional. But folktales were a way parents taught kids their own version of the “parables.” And since I never became fluent in Hindi, it was a much easier bridge to build and got me interested in not only reading but myth in general. I am now a raging mythaholic. I love them. Have a bookshelf dedicated to my pretty collection of world myths (mainly Greco-Roman, cause you know, the West and all. But still.) And fairytales as well. Really anything even remotely related to folklore in general. I hope to find some African tales to add to my collection. Now I will stand back with my popcorn on hand to see what becomes of your comment section. Hehe
Dude, that sounds awesome. I don’t know anything about Hinduism so forgive my ignorance, but are the Hindu folktales in any way similar to the ancient Greco/Roman ones?
tripp Well yes actually they are often similar. But the “moral messages” are obviously different and the conceptions are much more consensual than Zeus’ (or Jupiter’s) antics lol A lot of the tales involve “avatars” Deities that take mortal form in order to restore justice and order to the world (or rather ancient India lol.) The most popular being the Folklore surrounding Krishna and his days spent battling demons and being universally beloved by anyone who met him.
Tyler B #2 Thank you for the Bible talk. I know you are doing what you think is right. But I’m perfectly content going my own path. Stay safe and have a nice day 😊
I've been thinking about this Atheism and Science thing and am hoping you can or someone else can clarify. 1. If a hard atheist says they have seen more than enough evidence to conclude there are no gods, what is that evidence other than evidence produced by science and logic? IF the evidence hard atheists point to is scientific or logical evidence then arent they expressing a faith in the scientific method's ability to reveal truth? 2. "A hard atheist makes no claims about the world, the claims about the world are being made by science and logic." Doesn't this again indicate that the hard atheist is relying on, has put their faith in, science and logic for their evidence that gods don't exist?
Again, this is a matter of semantics - in this case around the word 'faith.' In religious context, 'faith' is a leap, the placing of trust and importance in things that can't be examined. In non-religious context, 'faith' is the placing of trust and importance in things that have reliably demonstrated tendencies. When a religious person says they have 'faith' in their gods, they mean something very, very different from when a non-religious person says they have 'faith' that, for instance, a long-dormant volcano will someday erupt again - they just happen to be using the same word, right?
The whole god of the gaps thing never made sense to me, particularly as a defense of monotheistic religion. A single hand in the creation of the universe would seem more likely to imply a simple rather than an infinitely complex universe, infinite complexity seems much more likely to be the result of polytheism than monotheism, multiple gods working at cross-purposes as in the Greco-Roman pantheon or other polytheistic systems makes some amount of sense at least in comparison to a single god. That said it seems even more likely that there are no gods whatsoever and the infinite complexity of the world happened by more or less random chance. I hold no animosity toward religion, I love reading about it in all its forms, appreciating the art and architecture of it all, thinking about the development of it, etc., and indeed I have a tendency to take people at their word when they describe their own personal religious experiences, but I've yet to see anything that could convince me to become religious myself and I highly doubt that I ever will.
"Pre-human species of human" - may I offer some constructive criticism and say that this is muddy thinking about an important subject? Steve, you ought to give a more full account of this
Steve, your positivity is great. Much easier to listen to than dry recitation or xians ranting in their cars. I want to delve deeper into something you touched on: the supposed "monotheism" of the Abrahamics. You're right, of course. Ancient Jews and Israelites had a pantheon of gods but as the worship of one main god spread, these lesser gods were demoted to demi-gods e.g. angels, archangels, demons etc. But what's the real difference? TY for that! There is a technical term for the worship of a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities: Henotheism. But here's more reason to go with "gods" instead of "God." I've noticed this phenomenon that I have dubbed - or redubbed - theogmatism. That's the unspoken and often unacknowledged belief among theists - and atheists - that if there is a god or any circumstantial evidence that points to a god, it must be _their_ god (or gods) or, for atheists, the god or gods of their culture and no others. This becomes a problem vis-a-vis xianity. The name "God" and the noun "god" are pronounced the same which lets apologists frame the debate to their advantage. We can see this when apologists present arguments ostensibly to criticize atheists and atheism but somehow imagine that atheists are the only people who deny, abjure or eschew their god, ignoring the fact that far more _theists_ deny, abjure or eschew their god than atheists. The attitude of atheists is an attitude toward gods! Not just God. Not just the Hawaiian shark god Kamohoali'i. Yes, I disbelieve in Tinkerbell. But it's more accurate and informative to say I disbelieve in _fairies!