"Atheism Is Going Out Of Fashion!" Finding Meaning In The Secular Age LIVE Dissident Dialogues 2024
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Freddie Sayers sits down with philosophical TH-camr Alex O'Connor and philosopher and cognitive scientist John Vervaeke.
Where can meaning be found in the secular age? What did we lose when we lost religion? Where can meaning be found today?
Join these three leading thinkers on one of the most important questions of our time.
Panel moderated by Freddie Sayers, executive editor of Unherd.
Filmed live at the Duggal Greenhouse, NYC, on May 3rd, 2024.
FOLLOW THE PANELISTS:
Moderator:
Freddie Sayers: / freddiesayers
Panelist:
Alex O'Connor: / @cosmicskeptic
John Vervaeke: / @johnvervaeke
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUDIO
feeds.simpleca...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE:
If you're liking Dissident Dialogues and want to stay updated, don't forget to subscribe to our TH-cam channel! Simply hit the 'Subscribe' button below the video, and then click the bell icon to ensure you get all our notifications. Thanks for your support!
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
X: / diss_dialogues
Insta: / dissident_dialogues
Facebook: / dissidentdialogues2024
Linktree: linktr.ee/diss...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intro music to this is unhinged. I was expecting one of them to produce a machete.
I hate the intro music every time. So out of place.
It makes it look like it's going to be a literal fight.
You mean, they don't???
For sure. Terrible choice😂
We must make memes with this music. Like two dudes discussing French fries parallity settled state on delivery minimised by the speculum of random angles. 😅
I didn't become an atheist in order to be fashionable.
Bro...on god lol. The first year was a waking nightmare.
@@TheFloridaBro Ironically when I was preached to about God especially revelations, by family and church, is when I had nightmares galore. Had a huge fear of staying over at cousins or friends house believing for a fact that rapture would happen and I wouldn't find my parents. Fckin church, am I right?
I agree with you. I didn't become a believer to be fashionable either, or out of fear or for a sense of superiority or any of those things. I believe in spite of many people who say they do. I began to believe because I realized logically that the values that I hold to be true had to have come from somewhere - and then I met the some ONE that they came from.
People screw things up, and people will screw up "secularism" too. If it takes the whole West turning into a dystopia to know that - well, OK. That stinks, but OK. Good luck to you (that wasn't sarcasm).
@@danatowne5498but you didn't. You didn't meet anyone. You changed the way you see things, but you didn't meet anyone. And to use those words is disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that it's the former.
@@pstew5309 , how do you know who I met?
It doesn’t matter if atheism is fashionable. It matters what is true.
So why are you an atheist
@Native_Man123Looking forward to you producing evidence of a deity, then.
@Native_Man123A difficult claim to defend ;)
@@kristopherjon6496what kind of evidence are you looking for?
@Native_Man123 The scientific method is not a claim to be evaluated as true or untrue. It is a process by which a claim can be tested. It either produces results or it doesn’t. You are utilizing the positive results that indicate the integrity of the process every minute of every day.
That is as close to “proof” as we are going to get.
Yes atheism is going out of fashion. It’s not a trend anymore. It’s just baseline. So it’s not edgy or cool to be an atheist anymore, it’s just normal. As an atheist that lived through the “edgy” era - I’d call this an absolute win.
And we’re don’t have enough mops to wipe the blood
It never will. Religion is a weakness. There is literally no way atheism will not continue.
i just turned 70 and i've always been atheist. i have no affiliations to old or new, but there are "new christians" - apologists who do nothing but grift.
Maybe in the US it might have been ‘cool’ to be an atheist. In most western countries (I’m from Australia) nobody could care less whether you’re religious or not. There shouldn’t even be a word for atheism……..atheism is just being normal.
You’re right, the dissidents are pretending to be Christian now
I'm an atheist, or agnostic atheist to be more precise. I was raised Catholic but by age 18 decided I didn't believe any of the supernatural claims. I'm now 66 years old and have had zero difficulty finding "meaning" in my life. I have a wonderful wife, two magnificent children and three adorable grandchildren. I had a great 37 year career as a high school teacher and maintain close friendships with many colleagues even after I retired. I have hobbies that I enjoy regularly. The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife doesn't diminish the meaning of this life. It seems many people disagree, thinking that if there is no sequel then this movie is just nothing. Therefore they're not only willing, but eager, to profess belief in dogmas so absurd it boggles the mind.
You're an exception, not a rule. Religion/spirituality is a product of evolution for a good reason. People are going to seek out objective meaning because atheism provides nothing. Even small things like whether or not theft is okay is just subjective in a secular lens.
Im glad you've found so much fulfillment!
@@wakkablockablaw6025tribalism is also a product of evolution for a reason, doesn't make it actually healthy or useful in the modern day
@@benjaminjenkins2384 You make a great point, but that's not the case for religion. Almost every meta-analysis on religion is overwhelmingly positive. Here's the science.
Religion, Delinquency, and Drug Use: A Meta-Analysis
Religion, spirituality, and physical health in cancer patients: A meta-analysis
"If you love me, keep my commandments": A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime.
The Religious Orientation Scale: Review and Meta-Analysis of Social Desirability Effects
The Effects of Catholic and Protestant Schools: A Meta-Analysis
Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies
Religious Priming: A Meta-Analysis With a Focus on Prosociality
Religion and Completed Suicide: a Meta-Analysis
A Meta-Analysis of Religion/Spirituality and Life Satisfaction
@@wakkablockablaw6025What a disgustingly, abhorrent thing to say. You are, quite simply, inhuman.
I am an atheist from Islamic country I am 46 old and I am an atheist not because it is/was fashionable , because religion is noncense.
Brave.
(Proverbs 9:10)
[The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. The knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.]
(Jeremiah 10:23) WE Bible
[Yahweh, I know that the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his steps.]
-Young's Literal Translation
[I have known, O Jehovah, that not of man is his way, Not of man the going and establishing of his step.]
Sha'lom Aleichem in Christ
Hallelujah-Praise Almighty Jah you people.
Same here. My parents are devout Muslims, but my brothers and I all became atheists, without even much influence from each other.
It is so privileged isnt it? Bunch of westerns in the developed world LARPing as if they believe just so they wont be bored on sunday morning. I wish you best on your struggle.
Religion often is nonsense, Jesus is real
Once again:"Atheism going out of fashion"
British national census -
2001: Christian 68% No religion 15%
2021: Christian 46% No religion 37%
(Projected) 2031: Christian 33% No religion 51%
And for the Canadian guest-
Canada national census
2001: Christian 75% No religion 16%
2021: Christian 53.3% No religion 34.6%
It's like a manifestation mantra.
This ignores the rising trend of "spiritual but not religious"(SBNR) which gets shoved into "No religion"(also includes "non-affiliated"). They don't act and think like atheists do. Don't quote the dictionary at me, that is not what atheists are like. John Vervaeke isn't arguing for Christianity per se, rather, he wants to preserve/restore the mechanisms of religion. John Vervaeke is a cognitive scientist, not a theologian.
@@the11382
Agree.
Many people who left or disassociated with formal religion are still religious in their beliefs in more than one way about things such as the supposed spiritual realms. They're just typically not dogmatic about what is needed to be right with "God".
@@FoursWithin I also agree and this is why I think society at large is still pretty stupid. Religious 'styles of thinking' are just as dangerous imo whether or not you're going to church or whether or not you're applying it to "does god exist" or questions about how to live in society.
@@the11382 There is no "what atheists are like." We are simply people who don't believe in a god. No more, no less.
Believing that the wizards and witches of Hogwarts are real and can ultimately rescue humanity and the planet through magic has real world consequences
How else will the world be saved? I don't see it
If only a few people believe this (very likely) and will consequently potentially act less responsible, then the negative effect is neglectfully small. Just because an idea has a real world consequences, it does not mean it has consequence of a noteworthy magnitude.
Secularism has its problems too. So long as the religion you follow preaches love and the well being and connectedness of humanity in the universe, then I don't see the issue.
What you don't think Dumbledore gonna save us?!
The greatest wizard to believe is fauci
The greatest miracle is the big bang
LOL
Atheisism going out of fashion?? I didn't realise it was a fashion
The edgyness didn't tip you off?
It is an attitude, a pattern of thinking, or perspective on the world. So yeah, athiesm can be fashionable in certain times and societies.
Yes it’s a completely pushed movement by big think tanks like the Royal Society. You have been brainwashed.
@@gideondavid30how exactly is not having a belief that a god exists an "attitude"?
dont kid urself lmao
O'Connor is a GOAT and owned the stage and conversation so easily.
