I think the general idea is to ask the questions they have never asked themselves. I wish someone had done this to me when I was 19. In my opinion if all they take out of this conversation is "God tested me today" then they are never going to ask or answer these questions. I believe the hope is to lead them into a new thought path with some critical thinking directions.
yea i agree to many its just not possible for them to think outside the little box they live in since they were indoctrinated at a young age probably it would take a lot to even get them to consider that they could be wrong.
It isn't exactly street epistemology, but I always challenge people to repeat stuff they say about their god, but replace the name god with "fred" or with the phrase "a guy named fred." Sometimes, it puts their words in a helpful perspective and it causes them to reflect on their silliness
i really marvel at anthony’s abilities to always ask an appropriate “next question” in order to keep the conversation going in a non threatening way. he has really fine tuned his skills.
+Jason camenzind He should have asked the guy first on each question. The guy didn't seem like he would answer in conflict with the girl's answers where I think she would have been fine answering differently than he did.
Remaining calm, and without any patience is how almost all things are achieved. Otherwise, keeping Zen practice is one of the best methods that exists. Frustration is an internal creation. If you're often frustrated then you're often creating discomfort within yourself. Become very cool with the Moment and you Can literally kiss frustrations good-bye - and which means you're not holding them. Smiling. This are the practices of Sages.
I really don't like when two people get interviewed. Religion is oftentimes a very social thing and their answers will often get manipulated because one interlocutor will feel the need to express how "religious" he/she is in order to impress the other interlocutor. It still was a very interesting conversation, nonetheless. I just get the feeling that these two - especially since they seem to be dating - influenced each other's answers.
+SailingSeignior You're right, and if it's a couple, the woman is usually the dominant part. It took him more than 20 minutes to express a differing opinion (25:57) - for a few seconds.
Etothe2iPi Yeah, the woman seemed to influence him quite a bit. The man also seemed to impact her answers, as well. You can tell when they both look at each other before answering questions. It's as if each of them looks for the approval of the other before answering. You can tell they aren't being quite as honest as they want to be. Couples do this with practically all types of conversations, though. It's as if they don't want to ruffle each other's feathers because it would just start a fight between the two that they would rather not have. Anyone that has been in a relationship knows that feeling. I think that's fine that couples do that but honesty and openness become key when having discussions with Anthony and I don't think having multiple interlocutors is a good way to achieve those things.
+SailingSeignior It could well be that two people will influence each other's answers; but they won't influence each other's thoughts. With a bit of luck these two will go away and have a reasoned discussion, and both of them will benefit in later life by having their groundless beliefs questioned.
It is ironic that Sarah has 100% strong faith, yet she didn't have a definition for faith. She "never even thought about that". I find it interesting because i am constantly checking and rechecking my beliefs and the reasons i believe them. I am constantly evolving my ideas and beliefs. I pride myself in the fact that any belief i do hold i can justify with evidence, definitions, and an explanation :) I find it weird when people hold a strongly held belief yet they struggle to even defend it.
No this is Patrick Well she also admitted that she could be wrong, so try to square that with 100% certainty. 😉 To me, she sounded like someone who considers herself 100% COMMITTED to the idea of belief in God, even if she's not actually 100% confident that the belief is correct. It also seemed like she wasn't letting herself connect the dots between "faith isn't reliable" and "faith in God isn't reliable." Like she was experiencing the cognitive dissonance and maybe even recognizing it, but pushing it from her mind to focus on the belief.
I tossed away pride many, many, many years ago..because you hold yourself back with it. Try this: You do something, win something, and you sense "pride" inside. Look back at it 2 years later. Do you still have the same sense of "pride"? Do the words that others said to confirm the "believe" in pride remain? Now, reconsider the same thing a year from then. Is the Pride still there with the same intensity? Is there any weakness in the pride? Passion is stronger than pride and it remains because passion is an inside recognition of self. No one says they are passionate about you. People ask, "Have you found your passion?" Huge differences. If you're passionate about what you do, you will keep that memory of that much stronger than any pride. Sarah considers a lot more stuff. You could hear that since she did most of the talking. Most people need some nudges before they locate their inner voice, and when they do..they start processing more and challenging stuff more and come to much better conclusions - if they do. Anthony does a much better job at this than Matt Dillahunty (who becomes angry way too easily..).
Anthony, I absolutely love what you are doing. Watching these videos has had an IMMEDIATE positive influence on my approach in discussing these matters with friends and family who are believers. I intend to continue down that path and really seek to fully employ this kind of method. I'm really impressed with the progress that can be made. So positive and so honest. Thank you X 1,000,000.
Anthony -- Comparing your late 2015 videos to your early 2014 videos, it's obvious that you've refined your technique. I recently had the opportunity to talk with three young proselytizers (they approached me), and I was able to have a civil conversation with them, thanks to what I've learned from your videos. Thank you.