_ So different religions are seeing the rise of atheism and are posting videos to stem the tide but often miss the mark with comments that seem to be more toward disbelief in _their_ god or gods or, for atheists, the god or gods of their culture. Of course, this is understandable in some ways. Why would U.S. atheists focus on the Jain religion? But still, the debate can often move from the general theism vs atheism level to the pluses and minuses of belief/disbelief in God or some other god. So, for example, a speech by xians ostensibly to criticize atheists ends up sounding like criticism of all non-xians. Ask any xian: "What do you call people who deny, abjure or eschew God?" They will say "Atheists," completely oblivious to the billions of theists (e.g Muslims and Hindus) who have these very attitudes toward God. But if the question is "What do you call people who deny, abjure or eschew _gods?_ Then "atheists" would be correct. So listen to anti-atheist diatribes from xians who try to channel atheism but use the _name_ "God" and ask yourself: wouldn't "gods" or "a god" have been a better fit? Mostly yes, unless it's the xian god that one is specifically referring to. Atheists will often fall into this trap too. They will argue against belief in God. But even if some atheist could disprove God, they haven't justified atheism. Only proof or arguments against gods - all gods - can do that. So I refer to this "religious" arrogance; this unfounded suppositionalism as theogmatism. Dumb name. I hope you can feel this and come up with a better one.
I call myself "agnostic" sometimes, but I might be oversimplifying things. Which is ironic, because I invoke that word because I don't believe in the old dude in the sky, but I also don't believe that there's nothing out there. Which I suppose makes me a believer, but not so much in "God" as in human connectedness and morality--which at the very least seems to posit that there's worth in the world beyond our individual existences. And I believe in the power of shared human history and culture, which as a Jew is partially a response to to global antisemitism, but also the idea of scholars sitting together and making texts more nuanced and alive than they are on their own, which continues to the modern day. I realize that I'm connected to *all* humans and animals, and "life, the universe, and everything", but the story that stirs me most in the way I qaulify as spiritual is the Jewish story. Which contains plenty of multitudes on its own, but now I'm rambling. :p Sometimes I joke to myself that if I was given the absolutist decision of belief in God or belief in the Jewish people I'd choose the latter. I realize that I'm entering into some sort of conundrum with that statement. :p It's an interesting point you bring up about prophets in Judaism, Steve. But is there some sort of middle ground here? There's plenty of supernatural elements to be found, I think in all Abrahamic religions, but does that mean they are all worshipped on their own? Yes, during Passover, jews open the door for the long deceased Elijah. We also invoke him every week after Shabbat, and at other times. But is there anything supernatural from prophets that doesn't come from God? They are messengers. Elijah's name even means "My God Yahweh." Elijah's cup and opening the door for Elijah are the types of rituals that changed over time, I believe. It's largely meant to herald in redemption/the end of days, but that still seems rather God-centric to me. Thank you for such a thought-provoking video!
Not sure what made this burnout kid deserve a 40 minute response video when none of his arguments are even coherent, let alone profound or thought provoking.
hes probably thinking of materialism and all its philosophical failings when he says athiesm, paul tillich said the second you apply depth to reality you are no longer an athiest, in other words the second you acknowledge empirical evidence as true knowledge you are no longer a materialist, not quite a theist, but no crude athiest
It seems to me that it's as hard for a believer to abandon a faith as it for an atheist to adopt one. We have unrealistic expectations of those on the other side of the debate.
An atheist expecting even a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural exists isn't unreasonable. It's certainly unrealistic, because magic isn't real, but it's not remotely an unreasonable request. People have posited countless magical entities over our existence, from thousands of gods to all sorts of spirits, spells, psychic powers, and so on. They've been attempting to provide evidence of these things for just as long, and with what the result? Nothing. Zero evidence has ever been presented. This is clearly a category people are highly skilled at fabricating ideas about. More than that, we're equally skilled at believing these things are true after just having made them up. The known success is zero percent, while the known failure rate is close to 100% due to so many of the ideas (like gods) being mutually exclusive. Knowing the consistency with which humans make up false magical concepts and the utter lack of ability to demonstrate even a single kind of magic is actually real, expecting evidence to support religions' claims, some of the most outrageously extreme and complex magical ideas ever presented, is honestly the bare minimum.