So gay
There's a fundamental problem with his position though. His arguments on these issues have a built-in assumption that everyone can and should think critically. He doesn't seem to understand the implications of the vast majority being less intelligent, logically calibrated, or objectively based as he is. I'm an atheist as well, but I've come to understand that faith is a net positive for a significant percentage. It's an entirely logical reaction to an evolutionary/self-aware state.
As an Atheist, I cannot stress enough just how much I do not care whether or not Atheism is "Fashionable". What I care about is that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
That’s odd because atheists are walking contradictions. You deny the immaterial while using it daily. Get educated and don’t do it from these establishment hacks propped for you.
But what makes you care about truth so much? How do you come to the conclusion that truth should hold the highest value?
@@stepheninderlied5091 First, let me correct you on an assumption you made. You assumed that truth is my highest value. Truth is not my highest value; instead, I would hold Wellbeing as my highest value. Knowing more true things allows me to make a higher percentage of decisions that promote Wellbeing and make a lower percentage of decisions that reduces Wellbeing.
@@peteraguilar7600 catholic subsidiarity, that is a key principle from the longest running religious Institution. Again, your fundamental principle in your life is literally highjacked, ubbenounced to you apparently, from a much older tradition and principle from a ethic in religion. Verbatim catholic subsidiarity says you need to take care of yourself first, so that you can be useful to the immediate people in your life, then branch out.
@@peteraguilar7600 how do you know what's true? Is something true because you can observe it? Is the claim that something is true because you observe it observable? Have you ever really put in the intellectual legwork to claim there is no God?
This was a good conversation, but I really dislike the staging music, which was tension inducing and not reflective of the respectful conversation that followed.
Just because music induced feelings of tension does not mean that this is generally negative or not appropriate for a debate. Also, just because a conversation is respectful does not mean that it cannot be combative and characterised by tension. I feel like you are incorrectly implying that they might be mutally exclusive. If there is no tension, as there would be when oposing views are existent, then evderybody would simpy agree and add to a topic. I would argue that this is probably less interesting and would potentially generate less insight, as opinions and ideas would not be critically analysed.
The music seemed more in line with our hyperpolarized culture than the conversation that took place.
The thumbnail has "vs." in it so the music has to set a combative mood. Conflict drives engagement drives revenue.
Atheism, tells us what not to believe, but doesnt tell us what we should believe. That is probably why it makes some people feel empty and unfulfilled.
There are a myriad of places to seek your belief, be a humanist, be a Buddhist, be a Stoic...
So many places to pick, I don't get the fixation with religious meaning
Atheists may give reasons - lack of evidence chief among them - for not believing in a god or gods, but Atheism doesn’t tell you what not to believe, unlike religion which tells you that you must believe, or else. As far as I’m concerned, you can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect me. I prefer to find meaning in something real.
@@wayneandrews1022 Atheist lack evidence for believing life came from non-life or the universe which can not see, hear, speak , feel or reason somehow produced conscious beings. Atheist claiming it's all about the evidence is a lie. Everyone holds presuppositions even atheist. I have no reason to believe reason came from that which has no reason.
Agreed. They have no vision or purpose to offer. It’s easy to be a critic much harder to actually make the world better
@@scottm4975 this shows you know nothing about atheist movement.
There are literal books on how you can live a fulfilling life as an atheist.
It's almost like you guys willfully ignore such
Religiosity and religious attendance is at an all time low, and religious ideologues are in straight up denial claiming that atheism and irreligiosity are "going out of fashion". Methinks the theists doth project too much
No you mean Christians. Not religions.
I think a lot of religious people have a really hard time with pluralism.
Correction. In 2019 it was at an all time low.
Although Millennials (and, emerging behind them, Gen Z) are known for declines in religiosity, data show that, since 2019, the percentage of Millennials reporting weekly church attendance has increased from 21 percent to 39 percent. Among Gen X, attendance has increased 8 percentage points (24% to 32%).(via Barna Research)
@@AspiringChristian Barna is an evangelical Christian organization. Pew, an objective organization, shows the contrary.
And the mental illness, depression, drug addiction and divorce rate are at their all-time highest. Go figure.
When I don't go to church, I go trail running, I watch premier league football, I read, I play with my dogs, etc.
Sex?
Premier League Football is a religion
Always funny when people that go to a building every Sunday to listen to an 80 year old virgin tell them how an imaginary friend in the sky is watching them to make sure they don’t do things like masturbate so he can let them all in to his after death party are the ones claiming they have all the true meaning and purpose in life. The truly religious are just hilarious at this point
That’s an ecology of practices
@@felixmidas3245 mo thanks.
or yes please depending on who goes on top.
Atheism might be going out of fashion in the West. But it is definitely needed in Africa. At the very least, the role of religion in Africa needs to be interrogated.
Facts. Religion is a distraction in Africa
Hard atheism is propably going out of "fashion". More or less vague spirituality/biddhism or even normalised deism may become the norm.
@@NightsideOfParadise My father always used to say: Stupidity is the norm.
middle east too
Atheism most certainly isn’t going out of fashion. Religion is dying in almost all western nations.
If you're an atheist for a good reason, you're impervious to fashion.
If you're an aatheist for a good reason, you are also impervious to fashion.
There's no good reason for atheism. Just a billion bad ones.
@@LukaMagda1for example?
and usually quite lost, everywhere I look the average atheist is flailing, average religious people might be to, but they have a way to ground their purpose, they aren't confused about their morality and going through constant existential crisis without even realising they are, thing is atheism for someone like yourself who can do a proper accounting of their reasoning processes, is fine, but most people don't do that, which is why outsourcing these things to religion is a better option for most people, for those who don't want to think about thinking all day everyday, doesn't make them idiots, just means they value different things
@@VgalloHow the hell would you know what the average atheist is doing or not doing. But hey, presume away to ur heart’s content
I wish the mediator wasn’t there saying random shit constantly.
Not having mitological believes is not a fashion, it is just a reasonable stand.
Atheism isn't to blame for the lack of meaning in society. Social media is.
I told a Christian that I was an atheist. He said “Wow! That’s a bold claim!” Oh the irony.
It's more like "cultural Christianity" is the new fashion among the inteligencia. There is no data to suggest the average person on the street is becoming more religious.
Religion is going out of "fashion" in Western countries at an accelerating rate.
The _"non-propositional"_ aspect they're referring to is the motive character of one's own being. If the quality of one's inner make-up nets in the positive they have no pressing, existential need to seek out external value and meaning, because they already embody them intrinsically.
Religion can provide surface level relief to those with existential deficiencies by providing comforting narratives which help bury deep-seated pains and anxieties. In other words, they're a form of cope which, like all cope, leaves one psychologically dependent on believing certain propositions, regardless of their actual truth value.
Why does someone have to find meaning in life, as if meaning is something that is fixed and defined. People who ask this question are usually religious people who are arrogantly sure that the meaning is their personal savior, as though they’re jumping up and down going around in circle singing “la la la la la, la la la la la, I’ve got a savior.”
Because if people find their lives meaningless the result ranges from being frustrated and unhappy to killing themselves and others.
It was an atheist who actually wrote the definitive book on meaning.
Are there many examples of people holding onto meanings of life they DON'T agree with? I cannot say I've heard many Christians go "I fucking hate prostrating myself before god, but goddammit I gotta 'cause that's what I've been designed to do."
@@sugartoothYT
Exactly!!
Also, is my comment above yours visible? I am convinced YT is hiding my replies to people across various channels.
@@yoshbui2312 What we actually sing is more like "we've got a savior". You see, some big things had to happen so we could get a chance for salvation. Someone had to sacrifice his life for us to have this chance. It would seem a shame to squander a gift like that. At the very least we could show some gratitude. Or inquire about it.
I can relate a lot to Alex. He's tackling the issue itself, without any apologetics.
Im an atheist and I really dont struggle for meaning or purpose.
Your life has meaning and purpose wether you are aware of it or not.
So much so that you felt the need to declare your view on a social-media comment section.
@@summan41man In a discussion of meaning and purpose, the nerve of him
@@summan41man It's literally the point of the video.
So deep thinkng , skepticism, and a drive for intellectual honesty has gone out of fashion.
Fine , if that's the case I'll be anti fashion. In my opinion it's a good look.
In today's age of long form discussion, this topic is criminally underserved in 30 minutes, particularly with two such panelists who are so capable of exploring this together for several hours at a stretch.
it is and was always unfashionable actually. As stated in many other places, you cannot be an openly atheist politician - not in USA and not in many, many other countries. This speaks for itself.