I can't help but get the sense that what is coming from them, and particularly Sarah, is just a stream of consciousness. I think her head is full of religious concepts and catch phrases that she has grown up hearing and she is trying to verbalize these things on the fly. It is obvious that she has never been seriously questioned about her religious precepts or had to explain them to anyone, except another believer, or maybe someone who is amenable to the whole idea of faith. It is fascinating to see Sarah come to some small realization that maybe she hasn't seriously considered everything when it comes to the veracity of her faith. She is still a long, long way from truly questioning it in a serious manner, but I think this is a conversation that she will remember for quite a while.
It's been close to a year, I'd be very interested in knowing what she believes now. With the doubt that Anthony gifted her, and time to sit on it, I bet it has changed
She is actually smart . But a clear example of how smart people can be religious . The most important part of her entire ordeal was faith. Once you accrue this high pedestal of importance to faith in your logic system, even after proving the right to you, you cannot be convinced to shift because there is no objective truth for a person who relies on faith as a crutch. A better discussion is with people who actually are Bible literalists or people who think they are the ones that are true and no one else is
That 2-person dynamic just plagues this entire interview. It makes it more interesting because neither has entrenched themselves in the beliefs to where it's threatening for them to critically think, but honesty wains at moments. Kudos to you for pulling it off as well as you did, Anthony.
If I were in a plane crash and ended up being the only survivor, I'd be asking what kind of a God would choose to save only myself and allow a few hundred other people to perish? That's pretty much how I look at every situation where a God "intervenes" to save *certain* people, in everyday life, be it accidents, or mass shootings, or sickness.
I think in most religions it is virtuous to say you are at the 100% point. doubt is discouraged even if evidence only gets you to 60%. people take a leap of faith even from 10% to 100%. it is encouraged in the Scriptures about doubting thomas.
+stephen yarde They also believe a vengeful celestial dictator is policing them for thought crimes... so it's a bit like asking North Koreans how much they love Kim Jong Un.
They are indoctrinated and conditioned to regularly remind themselves of their 'faith', else damnation and hell - not unlike Scientologists fearing the wrath of their congregation.
Well, you certainly gave them a lot to think about! That's my favorite part of your videos, the moments where they acknowledged that they are going to think about what transpired in your conversation, rather than dismiss it outright. That's amazing!
Cudo's Sir. This is a difficult situation to approach. This vid was a classic - great job. It does leave me perplexed how college educated people can be so disengaged with their own beliefs and ideas. Even when they realize the disconnect - there is a protective mechanism that seems to through rationale to the side and the dogma takes over. Very interesting. Keep up the good work.
You've been told by everyone you know that there is a God who loves you and cares about you. This God has a plan for you and everyone else, but thinks you are special. They say God can help you get through anything imaginable and if you believe with all your heart, you will never die and will live for eternity in paradise with everyone you ever cared about. Meanwhile, if you question that belief in God in any way, you risk being damned for all eternity, ostracized by all you are close to, and the only reward would be intellectual honesty. Hell yeah they are scared to question that belief. It has been ingrained in them for years.
What gets me the most out of watching all of these interviews is that the believers have never actually asked themselves these questions, it blows my mind that they can arrive at a position without ever questioning the validity of it and method of how they got there and if it's a reliable way.
26:29 She seems to have missed the fact you suggested a football team might win the World Series for the next thousand years. As far as I know, football teams don't win baseball games. She still seems to think it's a valid belief, as long as you *WANT* to believe it. (Head-scratchingly bizarre.)
I find it interesting that so many (if not all!) of the people you talk to genuinely enjoy the discussions. They seem to relish the opportunity to deeply consider their beliefs; it's probably something they haven't really done before. Sarah particularly had a clear dissonance between "unreliable faith" and "100% confidence". Interestingly, despite acknowledging that she could be wrong, she pretty much admitted that she believes because she wants to believe. Hopefully they won't go down the road of that other Kyle, of fearing doubt.
In a way, yes, but I still think we might be seeing mostly the interviews that worked out. What is interesting to me is that it's all so surprising to them at their age to hear such questions and issues. It seems they never had any exposure to anything resembling philosophy in their studies. It is good to know that most seem to appreciate such discussions though.
"I truly believe . . . if you believe 100% in what you believe in, you can never be wrong." (10:20) Wow. I believe I'm fabulously rich and good looking. Also, I have a ski chalet in Switzerland.
It's so wholesome hearing someone say they'll think about their methods to reach their belief after an interview. I can't think of a better outcome to street epistemology.