Well, yes you're outlining what it would take for an atheist to change their position, but a theist would have a different set of requirements to change theirs. Consequently these debates generally end up with both sides talking past each other. (Their unrealistic expectation being that what convinces them should also convince others.)
@@parlabaneisback "these debates generally end up with both sides talking past each other" If you're talking about actual debates, that's true of almost every debate on every topic by virtue of how debates are structured. What you're saying is so trivially true that I'm not sure why you're wasting time saying it. If you're talking about discussions about the topic in general, I'm not sure how you can possibly believe something so clearly and demonstrably untrue. Your statement is disproven simply by observing these discussions as they happen, which I've done countless times. Atheists overwhelmingly respond to arguments made as they were intended, while theists overwhelmingly do not, typically because they don't actually understand the topics (evolution, what atheists actually believe, etc.). The "both sides are the same" fallacy is easy to fall victim to. As with politics, though, it's trivially disproven by actually taking the time to observe reality and verify the claim. Evidence, as always, matters. "Their unrealistic expectation being that what convinces them should also convince others." Evidence, or an utter lack of it, SHOULD be the motivating factor in what convinces people. If people are behaving rationally, it will be. It's not the fault of atheists that theists act irrationally when it comes to certain kinds of magical thinking.
Is there a term for people who have split brain when it comes to faith? If there is , then I belong to that group (may be they're called crazies? haha). A part of me completely subscribes to the idea of "soft atheism" that you described. Another part of me (mostly because I come from a religious Hindu family) subscribes to idea of religious faith.
I think the usual term for this is "spiritual but not religious" - a term that INFURIATES quite a few militant atheists, although I don't really know why!
Sporadic Reader Hindu bornies unite!!! I know a couple of “hard atheists” who remained Hindu. I was too young to understand their presence in Temple, because you know, atheists. But from memory they always had interesting opinions regarding religion.
I found the GK Chesterton vs Clarence Darrow debate quite interesting. Darrow made a great case but Chesterton was Chesterton. Worth checking out. My father was a Methodist missionary and though my faith is lacking. It seems too easy to attack believers....Religion is a leap in faith.. (not fact) clearly I. Would not defend all the insanity Religion has been brought to the world. I’d argue that musicians who believe make better music than nonbelievers though. Great vid.
I agree regarding Lukas's video! I speak about his video in my review that'll post tomorrow because I loved how we were able to share our views. I do think there is another category, whether you call them agnostics or create some other label, of people who don't really know what they think about God and don't care to dig deeper. It's not something they think about and it's not part of their life. I'm think this is slightly weaker than your "soft atheist" label, but I'm curious how you would describe that group of people. I'm a Christian and rely on science. I get frustrated in this science v. religion conversation that frequently comes up. In fact, science brings me closer to God and briefly touch on that in a comment on Lukas's video.
Just wanna butt in and say that I think science and religion are totally compatible-and in some cases mutually complementary, to believe your statement, Karen!
@@acruelreadersthesis5868 But how are they compatible? When we are doing math are we trying to decipher god's notebook where he was creating every law of physics?
Nastya I know some very religious folk who pride themselves on properly understanding how science explains phenomenon. I think usually the go to is “well God is supernatural. Of course we can’t study such a being through science, science deals the natural world.” It’s pretty common within the Dharmic circles I hang out in. My theory is it’s because all the parents absolutely love to stress how important education is to us no good kids.
@@Nastya-uj9bg I didn't say that science is a way of studying "god's notebook." Only that it is possible to be religious and to believe completely in science. Two very different statements, to my mind.
Which reminds me I might have to order a second copy of the House of Government since I gave mine to my mom (well it was supposed to be a gift for her to begin with).
My word! You can be arrogant. When the arrogance comes out, the extent is something to behold. And you should be called out on it. And a lot more people should call you out.
Point #1: there's no arrogance in this video, of course. Point #2: As I've said many times on this channel, hate-watching anything is a complete waste of time. You've been hate-watching this channel literally for YEARS. That's a lot of wasted time. You should stop.