My family and believing true things is what gives me my life meaning. No god required. I was about 9 when I learned about fossiels and realised that not everything I was told in sunday school was true.
Meaning and the illusion of meaning are very different things. You might experience happiness when you’re with your family, but emotions are of no real consequence. You may find temporary fulfillment, but even in life, temporary fulfillment comes and goes. Don’t even get started on death.
@@mentalwarfare2038 I think you're entirely wrong. I think you feel these emotions to encourage you down that road. I believe that your feeling of hunger encourages you to eat. You don't need God for that. I think that feeling scared makes you run away or face the battle depending on whether your risk averse or not. I think that standing on a hill and being able to see for a long way makes you feel good because you can see enemies coming towards you from a distance or you can see food. I think that you feel love because it helps you stay together and if you've got children that's good for the child and they're more likely to survive. I think these are all driven through biology and evolution. Emotions are of real consequence. Emotions drive the creation of hormones throughout your body like adrenaline, emotions make you smile or cry and these are all relevant to your life. Do not understand this suggests that you're nowhere near your biological self.
@@mentalwarfare2038 I think you're entirely wrong. I think you feel these emotions to encourage you down that road. Your feeling of hunger encourages you to eat. I think that feeling scared makes you run away or face the battle depending on whether your risk averse or not. I think that standing on a hill and being able to see for a long way makes you feel good because you can see enemies coming towards you from a distance or you can see food.
I think that you feel love because it helps you and your partner stay together longer and if you've got children that's good for the child and they're more likely to survive. I think these are all driven through biology and evolution. Emotions are of real consequence. Emotions drive the creation of hormones throughout your body like adrenaline, emotions make you smile or cry and these are all relevant to your life.
@@scatton61 I think you're describing God and calling it biology.
Taken seriously, this is describing a cosmic hierarchy of which "random impersonal deterministic natural processes" are at the top. This tends to make the phenomena you're describing less meaningful because they are not serving anything meaningful.
Yes you can feel love, but what is that love, ultimately? Just random impersonal deterministic natural processes. What is your enjoyment of a meal with your family, the beauty of a sunset, etc.? More random natural processes. Sure you can enjoy it, but it's empty enjoyment, a form of hedonism. And this does not work for most people -- not even you. You will act as though what you do is serving something even as you rationally believe and insist there is nothing to be served.
@@huntz0r Well, we know that biology exists and if you are honest you can't claim that your god exists but rather presumes that it does. So it is more likely to be biology. Or are you going to tell me that you have actual proof?
Also, please define "serving anything meaningful"?
I am not suggesting that I know the exact way the feeling of Love is created (can you?) but it is likely to be hormones released in to the brain like endorphins. But I hope you will you agree that it likely holds families and relationships together longer than without it? Ask yourself why is it enjoyable. What function does it perform and would I stay with this person longer for the raising of children it if it wasn't enjoyable? You can ask your self about sex in the same way. Why is it enjoyable and would i do it if it wasn't?
The joy of eating with your family is because we are social animals and work better as a social group and this increases those bonds. Many social animals do things together for the same reasons. I am not sure why a sunset is enjoyed... But a "I don't know" doesn't mean therefore god.
I am serving the purpose of my life which is mostly to gather resources, find a mate and have children so they can go on and have their own etc...... like all animals. It is an instinct. without it there wouldn't be a human race. Or any life on the planet. What do you see as the purpose of your life?
Really wish there were a better host for this discussion. He didn’t seem to understand the ‘non-propositional’ aspects of meaning that made this convo so interesting, and instead fell back on prewritten questions
Isn't that frustrating? I hate watching an interview, podcast, etc. and hearing someone touch on something very interesting, only for their interlocutor to not even mention it and go on to the next pre-written question, or even worse, follow up on something that wasn't significant. Both of these things happened multiple times recently with Alex on Chris Williamson's podcast.
Just contact the event hosts, make your point about the previous hosts flaws and volunteer to host the event yourself next time. If they can get someone who can moderate in a more flexible style, they might accept your offer. BTW if you slap yourself in the face with your left hand, you have experienced non-propositional meaning. Give it a go.
@@madisonbear4364 how preposterous. This kind of response is almost as common as it is ignorant. People can (and should) voice critiques of things they themselves aren't capable of (or responsible for) doing. A woman can validly critique a man for failing as a man. A human can validly chastise a dog for failing as a dog. A guest can validly critique a host for failing as a host - regardless of whether or not he or she wants to or is able to become the ideal host.
@@agapologia Sometimes people criticize and effectively self-aggrandize to the point where they suggest they could do it better themselves. Why it does not make sense to call this out - I do not understand. When people get into actual details they do elevate themselves to be in the same domain in some sense. To then formulate an angle of attach where you critcize and question whether they would actually do it better (to counteract and call out the self-aggrandizement) is perfectly fine as far as i am concerned. If it is common all the better. You cannot shoehorn your abstract correct insight that people should be allowed to crritique without having domain competence, and my type of response is therefore not appropriate onto this situation. If a person elevates themselves to be in the same area of competence, by going into actual details, then this angle of critique is fine.
@@madisonbear4364 where did the op suggest he could do a better job? He merely pointed out one or two deficiencies he perceived in the host. That seemed completely reasonable to me.
Where do you find meaning is an incredibly stupid and disingenuous question. Like the religious have some kind of ownership over having purpose. You want meaning? Its as simple as getting a hobby you like. There, meaning in life solved.
Thanks for telling us your iq is room temperature.
Atheism has never been in “fashion” at least not in the US. As an atheist myself, I personally couldn’t care less.
The problem with these public atheist types is they don’t offer anything worth fighting for. “The greatest comfort for the greatest number of nerds” is not inspiring & infect invented contempt and mockery.
But that’s nothing to do with the fact I’m not an unbeliever myself, I just want a world antithetical to what these humanist dorks have on offer.
You clearly weren’t around from 2007-2013
From a West-European perspective: I never noticed atheism to be a fashion in this part of the world. It’s more like Religion is out of fashion. And this constantly since the 1970s.
@@grandeau3802 people in America love to claim a religion yet church going is declining rapidly. It’s all lip service
@@Twittchyy WRONG. I was born in 77. What’s your point?
This is the kind of discussion that people leave complimenting the speakers for how intelligent they are, but with no answers to the main question: “Is there a meaning to life after all? If yes, then where (or Who) is its source? If not, then why do we inherently need so much a meaning to our lives?”
Who was the source of meaning in my life? All the giants of science who came before me and who lent me their shoulders to stand on. ;-)
I believe the somewhat romantic notion that is expressed in the Quebecois song “Degeneration” where the thought of your own plot of land, tranquility and rejection of urban capitalist life is put forward as the “good old”. What a yeomans life offered you was content. A sense of community with your neighbours, extended family and hard work wherein you could witness and take part in the fruit of your own labour provides what for me seems not as the individualistic spiritual notion of meaning but a greater non-need for such meaning. What it provides is instead happiness in life. The non-need to seek these external ways of improving your life (e.g religious notion of an end goal in suffering) is “contentness”.
In neo-liberal capitalist urban society we are (by society) encouraged to find ways to overcome our suffering not in the form of the above (owning means of production, community etc.) but instead by factors which does not remove the root of the suffering but for example spirituality and a perverse (don’t know if I used that correctly, please all lacanians correct me) version of absurdism wherein we do not accept the absurd and pursue a utilitarian goal but instead recognize our lack of inherent meaning and then doing nothing to improve our situation in the roots, for example by pursuing us to find this meaning and happiness by performing our labour in the best possible way.
In conclusion: no there isn't a meaning to life (which i havent showed here) and we need this meaning to cope with our current situation.
@@MilleLagerqvist We need a talking donkey and a psychopathic dead man to find meaning? Can you even hear yourself? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 that’s a very sad predicament then…scientific discoveries helped us to improve our lives externally and our understanding of the physical world , but it couldn’t give ANY transcendent and fulfilling meaning to life. If life is only material, then life itself is meaningless (we’re born, we live, and like all life we die). Not a good enough answer if you ask me.
@@MilleLagerqvist another receipt to despair I believe, for quietness of life in the country is indeed far better than the crazy agitated life in urban city, but that still doesn’t solve the problem. If “quietness of life” is the ultimate goal (I know that you said that it will consequently make you to stop the search for a meaning, but in the end it will be treated as THE meaning), the absence of it for any means will be enough to cause despair. The question for me is too simple: Either this life has a meaning that can truly give significance to our existence, or there’s no meaning at all and our lives serve for no purpose whatsoever (since we’re all a gigantic Cosmic accident), even when we try to live as if there’s a meaning.