+Raoul Borans Most people hardly give philosophy thought when growing up, and they accept what their parents teach them. To take on a subject such as religion, a topic which has defense mechanisms built in such as faith and un-testable claims, and manage to switch positions is a real task. Anthony just gets them critically thinking about the topic so that they may begin to unravel why they believe what they do. As someone explained to me and I'm paraphrasing: Religion is full of a bunch of little stories to put your mind at ease about the really tough questions, so that you may just put them in your back-pocket and not give them thought. Atheism opens up all those existential questions and lets you figure it out. People aren't stupid in any way for not critically thinking about this topic, but they just have different interests. Good thing we have people like Anthony to bring attention to their wrongful beliefs.
+Raoul Borans I don't think you need to be more worried than before. The fact is that this style of thought - epistemology - is not something people normally think about. We're the weirdos for thinking about it. Use of this thought-discipline, and it's spread, I think is kinda like technology. The world is better with the Internet, and better medicine, and more efficient energy systems, and epistemology. And things will continue to get better, judging by the spread of all these things. Before people had the internet/etc, people weren't dumb - Just lacking a great tool. And people who haven't reviewed their belief systems with epistemology aren't non-critical thinking people either. They just haven't had a spotlight shined in the right place yet.
+Raoul Borans If its any comfort I'm fairly young and very interested in philosophy and developing ones own morals and opinions. But ya, seeing a lot of people around me is kinda depressing :/
+Miles Kelley _"The fact is that this style of thought - epistemology - is not something people normally think about. We're the weirdos for thinking about it."_ That's one thing, but we are talking about university students here aren't we? Surely those guys would have had to have some kind of methods course? I mean, I'm not familiar with .. did that guy say he was studying "business" or something like that, but surely there is some element of making rational decisions based on things you observe in the world there as well, so they'd need at least a primer on epistemology.
It wouldn't have been taught as epistemology and they wouldn't be taught to think how do we know what's true and what isn't and it would be very rare for them to then turn it around on to other beliefs that they may have.
I have re-watched this video 3 times in as many years and it remains one of my favorites. Watching this couple really struggling with their cognitive dissonance in an honest way. Its like watching animals in wild dealing/coping with a novel encounter. Clearly they've never examined their beliefs this closely. It reminds me of me, but w/o a guide helping me to reason it out. Thanks.
I see now the issue with dual interviews. Their answers reinforce each other and it's difficult for many people to answer honestly unless theyre in a one-on-one
Great video! How representative is this of all the conversations you have? I'm amazed how long this interview lasted! This shows the power of listening and being heard out without debate. It required the entire process before they freely expressed that anything is true with belief. Even if belief/faith is a terrible way to know something is true. Their body language and awkward smiles betrayed their insistence on 100% belief. How far off is this from best possible outcome for SE? I'm glad I watched this entire interview! This manner of engagement is universally effective. We can't help wanting a quick solution and fast end to a debate. Nothing about this was drawn out, it was perfectly timed.
I think that one useful, additional thing to say when asked things like "What if you were the only survivor of an airplane crash?" at 31:11, would be "If my having survived the crash is an indication that some entity was looking out for me, what should we think about all the people who died in the crash? Who was looking out for them?". A counter-question like that, while it may not prove anything per se, would still be "safe" for the interlocutors and it may also provide extra food for thought to them, especially in a postlude context. (I know I'm commenting a super old video but I'm a long-time follower so I re-watch your videos from time to time. I'm also sure you've already thought/considered the simple thing I've just said, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to say it anyway. Keep up the great work, Anthony, and thank you. Greetings from Florence!)
16:50 The guy on the right.....he’s starting to get it. Starting to realize the problems with his definitions. It’s a beautiful thing to see such realizations happen.
This was SO good. You really managed to get them to think. I also liked how you introduced the 100% scale later in the conversation and then immediately asked where they started and where they were now. They appeared to give it a bit more thought compared to the times you introduce it to people at the very beginning and mention it later. Might want to try that a few more times to see if you notice any difference in how often people claim 100% both times.
I love this outcome. I'm wondering if maybe Sarah thought later, "You know, a lot of people come out of coma without the kind of affect it had on me." What I mean is that some folks come out of coma who are not religious minded folks. I love the ones you do with younger folks. You can see them really thinking about the questions you have presented. It is nice to see that even when you can tell that they are questioning themselves, that it is O.K.. It is very refreshing to see this happen to young people who don't yet have a religious agenda if you will. But I'm sure it has a whole lot to do with your approach! The honesty that you exude and everything about the way you are going about this is second to none man. I'm a better man for having found your videos and we need more people like you. Thank you!