@@saintdonoghue I was a fan once - until I came across your arrogance, rudeness and nastiness - that's late January 2020. Email and Twitter to prove it. So I have not been hate-watching this for literally years. And there's no stopping YT recommendations, so I watched the thing. As for arrogance, it's there. It's fucking arrogant to claim Judaism and Islam aren't monotheist based not on your ignorance but on reasoning.
i find him annoying much of the time...but he is turning out to be my main guru... i don't like a lot of his arguments, but they are quite general and also quite clear, and he makes some good points about tons of stuff...i better get reading or this guy will soon leave me twitching in a pool of my own blood.
You mean "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? If only there was something about supreme court not being so religious...
@@Nastya-uj9bg first amendment was written TO PROTECT religion people from atheist governments not the other way around. too people have this misconception. almost all founding fathers were Christian
@@trump-hq2no It most certainly was not. It was meant to protect certain religions from OTHER religions AND nonreligionists (as many of our Found Fathers were) from religionists. Read Freethinkers, by Susan Jacoby.
Steve, I perceive you as being a fountain of misperceptions and overgeneralizations about Christians however you are a good speaker. All the best to you.
What is science? The last 1000000 facts revealed by our best research projects aided by our best sensory augmenting machines. These set limits on the visible and invisible universe. In a 1000 years these will be different to what they are today. What is religion? The assertion that specific books reveal eternal limits on the universe and that the characters present therein created and control all that is visible and invisible. Paradoxically, every few decades these eternal limits shift. Prosperity gospel anyone?
As a devout "Donoghugonaut", I believe in a one and almighty Steve Donoghue (not to be mistaken with the Jockey). It is a monotheistic religion involving the various customs and disciplines of daily reading, watching the day's 30min book-haul sermons and praying for more starter-kits. Praise be to Steve ...Amen.
The Jockey! My nemesis! I've lost count of how many times I've had to tell people in the 21st century that I was not, in fact, a popular Victorian jockey!
@@saintdonoghue They keep asking, yet your answer is always Nay!
I was a biology major and did a year of graduate work on entomology. Therefore, I taught evolutionary biology to undergrads. I have always accepted evolution. And I’m Roman Catholic. I highly recommend The Human Instinct by Kenneth Miller for a sophisticated, nuanced exploration of theism written by a molecular biologist.
I don’t care if people are atheists. I follow people of a wide range of religious beliefs and non-beliefs. What I do care about, however, is the condescending attitude that public atheists take to those who have faith. It’s the reductionist portrayal of religious belief that’s such a huge turn off. That type of atheism is indistinguishable from religious fundamentalism. It’s also quite unscientific. It’s worth noting that Richard Dawkins, once a respected biologist in the science community, is generally dismissed by other evolutionary biologists for his rhetoric and some of his hypotheses (memes, for example).
Theology is sophisticated. It’s easy to debate with science-deniers. But that’s also a cheap win. I want to see an atheist debate someone like Kenneth Miller, or a Jesuit with a sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology and evolutionary biology. I’d actually watch that.
Fariba - this joins Brian’s and Marc Nash’s as one of my favorite comments between Steve’s and Lukas’s comments sections on these videos. I’m not jumping into the fray, however much I’d like to - just going to see back with popcorn and Dr. Pepper and read what others write. 🙂
Dawkins and the others do debates with Rabbis who tend to not be science deniers. I saw one of his debates with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and it was very interesting. Sure, Dawkins isn’t as immersed in the world of theology as a religious scholar is, and you’re right that people forget exactly how deep that well is in terms of nuance & complexity, but he isn’t as stubborn as most people think. For example he tends to credit religion for its artistic and philosophical contributions. Of course I see your point, but I would just search a bit more and I’m sure you can find debates of public atheists vs. non-science-denying theists.
There are academic debates between professional philosophers on the subject of god all the time, all you have to do is google them a little bit or better yet read philosophy papers about the subject. If you think public atheist are condescending to theist you should see how condescending public Catholics like Phil Donahue are to atheist. Richard Dawkins is one of the most cited living scientist, he is extremely well respected among biologist. His public activism and rhetoric are irrelevant to his biological work. Memes are not a hypothesis there a metaphor that he came up with in a nonscientific book meant for the general public. It has nothing to do with biology or his scientific work. The overwhelming majority of the worlds most important scientist were wrong about there hypothesis, that is a strength of science and why it is superior to theology because it is actually able to be objectively improved over time. Saying Dawkins is no longer respected because he got something wrong is like saying Newton is no longer respected because he got everything wrong and Einstein is no longer respected because he never accepted the fact of the uncertainty principle which was demonstrably provable in Einsteins lifetime. Just because something is sophisticated does not mean its true. Idealism is sophisticated that does not mean its true.Hell the lord of the rings is sophisticated but that does not mean its true. I don't care if you believe in god what I care about is public Christians making laws restricting human rights and covering up the abuse of children like the Catholic church does. Or the killing of millions of people from aids due to the Catholic church advocacy against condom use in Africa.