There is meaning to life. The problem is that most ppl want someone else on the outside (god, religion) to tell them what that is. Atheist create their own meaning, define their own purpose in life. They own their choices, thus, their lives.
An honest atheist wouldn’t say anything so ridiculous as such. That being said most people are too dumb to actually examine their own worldview to determine what it is in any meaningful way.
Gen Z is the least religious generation of them all. They think Gen Alpha is gonna be better?😂 Who is raising them?😂😂
It is common for a newer generation to rebel against a previous generation
@rickyicesmith1433 Because every generation learns from the mistakes of the previous one. Gen Z is not apply to the military because they see how veterans are treated
@@andilea-mab4199 Because the next generation is rebellious, they will "learn from mistakes", but they'll also throw out useful things too. It's all well and good that Gen Z doesn't apply to the military until WW3 starts. The next generation is reactionary not wise.
@@andilea-mab4199 Every generation does not learn from past mistakes.
Millennials had fled churches 2 decades ago, and were the least religious generation.
Church attendance went from 19% to nearly 40% in this generation. That’s according to a scientific poll by Barna Research.
The vacuum of purpose and the failures of a secular framework are not hard to deal with during easier periods of life. However, as chasing pleasure fails to satisfy at the outset of one’s 30’s they can no longer enjoy a meaningless life.
I know Alex is more known but John vervaeke is one of the brightest minds I have ever encountered in the course of my life. He is absolutely brilliant.
OK I was going to turn this off because of the intro, I found him insufferable but your comment must mean something. Unless you're a theist in which case I'll surely be disappointed.
@@teatime009Vervaeke is great: I’m an atheist myself and lean towards Johns, non-theistic stance.
@teatime009 atheists disappoint all the time!!!
Defending their intelligence came from nonintelligence: many R, correct!!!
@@christopherhamilton3621 I've always went back and forth between theism and atheism in terms of my beliefs. But I've found that both of them are just leading to nowhere. I've also been pretty intrigued by John Vervaeke’s non-theism so maybe I'll try this next xD
Varvake does nothing to me, kinda like Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau. So many words without meaning. Very vague.
I'm an atheist, agnostic atheist except on certain models of gods, non-theist if that helps. I find meaning in learning and getting new on eyes on things. Learning isn't as objective as they teach at school, even though it is a big part of my identity, it how to understand anything. That is just what humans, animals and other organisms and machines can do. I am just chasing things with explaintory power for me and others
Not being convinced by fantastical magical assertions that lack any evidence to lend credence to those assertions is not going out of style.
Wanting better than assertions offered up by unknown primitive people who lived thousands of years ago will never go out of style as long as the human mind remains inquisitive.
OMG, just fanboying over JV and AO'C right now. Clicked straight away.
Atheism is a rational position regarding one question.
I dont understand the debate
The debate is about rationality not being enough to makes sense of reality. Human beings use rationality to describe the world not to live in it.
This is not a Religion vs. Atheism debate. It's a conversation about how to find meaning in the meaning crisis.
It’s not that you don’t understand the conversation(and it’s not a debate), it’s that you’re choosing not to listen and participate in the conversation due to your preconceived bias of a video title.
@@emanuelephrem4307 But the answers most religion offers are no better suited to the task and are often worse. It might convince some people it is "enough", but just look at their "fruit", to borrow a religious phrase - many are often just as broken and toxic if not more so than skeptics, with a super-sized helping of poorly understanding how describe the world, as you put it, on the side.
Religion convinces many by postponing the endpoint of their toil behind the veil of death. I concede that some do benefit from this sense of security, but if religious claims about basic facts can be and often are egregiously, verifiably incorrect, then how can a reasonable person put any stock in the greater, foundational claims for which there can never be empirical verification? The definition of "truth" in this paradigm must be bastardized to reconcile that dissonance, which is the trend we have actually seen come into fashion (not traditional religion, by any means). The negative effects of this are stark, and wide-reaching. We are living them out more and more with every passing day. I think this new trend is not worth celebrating at all, because it could take down a very dark path if we don't get a handle on it and re-establish what truth should actually entail.
On the nature of reality itself, I am open to the idea of a greater cosmic purpose, but it's pretty clear the vast majority of humanity's religions have no leg to stand on when they claim to have discovered it. Maybe one day humanity will discover it, or it will properly reveal and justify itself. I hope to be alive to know the truth if that day should come.
A more nihilistic theory could be that our desire for meaning is an unfortunate vestige of our evolution - without predators to fear, nor the constant maintenance of shelter and nutrition, and the many other advances that have improved physical comfort and increased the leisure we experience in life, the instincts that would drive our primate ancestors forward in those strenuous endeavors instead have driven us into considering our place in the cosmic milieu far too deeply, but with terminal futility. I don't lean either way, because as far as I can tell, either option is equally possible.
@@justmbhman
I didnt mean this Video
I meant the overall discussion between "worldview vs worldview"
Out of fashion? I see the numbers growing.
No religion doesn’t equal atheism
Great discussion - Alex and John are the two most erudite on this subject.
6:34 He’s describing “hope”; it’s the strong desire for something know but unseen. God calls us to hope for Heaven. ❤️🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸
That’s just called wishful thinking. A healthy practice would be to learn to accept the reality of permanent death, and work towards creating the best lives for people here and now. Instead, religion plays up your fear and anxiety about death, to create a false reliance on its empty promises and imaginary cure.
It’s sad and it causes people to learn the same kind of emotional, fact-free reasoning that primes them to also believe conspiracy theories, grifters, and propaganda.
I'm autistic, so I find meaning in the specific answers. Knowing how many molecules are in the mug gives me empowerment, comfort, and then meaning.
What is the meaning of how many molecules are in a mug lol
@@zechariahahl-k9n Meaning that it's something that we can calculate, it's something he said in the video. I should have placed a timestamp.
@@Mmoll1990 You equate meaning with test-ability?
@@zechariahahl-k9n As a positive nihilist, I accept that there is no Inherent meaning to the universe; the only meaning in anything is what we assign to it. The fact that we can as a species discover, learn, and comprehend things in the universe is one of the things I find meaning in.
@@Mmoll1990 I'm asking what the meaning in that is. This is a meta level question. You believe that the meaning is subjective?
Narratives are composed of a stream of propositions. You can't get away the proposition.
We have a finite life, and you either make the most of it or you don't....
I find that my life is more fulfilling when I make the most of it
Technically true and practically useful point.
Considering how daft fashion tends to be, I'm happy to be unfashionable.
The host was annoying but good answer out of them
Amazing seeing Alex quoting and reciting a CS Lewis poem and speaking of him with great reverence
The bearded guy is giving me Jordan Peterson flashbacks.
This infantile neediness for external meaning is completely alien to me. You create your own life and meaning. You are the only one who can do that.
Making up nonsense about some magical, invisible thing that decides for you what the meaning of your life is, is beyond ridiculous, but even then you are the one telling yourself that THAT is the meaning of your life.
You cannot make your own meaning. You have a moral compass about what is right and wrong which is biologically and culturally determined and likely similar to that of many other people. If you grossly violate that basic sense of what is morally right in your life, you could become borderline suicidal or at least suffer greatly, because your inner voice (superego) will object. Can you really create and that inner voice of conscience ? No. What is right and wrong and the ultimate good lives in you and your psyche and finds it's external metaphorical representation in the idea of God.
You did not create your own life silly goose and you most certainly cannot derive any form of meaning from an ridiculously temporary state of electrochemical reactions limited to an unfathomably remote corner of the universe(s).
I can only urge you to lean into your observational capacity for knowing, I have observed a pattern indistinguishable from design or apparent design if you're more comfortable with that and I have observational experiential reason to believe that we are being perceived by a much higher form of consciousness than any religion or belief system can even fully articulate.
@@madisonbear4364you're talking about ethics, not meaning
@@madisonbear4364 I largely agree with you on the topic of morality, but it is separate from the topic of meaning.
@@andreasplosky8516 fair enough
The spoiled teenager that flips out that they got an Acura instead of a Ferrari for their birthday is miserable because they demand too much out of life. In much the same way, I think we intuitively understand as we age that fulfillment and peace is not won through getting the things you want, it's won through letting go of wanting things in the first place. When you get what you want, you merely get a short-term burst of satisfaction, and quickly return to either boredom or the pain of striving for the next thing you now see yourself as lacking. But when you abandon the need to get that thing you want, you also abandon the suffering that comes from striving to get it, as well as the suffering you would experience if you fail to get it. The problem is forever solved. You're satisfied getting an Acura, and really you're satisfied getting nothing at all.
In the same way all the solutions to the meaning crisis, that I've seen, are wrong because they all presume that we're supposed to obtain meaning. But peace is won through abandoning desires, not fulfilling them. The solution is to abandon this need for meaning in the first place. And the best tool for this, that I know of, is meditation practice. Meditation is to letting go what the gym is to building muscle.
So the solution to the meaning crisis is meditation: letting go of this feverish need to find meaning.
Never been big on meditation, but I think you made a beautiful case for it
The problem with 'letting go' is that it can only succeed in moderation. If too many people let go too much and abandon too many material desires, they lose the will to strive for a materially better world and thusly enable said world to decline materially and spiritually.
It's a cycle of suffering, letting go, then suffering more, then letting go more to cope, and it's a self-destroying cycle.
Nietzche called this 'the slave mentality' (paraphrasing); when you can't get what you want, you change what you want. When you can't get a better world, you abandon aiming for a better world.
Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, adopting Buddhist views is not for us Christians, in my experience. I've never heard anything in Buddhism (I studied it for many years) about the value of family, father and mother, it's like a never-ending navel-gazing that teaches you to get rid of your ego and all your desires and is so effective that it forgets that in addition to this high demand of letting go of all identities and ego, there is also something like an economy and a society that can't afford it. If one cannot manage to be a Christian, one certainly cannot manage to be a Buddhist if one has grown up in the West. Meditation may be nice for the individual, but it does not create a coherent community of the many in the West, but rather breaks it down. No offence, I think your statements are correct, but I would like to add mine to yours.
Was my comment deleted? I said some stuff about how this worldview doesn't work and now it's gone?
Well the TLDR was: When we deny the strive for a better world, we don't get a better world. Would you tell the homeless, starving child that sleeps with freezing numbness to simply 'let go' of the desire for a better life? It's a cope that erodes society by abandoning it alongside the people within.
Interesting take, but I think all of us deep down know that some things are worthy of obtaining (love, truth...) while others might not be (you called it short term burst of satisfaction).
Abandonment of all desires through meditation ends where it started, you find "meaning" in meditation. Instead of avoiding suffering, we should strive to align our desires with something that gives our life meaning, the Good, Truth and Beautiful.
"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world." C.S. Lewis
I clicked on this expecting a lot of straw man arguments from O’Connor and confounding erudition from Vervaeke. How wrong I was. Less than 30 minutes was hopelessly inadequate for the richness that both men only got a chance to point towards, rather than to mine. And judging from the comments, few people were headed to the depths that lie beneath the simplistic and useless binary of theist-atheist wheelspinning. That’s truly a pity given where the dialogue could have gone if not fenced in by time and the limited frame of the questioning.
And, yes, the intro “music” was truly awful!
Imagine John Varvaeke and Eric Weinstein in a discussion 😂
First, I'm 8 minutes in, and I'm enjoying this so far, John's point about disconnecting ourselves off, hit like a slap on the back of the head, walked and talked someone off a bridge, without even thinking about it, spur of the moment, Alex, first time seeing you, and enjoyed your time, John's evolution into his person has been great to see over the years, and thank you to the host, Freddie, peace
Alex is exaggerating the extent that simply quoting a founder ever just settled a debate in the U.S., and he understates the retained power and respect of the founders and their ideas.
How would he know? A 15 year old British kid telling people what US political debate used to be like? He’s talking out of his ass.
@@PneumanonLMAO. How would you know? You don’t know him. You don’t know the insane educational journey he’s been on for the last decade. I’m a 54 year old born in Los Angeles and live on the periphery of Alex’s social community. Knowing the beliefs of a few men from 250 years ago is as simplistic an intellectual exploration as there is. Everyone should know the beliefs and attitudes of important characters in human history. Everyone should know the writings of Pascal, Hume, Voltaire. Everyone should understand the mechanisms behind the workings of the universe: cosmology, evolution, germ theory, the problems with gravity and wonder about the transcendence of their own ego, as John said. If you don’t like that he knows something you don’t, fucking Google it and fix the problem.🤷🏻♀️
@@Evolution.1859 We got a fanboy here.
People forget their connection to the arts and humanities and in this undereducated crisis we keep having, arts education is one thing lacking that many people forget, is our human birthright. We need culture, the arts, writing, history, literature, to make sense of our world. Religion is only one part of our culture that has posed as all of it for centuries. We are bereft of tools which were systematically taken away.
13:32
Off the top of my head: here’s a syllogism from the Bible -
“And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?”
The definition of a syllogism:
“syllogism is a threestep method of framing an argument. First is the Major Premise, an assumption or argument meant to be taken as fact. Next is the Minor Premise, another assumption/argument that serves to substantiate the Major Premise. Finally, a Conclusion is drawn from both the Major and Minor Premises.”
Major premise: lilies do not toil or spin, yet they have glorious clothing
Minor premise: if God clothes the grass or the field, which is here today and gone tomorrow, he’ll clothe you, someone who is more substantive than plants.
Conclusion: therefore do not worry about your clothes.
I’m not sure why he would make a claim that is to easily proven to be false…
I truly don't understand why Vervaeke is popular. Comes off as a total hack to me.
Vervaeke is a cognitive scientist, not a theologian. Non-theism =/= atheism =/= theism. Vervaeke is thinking about the mechanisms of meaning and purpose in the human brain.
I think the meaning crisis is a symptom. People who are in a miserable life situations yearn for meaning. If opportunity and wealth were more evenly distributed, and work wasn't so damn draining, life would become inherently meaningful to more people.
Huge comment.
How did that work out for Soviet Russia, Maoist China and any other time this was attempted in the real world?
Hello Marxist...
But also actually yes and if you'd pay attention you'd realize this whole sudden rise in right wing populism is a very deliberate attempt on the part of certain wealthy industrialist to actively fight off any such sentiment that maybe the wealth generated by humanities collective achievements like computing shouldn't all be held by people who often didn't ever contribute shit. And if you don't believe there are people powerful enough to manipulate the masses like thar I point you to COINTELPRO.
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. "
A symptom of what? Not having something meaningful to live for?? Say everyone had all their necessities taken care of, how do you deal with the existential property of life? You still need meaning in life.
Lol google censoring comments actually discussong you know what which was kinda my casw in point but I guess this shitty platform wont let you see it
Watching the atheist and theist debates is like watching the government 'spend great resources' spinning their wheels. Its a whole lot of arm waving with no advancement on any front.
This was brilliant, Alex. Absolutely brilliant.
Brits describing America is oftentimes cringe. This is one of those times.
how so?
Huh...?
I don’t see religious ppl having meaning, I see emotional issues more than meaning.
when i was religious, i had plenty of meaning - i thought my purpose was to go to hell and be punished forever for god's glory. absolute meaning. objective purpose. of course it didn't lessen my depression or anxiety. meaning isn't inherently good for your mental health.
People who identify as religious have less emotional issues than people who don’t. The research suggests the opposite of what you are saying, whatever your personal experience may be.
@@christiancameron2997 Oh really, the research… 👌 Did they check the mega churches? The churches that cover for pedos? They’re all well adjusted, huh? Seems legit. 😂😂
@@christiancameron2997 Citation required
@@christiancameron2997 Can you please provide this research you're talking about?
Wee Alex is brilliant. Nice to see him back after a needed break.
I'm starting to detest any conversation Alex has about meaning.
So what if Atheism as a statement doesn't have meaning, there are various humanist societies or non-religious propositions that you can choose to guide you in your search for meaning.
Never have I heard him say that, it's almost always as if the only way to derive meaning is from a religious tradition.
Conclusions one can derive from evolutionary biology and the use of our faculties can help you seek meaning.
Always talking about it as if it's some hard impossible thing.
I'm annoyed
Listening to Alex speak about Christianity is life giving - something sparks in my senses, but Johns explanations brings emptiness and does nothing to my Spirit. I don’t know how else to explain it…
Alex knows his religion even if he doesn’t believe in it. And in general he’s quite compassionate naturally, so there’s that
@@Limemill I'm really glad it's Alex that is gaining popularity because I like his compassion and I think compassion is especially needed in topics he speaks and debates on. At the same time, it's likely the very compassion that is driving his popularity, alongside his speaking manner and amount of studying and deep thought.
Alex dedicates his life to speak to large audiences, John, on the other hand, spends his life studying. It's fine if you get too lost in the charismatic side of these conversations instead of on the arguments, but I ask you to not judge people based on a 30 minutes conversation.
30:00 Alec O Conner misses the point about the Founding Fathers. It wasn't that the men who found America were infallible,. They were mostly certainly flawed and capable of error. When people quote the Founding Fathers it is for the reason of understanding why the Constitution was written the way it was and how to interpret it correctly.