This is very similar to my background if you swap Protestant for Roman Catholicism. I’ve always thought that learning more and more about science and biology generates a deeper appreciation for thinking through faith.
Best, Jack
Stepping away from books, and another well thought out, clearly articulated video. Can't watch enough of you Steve.
Oh Steve. Wading into the battle zone known as “religious discussion.”
Brave man.
Stupid, but brave.
I grew up Hindu, but in the West. So it was a constant juggling act between the dichotomy of the rather strict Abrahamic structure (atheism vs believers) and the more lose “hippie” approach the Dharmics had. (Like, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, man.)
One thing that I think is relevant to the discussion of religion in books for me, is that the myths and folktales were the easier gateway for me to understand my heritage. We don’t have bible studies, to read the scriptures is optional. But folktales were a way parents taught kids their own version of the “parables.” And since I never became fluent in Hindi, it was a much easier bridge to build and got me interested in not only reading but myth in general. I am now a raging mythaholic. I love them. Have a bookshelf dedicated to my pretty collection of world myths (mainly Greco-Roman, cause you know, the West and all. But still.) And fairytales as well. Really anything even remotely related to folklore in general. I hope to find some African tales to add to my collection.
Now I will stand back with my popcorn on hand to see what becomes of your comment section. Hehe
Dude, that sounds awesome. I don’t know anything about Hinduism so forgive my ignorance, but are the Hindu folktales in any way similar to the ancient Greco/Roman ones?
I second @tripp’s question!
tripp Well yes actually they are often similar. But the “moral messages” are obviously different and the conceptions are much more consensual than Zeus’ (or Jupiter’s) antics lol
A lot of the tales involve “avatars” Deities that take mortal form in order to restore justice and order to the world (or rather ancient India lol.)
The most popular being the Folklore surrounding Krishna and his days spent battling demons and being universally beloved by anyone who met him.
Tyler B #2 Thank you for the Bible talk. I know you are doing what you think is right. But I’m perfectly content going my own path. Stay safe and have a nice day 😊
I've been thinking about this Atheism and Science thing and am hoping you can or someone else can clarify.
1. If a hard atheist says they have seen more than enough evidence to conclude there are no gods, what is that evidence other than evidence produced by science and logic? IF the evidence hard atheists point to is scientific or logical evidence then arent they expressing a faith in the scientific method's ability to reveal truth?
2. "A hard atheist makes no claims about the world, the claims about the world are being made by science and logic." Doesn't this again indicate that the hard atheist is relying on, has put their faith in, science and logic for their evidence that gods don't exist?
Again, this is a matter of semantics - in this case around the word 'faith.' In religious context, 'faith' is a leap, the placing of trust and importance in things that can't be examined. In non-religious context, 'faith' is the placing of trust and importance in things that have reliably demonstrated tendencies. When a religious person says they have 'faith' in their gods, they mean something very, very different from when a non-religious person says they have 'faith' that, for instance, a long-dormant volcano will someday erupt again - they just happen to be using the same word, right?
Ended with a quote from cutie-patootie Camus - I love it!
The whole god of the gaps thing never made sense to me, particularly as a defense of monotheistic religion. A single hand in the creation of the universe would seem more likely to imply a simple rather than an infinitely complex universe, infinite complexity seems much more likely to be the result of polytheism than monotheism, multiple gods working at cross-purposes as in the Greco-Roman pantheon or other polytheistic systems makes some amount of sense at least in comparison to a single god. That said it seems even more likely that there are no gods whatsoever and the infinite complexity of the world happened by more or less random chance. I hold no animosity toward religion, I love reading about it in all its forms, appreciating the art and architecture of it all, thinking about the development of it, etc., and indeed I have a tendency to take people at their word when they describe their own personal religious experiences, but I've yet to see anything that could convince me to become religious myself and I highly doubt that I ever will.