I think what Alex was trying to say was, it should not matter what the founding fathers intended at the time of the writing of the constitution when deciding on an issue like say the separation of church and state. Their stance on the matter should carry no weight while trying to decide whether today there should be a separation of church and state or whatever the issue maybe.
@@stevesmith4901 I think there are important lessons that can be learned from the Founding Fathers, i.e why they wanted separation of Church and State, why it can be a good thing to have, not just for atheists but Christians and people of other religions too.
Obviously, we shouldn´t just defer to the 18th century for how to govern today, that would be madness. However, there are lots of right wing lies about the constitution and how it should be interpreted that need to be dispelled generally.
One, which is extremely serious, is that the second ammendment guarantees a personal right to a firearm. It was certainly not intended to do so, nor was it intended to guarantee a right to have any firearm, as long as you can bear it. It was really written to affirm that States have the right to have their own miltia (which I have no issues with).
However, Scalia, Thomas etc have transformed this lie into Jurisprudence, the Supreme court never accepted that there was any right to bear arms outside militia service before the Heller case.
@@stevesmith4901 Which is an absolute bogus point. When you interpret the Constitution on the basis of how you "feel" then that is judicial activism. Original Intent is the only thing that makes sense. If you disagree with the law you change it. FYI - I do not think that was Alec's point. He was just saying that people treat the Founding Fathers like angels.
@@Minimmalmythicist Where on earth are you getting your information? If you read historical documents, the right to bear arms is certainly well established. You can just do your research and study how the 2nd Amendment was interpreted throughout history.
And we most certainly do defer to the US Constitution for how to govern today. It is the law of the land. We should take note of the original intent of the Constitution and not take it out of its context. If you want an evolving document, then amend the Constitution (or start another revolution).
@@gideondavid30 the problem is the "right to bear arms" most certainly doesn´t mean what you think it does.
The founders took that from the English bill of rights of 1689, and meant that the county militia system should be preserved. "Bear arms" was almost always used in a military context in the 18th and 17th centuries.
For a second, I thought that was Douglas Murray by the thumbnail 😂
How can people continue to make the argument that people should trust their intuitions about what is ontologically real? Do they not know that colors and sounds aren’t ontologically real? Our ontological intuitions are profoundly terrible
And what would the alternative to this be? Even if we accepted this as absolutely true, where would we go from there? How would such an alternative be helpful at all?
@@loganleatherman7647 the alternative is to first talk honestly about which intuitions are more likely to be faulty and then prioritize ontological theories that use as few intuitions as possible. Preferably we could stick to those intuitions that seem logic-based like identity and non contradiction, and seriously doubt experience-based intuitions like ‘all complex things must be designed and created’
Do you think there is a complete abstract world devoid of all our experience, much more real than this, which causes all our experience and everything that happens?
This is obviously intuitively false, but materialists love to pride themselves on how they know the truth while everybody else is deluded in their own fantasies, this reasoning is aways the most dangerous one, which go against our whole universal values.
You don't need much intuition to demonstrate this is false, only enough for common sense, like know that you in your experience you are in pain when you are in pain, or know you are conscious, and is experiencing in 1st person only.
@@Nature_Consciousness okay first of all we have to recognize that we’re not dealing in absolutes. The best we can ever do is to subscribe to the most convincing story about what (if anything) is really really real, and, of course, people will vary in what they find convincing.
However, I think that denying that an ontological world exists outside of our perception and calling that obvious or intuitive is completely unwarranted. If your intuitions are telling you that nothing exists outside of your experience, you likely have poor intuitions. Maybe you’re making a very nuanced point, and in that case you can elucidate me; but the fact that airplanes fly successfully, the fact that we have mathematical models that correctly predict the existence of certain particles, the fact that we understand color to be neural renditions of certain wave-relationships, the fact that we can explain musical harmony with mathematics and tie that in to biological structure and then create devices that introduce the subjective expertise of hearing for people who were previously deaf… it seems to me that the more one knows about successes in science and the ways in which we understand and can now manipulate the physical, ontological world - the more one’s intuitions tend to demand the existence of the physical world.
Atheism will soon stop being a word that’s used commonly. The same way there’s no word for people that don’t play table-tennis. Theists are clinging to the word “atheist” with all their heart and Soul… because that’s the last thing they can latch onto before they lose everything. It’s a final gasp for air
Atheism is a belief that there is no god or Creator of the universe. As long as there are atheists there will be that word. Atheists who choose not to have a belief either way about a god versus no god can call themselves agnostic if they don't identify as an atheist with a belief.
@@fpalisseThe word definitionally will always apply, yes. But perhaps it being named so frequently as the contender in a bipolar conflict at the forefront of society will fade away very soon. The question “Why do you believe there is no god?” is losing its primacy, because the majority of society will be being asked, instead of doing the asking. And it is taken seriously less and less,because the number of legitimate and well known answers that can be objectively verified are more numerous than for the opposite question.
@@fpalisse yea well the word for people that don’t play table- tennis is “table-tennis-non-players”… as long as people exist that don’t play table tennis, the word will exist!
@@kristopherjon6496 you got it my man! Thanks for explaining with patience and accuracy
@@giuoco faulty comparison.
Either something created the universe or the universe does not need a creator. There is no evidence for either to prove either. If you believe the latter you're an atheist. If you lack either belief you're agnostic.
We need to protect Alex’s brain at all cost. It is a national treasure.
Already gone when he “changed” his stance on veganism with zero logic.
@@P1CH0W oof that is a little sore spot lol
Eh I can’t fault him for it personally because even though I recognize the great case vegans make for animal ethics, I too am a weak sob and still continue to eat what I have all my life. I’m trying to be better tho. Lol
@@mitchelllion6052 actions over words, otherwise why listen?
@@P1CH0W literally nobody i've ever met or read about is that pure and non hypocritical.
@@Frodo1000000 logical consistency is real
It drives me bananas when people repackage things that humans have been thinking and dealing with for thousands of years.
It’s important for modern people to hear wisdom from the past. Notice how often people from the past are being referenced as their perspectives are being advanced
We all make our own meaning.
I think Alex strawmans atheists with this idea that atheists make propositional arguments to understand meaning. I don’t see any atheists (including Alex) using propositions to build or destroy meaning. We use propositional arguments to counter propositional claims by religions. We do NOT use those arguments to counter the meaning found in those religions.
The meaning conversation seems to be a completely different conversation than theism vs atheism.
Well it's a bit more complicated.
Religion began using propositional more and more to justify themselves in the post-enlightenment science age.
They attempt to use proposition to protect the meaning.
Athiests point out the propositions as false and unconvincing, and in doing so also reject religion as a whole.
It's just a matter of throwing the baby with the bathwater
Atheism never existed outside the realm of a propositional world view. In fact Christianity and the enlightenment era pushed forward propositional tyranny, and atheism was born out of that system. But Nietzsche already forecasted this in his book, and therefore now we must use a system born out of propositional logic, to now incorporate the other type of knowledge and practices, which it never had real roots in, or maybe it had roots mostly in Buddhism and Eastern practices but not the western practices.
@@henrytep8884Many argue that societies lag behind their great minds, artist, scientist, etc...
The implications of 19th century, let alone 20th century thought are still being wrestled with and confronted. Nietzche's death of God wasn't declaring ultimate victory for athiesm, what he was saying is that man has no one to blame for his condition but himself. That truth has definetly not reached the masses yet
We see the vast universe in vast time and our little ape evolved brains can't handle it. Much of religion is a cope for these facts. Religion makes people feel special. It is about the feels not the reals.
Curious what your take as an atheist is on Nietzsche’s “will to power”? Tx
A quote from the video,
"I'm very impressed with the flexibility and depth of Alex's thought."
Is flexibility of thought a good thing? And if so, what does it mean?
The opposite is rigidity of thought.
@@michaelnewsham1412
Thanks for that. That is some help. But really I'd need to talk with the speaker to get at what he actually meant. And it wouldn't be ridiculous to think that he might not know what he meant. I was maybe more of a compliment than anything.
Flexibility could also indicate the tendency to facilitate, spin, or obfuscate to avoid an undesirable conclusion.
Social media has removed any meaning for life. Before you based your life around your friends and family and the people around. Now you get your meaning from strangers across the world who you've never met.
Meaning and satisfaction come from the belief that you are doing something to improve the life of others.
Cringe.
I lived as an atheist & agnostic for 30 years, I regret it so much i was empty no peace no purpose.
I believe in the begging was God and not nothing that's why my life has meaning from 2007.