How in the heck do you watch all these videos?!
Also, 36:35 Steve the Nietzchean?
"Pre-human species of human" - may I offer some constructive criticism and say that this is muddy thinking about an important subject? Steve, you ought to give a more full account of this
Steve, your positivity is great. Much easier to listen to than dry recitation or xians ranting in their cars. I want to delve deeper into something you touched on: the supposed "monotheism" of the Abrahamics. You're right, of course. Ancient Jews and Israelites had a pantheon of gods but as the worship of one main god spread, these lesser gods were demoted to demi-gods e.g. angels, archangels, demons etc. But what's the real difference? TY for that! There is a technical term for the worship of a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities: Henotheism. But here's more reason to go with "gods" instead of "God."
I've noticed this phenomenon that I have dubbed - or redubbed - theogmatism. That's the unspoken and often unacknowledged belief among theists - and atheists - that if there is a god or any circumstantial evidence that points to a god, it must be _their_ god (or gods) or, for atheists, the god or gods of their culture and no others. This becomes a problem vis-a-vis xianity. The name "God" and the noun "god" are pronounced the same which lets apologists frame the debate to their advantage. We can see this when apologists present arguments ostensibly to criticize atheists and atheism but somehow imagine that atheists are the only people who deny, abjure or eschew their god, ignoring the fact that far more _theists_ deny, abjure or eschew their god than atheists. The attitude of atheists is an attitude toward gods! Not just God. Not just the Hawaiian shark god Kamohoali'i. Yes, I disbelieve in Tinkerbell. But it's more accurate and informative to say I disbelieve in _fairies!_ So different religions are seeing the rise of atheism and are posting videos to stem the tide but often miss the mark with comments that seem to be more toward disbelief in _their_ god or gods or, for atheists, the god or gods of their culture. Of course, this is understandable in some ways. Why would U.S. atheists focus on the Jain religion? But still, the debate can often move from the general theism vs atheism level to the pluses and minuses of belief/disbelief in God or some other god.
So, for example, a speech by xians ostensibly to criticize atheists ends up sounding like criticism of all non-xians. Ask any xian: "What do you call people who deny, abjure or eschew God?" They will say "Atheists," completely oblivious to the billions of theists (e.g Muslims and Hindus) who have these very attitudes toward God. But if the question is "What do you call people who deny, abjure or eschew _gods?_ Then "atheists" would be correct. So listen to anti-atheist diatribes from xians who try to channel atheism but use the _name_ "God" and ask yourself: wouldn't "gods" or "a god" have been a better fit? Mostly yes, unless it's the xian god that one is specifically referring to.
Atheists will often fall into this trap too. They will argue against belief in God. But even if some atheist could disprove God, they haven't justified atheism. Only proof or arguments against gods - all gods - can do that. So I refer to this "religious" arrogance; this unfounded suppositionalism as theogmatism. Dumb name. I hope you can feel this and come up with a better one.
I call myself "agnostic" sometimes, but I might be oversimplifying things. Which is ironic, because I invoke that word because I don't believe in the old dude in the sky, but I also don't believe that there's nothing out there. Which I suppose makes me a believer, but not so much in "God" as in human connectedness and morality--which at the very least seems to posit that there's worth in the world beyond our individual existences. And I believe in the power of shared human history and culture, which as a Jew is partially a response to to global antisemitism, but also the idea of scholars sitting together and making texts more nuanced and alive than they are on their own, which continues to the modern day. I realize that I'm connected to *all* humans and animals, and "life, the universe, and everything", but the story that stirs me most in the way I qaulify as spiritual is the Jewish story. Which contains plenty of multitudes on its own, but now I'm rambling. :p
Sometimes I joke to myself that if I was given the absolutist decision of belief in God or belief in the Jewish people I'd choose the latter. I realize that I'm entering into some sort of conundrum with that statement. :p
It's an interesting point you bring up about prophets in Judaism, Steve. But is there some sort of middle ground here? There's plenty of supernatural elements to be found, I think in all Abrahamic religions, but does that mean they are all worshipped on their own? Yes, during Passover, jews open the door for the long deceased Elijah. We also invoke him every week after Shabbat, and at other times. But is there anything supernatural from prophets that doesn't come from God? They are messengers. Elijah's name even means "My God Yahweh."
Elijah's cup and opening the door for Elijah are the types of rituals that changed over time, I believe. It's largely meant to herald in redemption/the end of days, but that still seems rather God-centric to me. Thank you for such a thought-provoking video!
That was an awesome video!
Not sure what made this burnout kid deserve a 40 minute response video when none of his arguments are even coherent, let alone profound or thought provoking.
I think his ideas are aligned with the many other atheists which Steve has encountered and thus this video can serve as a response to all such people.
hes probably thinking of materialism and all its philosophical failings when he says athiesm, paul tillich said the second you apply depth to reality you are no longer an athiest, in other words the second you acknowledge empirical evidence as true knowledge you are no longer a materialist, not quite a theist, but no crude athiest
It seems to me that it's as hard for a believer to abandon a faith as it for an atheist to adopt one.
We have unrealistic expectations of those on the other side of the debate.
An atheist expecting even a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural exists isn't unreasonable. It's certainly unrealistic, because magic isn't real, but it's not remotely an unreasonable request. People have posited countless magical entities over our existence, from thousands of gods to all sorts of spirits, spells, psychic powers, and so on. They've been attempting to provide evidence of these things for just as long, and with what the result? Nothing. Zero evidence has ever been presented.
This is clearly a category people are highly skilled at fabricating ideas about. More than that, we're equally skilled at believing these things are true after just having made them up. The known success is zero percent, while the known failure rate is close to 100% due to so many of the ideas (like gods) being mutually exclusive. Knowing the consistency with which humans make up false magical concepts and the utter lack of ability to demonstrate even a single kind of magic is actually real, expecting evidence to support religions' claims, some of the most outrageously extreme and complex magical ideas ever presented, is honestly the bare minimum.
Well, yes you're outlining what it would take for an atheist to change their position, but a theist would have a different set of requirements to change theirs.
Consequently these debates generally end up with both sides talking past each other. (Their unrealistic expectation being that what convinces them should also convince others.)
@@parlabaneisback "these debates generally end up with both sides talking past each other"
If you're talking about actual debates, that's true of almost every debate on every topic by virtue of how debates are structured. What you're saying is so trivially true that I'm not sure why you're wasting time saying it.
If you're talking about discussions about the topic in general, I'm not sure how you can possibly believe something so clearly and demonstrably untrue. Your statement is disproven simply by observing these discussions as they happen, which I've done countless times. Atheists overwhelmingly respond to arguments made as they were intended, while theists overwhelmingly do not, typically because they don't actually understand the topics (evolution, what atheists actually believe, etc.).
The "both sides are the same" fallacy is easy to fall victim to. As with politics, though, it's trivially disproven by actually taking the time to observe reality and verify the claim. Evidence, as always, matters.
"Their unrealistic expectation being that what convinces them should also convince others."
Evidence, or an utter lack of it, SHOULD be the motivating factor in what convinces people. If people are behaving rationally, it will be. It's not the fault of atheists that theists act irrationally when it comes to certain kinds of magical thinking.
Is there a term for people who have split brain when it comes to faith? If there is , then I belong to that group (may be they're called crazies? haha).
A part of me completely subscribes to the idea of "soft atheism" that you described. Another part of me (mostly because I come from a religious Hindu family) subscribes to idea of religious faith.
I think the usual term for this is "spiritual but not religious" - a term that INFURIATES quite a few militant atheists, although I don't really know why!
I haven’t seen you, Sporadic Reader, in donkey’s years!
Sporadic Reader Hindu bornies unite!!!
I know a couple of “hard atheists” who remained Hindu. I was too young to understand their presence in Temple, because you know, atheists. But from memory they always had interesting opinions regarding religion.
@@OldBluesChapterandVerse Hello Jason! Sorry, I've mostly been a lurker on BookTube. I've been very happy to see your channel grow so well!
@@someonerandom8552 I know people who've reconciled this way as well. It's always fascinating!
I found the GK Chesterton vs Clarence Darrow debate quite interesting. Darrow made a great case but Chesterton was Chesterton. Worth checking out. My father was a Methodist missionary and though my faith is lacking. It seems too easy to attack believers....Religion is a leap in faith.. (not fact) clearly I. Would not defend all the insanity Religion has been brought to the world. I’d argue that musicians who believe make better music than nonbelievers though. Great vid.