I’m an atheist and I have all the meaning and purpose I’ve ever wanted or needed. I’m sorry you can’t tolerate reality and need magical superstition to get by. A lot of people do not need it.
@@weirdwilliam8500 what sort of meaning do you have? Genuine interest. For example Alex struggles with it, but you have figured it all out. You know that a lot of people are on the look for meaning nowadays, so your insight might genuinely save lives. Or, prolong them somewhat.
@@DartNoobo Friends and family, hobbies, crafts, and intellectual pursuits. Helping others. Setting challenging but achievable goals and then working towards them. Leaving a better world for the ones who come after you. I sincerely have no need for more than this.
One of the largest longitudinal studies on happiness has shown that the biggest positive effect on happiness in life is having a few strong relationships with people who you can trust and depend on. Good churches will cultivate such relationships, but by no means can they claim this human feature as exclusive to their religion. It’s just part of being human, and other animals clearly have the same social needs.
One of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is that it purposely teaches people to degrade themselves in order to make themselves more reliant on the religion for hope, meaning, purpose, or significance. You’re taught that without god’s love, you can’t trust your own desires or thoughts, that you can’t achieve anything on your own, and that you’re worthless and so vile that you deserve to be hurt. This is abuse. This is carving a god-shaped hole out of your self-esteem. This is exactly how abusive men emotionally abuse their battered wives. Normal, well-adjusted people don’t think so poorly of themselves. I think it’s why most adults who convert to Christianity are miserable, desperate people who are already on board with feeling awful about themselves.
For anyone who wasn’t encouraged to think these abusive things about themselves, it’s usually obvious how to feel purposeful and confident in life. We’re seeing young people leaving Christianity and working on their mental health. In the short term, this makes it appear that people are struggling, but I think it’s just growing pains as people break the cycle. It’s also why the phrase “there’s not hate like Christian love” is so relatable.
What purpose do you have now? What is your profession? Do you have a wife and kids? A business? College degree? Family? Car?
What purpose in life did church give you that you couldn’t have otherwise?
@FarisEsho7
If people are feeling bereft after losing their belief in a God, then it's most likely due to the religious teachings that hammer home to the believers that their God is the legitimator of morality and meaning.
As an atheist I'm doing fine with my naturalism, humanism, secularism, and existentialism.
I think a lot of people who grow up in these religions, once they leave these belief systems like Christianity, or Islam, or what have you, they might be thrown into a kind of nihilism or something along those lines. To me it's I think that they're falling into their religious ways of thinking. They've thrown off certain aspects of their religious ways of thinking, but they've retained other ones, and they need to get rid of those. So, in their previous worldview God was the legitimator of morality and meaning. God was providing the grounding or justification (he's legitimizing) for morality and meaning by the religious individual's lights, at least by a number of their lights. If you preserve that but you take away other aspects of their religion, if someone preserves that belief that God is the legitimator of morality and meaning, once you remove God from the picture well then yeah, there's no more legitimator of morality and meaning. You lose morality, you lose meaning, and you lose all that stuff. What I would suggest to these individuals is that once they get rid of God, they should recognize that no, after all, God was not the legitimator of morality and meaning. Something else is the legitimator of morality and meaning. We can go through a number of different proposals. Like maybe it's certain principles that are universalizable, or maybe it's the intrinsic nature and character of sentient beings and their flourishing conditions, etc. You go through a bunch of different potential theories. So, I would urge them to resist that very religious thinking that they haven't yet cast off. They've cast off God, but they haven't cast off God being the legitimator of morality and meaning. I would just say, if you got rid of the former, then why not get rid of the latter? Because it seems to me just as mistaken.
I used to be a devout Catholic before I became an atheist, and I'm not afraid to admit I fell into that nihilist pit at first too. But I was able to claw my way out of that pit once I realized it was still part of my religious way of thinking.
I believe this is where "new atheism" failed. They criticized religion and theism and told people they didn't need these things. What they didn't offer was a roadmap for what happens after deconstruction. Sure, the "new atheists" can say, "It was never our job to give people guidance after their deconstruction; our purpose was simply to tear religion and theism down." My response to that is, "Fair enough." If that was their only goal though then I must say, it was a very short-sighted goal. As I stated above, many people who throw off religion and theism are going to experience a nihilistic pit in their heart, and they are not going to know what to do with it. They are not going to realize this is still their religious teachings speaking to them. They will want to fill this pit/void and given enough time they will. They will end up drawn back to religion and theism or something like it. Then they have ended up back where they started or somewhere else entirely, and the "new atheist" has ended up achieving nothing in the end.
They should be helping people realize that this sense of nihilism is still their religious baggage and help with how to deal with that. They should be teaching them how different philosophies such as humanism, existentialism, absurdism, absolutism, etc. can be rewarding and fulfilling.
I personally am not chasing after the end of religion and theism though. People are wired differently. Some people need religion and theism in order to survive in this world and deem it necessary in order to live fulfilling lives. Who am I to take that away from them? What I will do though, is challenge religious dogmatism and dogmatism in general since I believe it is a danger to my humanistic ideals. If someone tries to force their religion, theism, or atheism upon others then I will challenge that as well, since it too goes against my humanistic ideals and my secularism (secularism isn't really a worldview, it lacks content, it's more of a political rule). I will challenge those who want to replace established science in our society with religious teachings. I will challenge those who want to strip others of their rights and reject people's basic human dignity. And if someone wants to embrace atheism, I can help guide them in that landscape.
Ultimately though, I want to be able to co-exist with those who think and believe differently than I do. We can be neighbors, we can be friends, and we can be family. Doing this in a peaceful, loving, compassionate, respectful, and empathetic manner is the hard part for humanity.
Absolutely right. If you don't grow up religiously, you don't miss a thing and never bother with reason. You just think about what you want to do with your life.
Well yeah you do. But then you also learn deeper truths and connections the longer you live, through experiences , through existentialism etc.
You feel fullfilled through the meaninglessness.
Perhaps yoy teach your kids, even though they don't personally experiencing the gaining of the wisdom.
Idolize it. And turn it into a religion the more they spread it through the generations.
The question then becomes a matter of
The real question is why is your belief meaningful to you? What makes it meaningful, and what are you doing to ensure it exists? If it’s not meaningful to you, why should anyone listen or believe that what you are saying is actually valuable? Also you should include wisdom as part of why we should do things for one another, it can be broken down to loving one another wisely.
How do you determine what is good and what is evil
@@cvrki7 Um, like anyone else who has a sense of morality.
Atheism by definition acknowledges the concept of God has enough specificity and definition to take a position on.
Also just in! Not collecting stamps is also going out of fashion! Hang on, I think the elderly person next to me just had a stroke listening to the grammar of that one
Religion helps you ameliorate your foolishness? Ha
Where do you go to cultivate Wisdom?
@@joe42m13 Lots of places. From books to Burning Man. Certainly not Sunday school.
We fell into the trap of religion being entirely about material proving of the existence of God, that we fail to realise that even within religion itself is the space for doubt. Read the text, you'll find a lot of doubters, who were honest in their doubts. The silence of God and the rage against God all comes with the package of religion. Being religion doesn't mean you simply have all the answers.
Hell, I don't need proof of god. If somebody could just show me a talking donkey and a talking snake and show me a magical apple that will instantly give me magical insights, that would be nice. Let's just start on the tiniest of miracles first. And then let's make sure it unequivacably points to their religion and not other religions.
Yet many apologists act like they know much more than any secularist
"the text"? You speak as if there was only one religion. There is multitude of them, and some (dangerously) claim there is no space for doubt.
Life is the algorithm the universe is running to create Gods, we are on the cusp of immortality, yet we are fighting over holy rocks and lines in the sand. Imagine if we could all work together to achieve this goal. If that is lifes purpose, maybe we could find meaning in being part of the project.
I don't get any meaning from my position on any God. I get meaning from what I do every day. Intellectual integrity doesn't pay attention to what's fashionable. There is no meaning in philosophy or atheism. A good epistemology helps is to understand reality, resulting in atheism. My meaning is in what I do and who I spend time with. Journey > Destination.
Destination: fertilizer.
Atheism is doing just fine in Japan, South Korea and Australia. We don't even think about "meaning", we just live our happy lives.
As it should be. People willingly drown in their unending search for meaning without realizing that all the meaning you need exists in the present moment as long as you stop looking over there for what’s right here
I need to learn Japanese
lol check the birth rate. Happy times won’t be for your grand children if you have or ever will have
@@Eloweezzy We also have less poverty and it's not like the world is running out of people. Also why wouldn't my grandchildren be happy? There's plenty of people their age.