Discussing books and religion without rancour. Great idea! What about politics?
I agree regarding Lukas's video! I speak about his video in my review that'll post tomorrow because I loved how we were able to share our views. I do think there is another category, whether you call them agnostics or create some other label, of people who don't really know what they think about God and don't care to dig deeper. It's not something they think about and it's not part of their life. I'm think this is slightly weaker than your "soft atheist" label, but I'm curious how you would describe that group of people. I'm a Christian and rely on science. I get frustrated in this science v. religion conversation that frequently comes up. In fact, science brings me closer to God and briefly touch on that in a comment on Lukas's video.
Just wanna butt in and say that I think science and religion are totally compatible-and in some cases mutually complementary, to believe your statement, Karen!
@@acruelreadersthesis5868 But how are they compatible? When we are doing math are we trying to decipher god's notebook where he was creating every law of physics?
Nastya I know some very religious folk who pride themselves on properly understanding how science explains phenomenon.
I think usually the go to is “well God is supernatural. Of course we can’t study such a being through science, science deals the natural world.”
It’s pretty common within the Dharmic circles I hang out in. My theory is it’s because all the parents absolutely love to stress how important education is to us no good kids.
@@Nastya-uj9bg I didn't say that science is a way of studying "god's notebook." Only that it is possible to be religious and to believe completely in science. Two very different statements, to my mind.
@@acruelreadersthesis5868 Ok but how? I really am trying to understand
What about a "secular religion" like Marxism?
Which reminds me I might have to order a second copy of the House of Government since I gave mine to my mom (well it was supposed to be a gift for her to begin with).
My word! You can be arrogant. When the arrogance comes out, the extent is something to behold. And you should be called out on it. And a lot more people should call you out.
Point #1: there's no arrogance in this video, of course. Point #2: As I've said many times on this channel, hate-watching anything is a complete waste of time. You've been hate-watching this channel literally for YEARS. That's a lot of wasted time. You should stop.
@@saintdonoghue I was a fan once - until I came across your arrogance, rudeness and nastiness - that's late January 2020. Email and Twitter to prove it. So I have not been hate-watching this for literally years. And there's no stopping YT recommendations, so I watched the thing. As for arrogance, it's there.
It's fucking arrogant to claim Judaism and Islam aren't monotheist based not on your ignorance but on reasoning.
i find him annoying much of the time...but he is turning out to be my main guru... i don't like a lot of his arguments, but they are quite general and also quite clear, and he makes some good points about tons of stuff...i better get reading or this guy will soon leave me twitching in a pool of my own blood.
🍿 🥤
Thank goodness for the First Amendment.
You mean "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? If only there was something about supreme court not being so religious...
@@Nastya-uj9bg first amendment was written TO PROTECT religion people from atheist governments not the other way around. too people have this misconception. almost all founding fathers were Christian
@@trump-hq2no But I just quoted first amendment for you... :) Are you saying they did not mean what they've written? Do you have some inside info?
@@Nastya-uj9bg its called "interpretation" you should try it some time :)
(that smile is meant to be passive aggressive btw)
@@trump-hq2no It most certainly was not. It was meant to protect certain religions from OTHER religions AND nonreligionists (as many of our Found Fathers were) from religionists. Read Freethinkers, by Susan Jacoby.
Steve, I perceive you as being a fountain of misperceptions and overgeneralizations about Christians however you are a good speaker. All the best to you.
Misperceptions and overgeneralization such as...?
people hate what they don't understand, Book Lady. same is true 4 Steve and Christianity
Book Lady Could you please tell me where, in this 40 minutes long video of well substantiated argumentation, did Steve indulge in over generalization?
@@williams.5952 ... too numerous to list as that would be a very long comment reply. I'm not here to argue.
@@Eldertalk Could you just give one example?
What is science? The last 1000000 facts revealed by our best research projects aided by our best sensory augmenting machines. These set limits on the visible and invisible universe. In a 1000 years these will be different to what they are today. What is religion? The assertion that specific books reveal eternal limits on the universe and that the characters present therein created and control all that is visible and invisible. Paradoxically, every few decades these eternal limits shift. Prosperity gospel anyone?