Ive been too upset living in this world of abrahamic religions that I haven't got time to contemplate weather there is a creator
Imagine if you were in a world of atheists …Soviets, china.
@@scottm4975 I think things go wrong when everyone are forced to one idea. Weather everyone becomes Christian, Muslim or convinced that God does not exist, they miss the mark which is curiousity about the mystery of life. I don't know what in my comment made you believe I promote cumpulsory atheism. I expressed my exhaustion of certainty people have to know who created the galaxies. That I find ridiculous. All I was saying is that I get put off thinking about this deep question of the devine when the majority of people hammer me with these nonsense ideas that God loves them more.
@@Censeo look into eastern dharmic religions if you find abrahamic religions unfulfilling. If still not, you can always go back to atheism
@@Censeo How much time do you think you have?
When I was going to church and reading the Bible I was not "leveling up". I actually started judging people and then realized it and was annoyed at myself. At no time did my faith make me a new creation. I also have never seen a Christian I know be any different than me morally and ethically. I didn't do anything new... in fact, I had done it all before starting to voluntarily attending church at age 30.
Oh, Alex, are you blissfully unaware of the current character of the SCOTUS vis a vis what ‘the founding fathers wanted?’ 😖
Religions contain both positive and negative elements. The key is to discern and retain the beneficial aspects while discarding dogmatic beliefs. True meaning is found in the present, not in some distant place or future.
I agree, well said and you kind of made a slightly original point.
Taking good dogma and discarding bad dogma still leaves you with dogma.
@@Pradeep_889 whilst I almost agree entirely... you may as well just ditch the religion at this point.
What would you even describe as a "good" the is unique to religions?
@@Falroth I value certain spiritual practices, particularly meditation. It's fine if someone wants to pray to a god but still believes in science.
@@Pradeep_889 what benefit does it have for a non spiritual person? Not being facetious, want to hear your thoughts
Alex just works harder to remain an unbeliever, thankfully he's a much more balanced unbeliever than Dawkins Harris
Doubt if any of the 3 mentioned find it hard to be an unbeliever. Believing in things without good evidence should be the default for everyone.
It takes no work. Does it take work for you to not believe in Santa Claus?
I doubt anyone is more balanced than Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins.
Alex is a just non resistant non believer, but according to you, a hypocrite. Dawkins is just a black-and-white thinker, a scientist. I get him, I am similar. This is not unbalanced, but just a personality type, whose conclusions you seem to dislike.
What does it mean to be a more balanced unbeliever? Why is that good?
@@Vgallo how hard do you work to "unbelieve" in the tooth fairy?
27:45 "The more specific the answer becomes, the less interesting a question it's answering." -Alex O'Connor
This reminded me immediately of the uncertainty principle. Makes me think there's a similar uncertainty principle applied to meaning as well, which is why it often eludes us.
What a thing for an atheist to say whose career is based on the question "does God exist?" Either answer yes/no is as specific as it gets. And people like Jordan Peterson trying to wiggle and overcomplicate their answer don't make it more interesting.
the uncertainty principle is a property of waves
@@98danielray this isn't exactly correct. You might be half-right due to the particle-wave duality, so it also applies to particles.
Either way, it doesn't take anything away from my fringe idea of trying to apply 1 physics principle to metaphysics. I'm not making some bold claim; just something interesting to think about
@@libberator5891 The uncertainty principle is a product of sub-atomic particles (or waves; whatever) and not at the level of molecules or cells. Different metaphysics apply in different dimensions of space. The strong and weak nuclear forces are not considered in the macro levels of chemistry or architectire or mechanics. Meaning is not found under a microscope (nor at the bottom of a whiskey bottle) because thoughts and feelings and ideas and identity are attribute of complex brains.
@@martinlag1 what are you yapping about?
"Not at the level of molecules or cells" - literally no one said that.
"Different metaphysics apply in different dimensions of space" - do you even know what metaphysics is? It's not part of spacetime like that; it's philosophy. Adding unfalsifiable claims like "different dimensions" doesn't add to the conversation either. It sounds like word salad.
No one said or suggested that you'd find meaning under a microscope. I think you took my original metaphor/analogy a bit too literally.
The takeaway should be the *abstract* idea of how the uncertainty principle works. Anyways, it was just a silly thought I felt like sharing
I also think atheism and theism is a somewhat unfair reduction for most people. For example, much of Latin America is overwhelmingly Catholic on paper, but most people don't adhere to it beyond token life events (married by a priest) or holidays (like Easter). It has no bearing in day-to-day life, how to act, behave, how to treat other people, what goals to choose or aspirations to follow. I think theism and atheism is very much on a spectrum.
This nonsense about atheism lacking meaning uniquely available via faith should have been more directly skewered.
The only meaning derived from wishful thinking and delusion is empty at best dehumanizing at worst.
Meaning is a phenomenon of human brains and exists nowhere else.
But that’s ok, it need not be eternal and transcendent for me to love my child or be moved by music or even reflect deeply on the wonder of the cosmos.
That’s enough.
It is meaningful and human and fleeting.
Making peace with this is part of growing up.
This whole “heterodox” trend of embracing right wing talking points about the supposed loss of religion leading to the bogeyman of dreaded “wokeness,” cultural Marxism, or amoral nihilism is fabricated nonsense.
Meanwhile ascendant ultra conservative Christian Nationalism has threatens to drag us back to the 50s.
Alex you should be embarrassed not to have rubbished the entire premise of this discussion.
Have you got a problem with amoral nihilism, or are you an amoral nihilist?
Did you see any substantial difference between Alex's or John's point of view?
Bro the title is click bait actually watch the video 😂🤲🏾
You are asserting your own fantasies to make your argument.
"Meaning is a phenomenon of human brains and exists nowhere else"
This just assumes physicalism is true, we can immediately reject the sentence because its not an argument but just a religious belief you have.
You speak so dismissively, you speak as if you truly understand what reality is and everyone else is just an idiot. I have news for you, there is much more to reality than what our lowly ape cognitive systems, that evolved ONLY 300,000 years ago, present to us. This is a trivial fact, you are not a godlike being with a perfect perspective on reality. All of our scientific theories, all of our knowledge is an approximation of that which is actually true, they are all false. What is actually true is undoubtedly beyond our understanding. I hate this arrogant god complex way of thinking you people have. You haven't got fuck all figured out, be more humble. We are ants in terms of understanding when faced with the incomprehensible vastness and mystery of the universe we find ourselves in. You haven't "grown up", you just stopped thinking when you were a teenager and thought that you reached the height of intellect. I'm glad you can find your own meaning without thinking there is something transcendent, but don't just assert your religious beliefs as if you have some kind of argument behind it.
For me it's not a case of finding meaning, but learning not to need it. It's a case of learning not to need this idea that our personal experiences and feelings have any kind of influence and effect on the outside world, and are purely contained within our perspectives. Only then we can truly focus on developing the idea of what a fulfilling and successful life looks like for ourselves. What can feel like an empty void can be used as an empty canvas to use however you like - an uncomfortable freedom at first, but something that allows you to really figure out how you'd like to spend your time here.
But the fact is that your personal experiences and feelings do have some kind of influence and effect on the outside world. For starters, they affect how you interact with the world and people around you.
One's personal experiences and feelings do *nothing but* influence the outside world that we come into direct and indirect contact with, since they shape and influence (both consciously and unconsciously) how we actually experience the world around us - we are literally building and writing the world we interact with by how we approach it.
Hence St Michael's timeless advice: "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change."
@@Hugoknots They certainly do have the effects you describe, but indirectly, in the way they can guide our actions. There is nothing innate to the nature of the feelings themselves that is directly influential on the outside world.
@@gregbatchelor9205 Undoubtedly, our experiences shape our perception of the outside world, but this does not mean our perceptions directly alter the world itself. Our emotions and perceptions influence our actions, sure, which in turn can affect the external world, but these effects are the result of our actions, not the feelings themselves. By reflecting on our experiences and developing personal principles and values, we can guide our actions, irrespective of our emotional responses.
I think "If you want to make the world a better place, through reflection and the development of personal principles, discover what 'better' means for you, and use it to guide your actions" would be a more accurate approach (although I'm not sure it would work so well in a song 😄).
@@gregbatchelor9205 Can you see my reply to you? It has disappeared for me.
Good thing people are talking about meaning in a meaningful way
Though doing it in a silly way would also be fun.
25:46 Alex seems to be in a very frustrating layer of the onion where he responds to situations as if he is expected to know or expecting to engage in gotchaism rather than join us in the muck where the real things are.