Texans have a history of being incredibly religious. The lack of thinking is also evident looking at a history of Texas's laws. The lack of critical thinking is truly scary. Thank you Anthony for your work, it truly is invaluable. Teaching others how to think it such a great tool which will hopefully help little by little over time. Thanks for your work! Try to not get discouraged in doing good work
Their age matches their opinions. It showed that they never thought about their beliefs but took them for granted and repeated them out of indoctrination, hence the unreasonable conclusions they arrived at. I think this conversation was beneficial to them.
At 26 minutes, the mirroring finally breaks down. Until this point, they were both determined to be "in simpatico". Sarah was biting the bullet: Believing in something, the simple act of believing alone, can make something true. And Kyle started to disagree with that. And up until this point, Sarah had been mostly leading the conversation, and Kyle was mirroring Sarah. The cracks were showing before this point, but its only after it that both are more willing to concede that both faith and the mere act of believing alone are not as reliable as they once thought...I'm surprised that the question of "Have you ever believed in something that turned out not to be true?" didn't come several minutes earlier...but great job on this one! Doing a young dating couple had to be tough... Bonus footage was great, perhaps the best part! Loved how Anthony used the same scale and put himself at a positive 3-5%. It was a great way to answer the question!
I also found it interesting that they both said the Hindu could be more correct or they could be more correct, yet both still maintained 100% certainty. If they are open to the possibility they are mistaken, by definition they are not 100% certain.
Anthony should take credit for this one. It must be rewarding to see people work through the questions on their own without being told what to think. I can almost see the neurons firing as they attempt justify an intuitive position under external critique.
Good video, as usual. I would offer an alternate response to Sarah's question about a near-death experience: "Is it not more prudent to simply label that as unexplained until I know the explanation? 1000 years ago humans couldn't explain magnetism; did that make it a divine force?"
This is beautiful! We could be both 100% right about believing different things about the same source of creation... How frustrating is this kind of comforting and bias reasoning when we hear it. The hard thing of simply saying "i don't know..."
A little bit of begging the question there at 21 minutes. Just a bit of constructive criticism, Anthony. But, you are still doing tremendous work. I have been watching for about a year. Love your work. Keep it up!
Sarah, if you had serious medical condition and your doctor told you, "I'm going to prescribe you this medicine. It's never been tested or anything and never been studied scientifically at all, but I'm accepting it by faith that this medicine is going to alleviate the medical condition you have and I'm also going to accept by faith that there are not going to be any side effects." Would you take that medicine? Also, at 25:40. So, if you believe that in the next second, you'll be able to fly through the air like Supergirl, your belief that you'll be able to do so will enable you to fly through the air like Supergirl?? I'm not trying to pick on Sarah; she seems like a sweet girl, but she's doing most of the talking. And I don't blame her. She is a victim of a society and culture that FAILS to teach young people how to think critically. Very unfortunate.
It's easy to despise these kids, but we were all there once (maybe when we were 5). Figuring out reality takes decades, and it only happens if you WANT to figure out reality. If you're happy with faith, you have no motivation to change. Congrats to Anthony for his patience.
I don't know why you would despise them. They were completely friendly people. Their way of believing things is a jumbled mess if that's what you're talking about.
I don't despise anyone as individuals. I do feel however that the US is a hotbed of alienation , bringing up a new generation of superstitious people without let up. Try to get elected to any position in the US as an atheist. Tell me about the separation of religion and state again?
This is exactly why I wish over 30% of time in school would be about thinking how to think, not just teach facts (based on our best effort at least). Philosophy of science, epistemology, logical fallacies, all that.
13:30 is the perfect example of growing up without questioning your own beliefs. To be asked what faith means when you've said 3 times that it is the primary way that they can be 100% certain, and then saying they have no idea and that they've never thought about it...makes me wonder what comes to mind when they say faith WITHOUT thinking about what it actually means. Did they just use the word because every time they used it, people accepted it? "faith! oh yes, key word, no more questions needed" not ragging on them. But it does show why questioning your own beliefs are important day-to-day
Hi Anthony. Great stuff. At the end of an interview like this I would love to hear you ask a 1 to 100 scale question about how reliable faith is. Love these talks. Thanks
if you believe it 100% ....then you can never be wrong.... . I had high hopes for Sarah. face palm in the middle, but hopeful in the end. "Is faith the best way to determine if something it true?" Had to write that question down to remember. Like the way to pie charted their belief.
At the end, when they asked about the NDE, it might have been better not to have told them how you would have felt, but to have asked them if just because science or the doctors or the plane engineers couldn't understand why you survived the crash, that meant that God had to have done it. And then pivot to questions about whether lack of being able to explain something means that it was done by God.
I would change the wording for 100%. Instead of "Absolutely sure, no doubt" to "I don't ever question it". It's a subtle difference but inserts a little wiggle room. It might get you some 99% instead of 100% Maybe. Great work.
The lack of critical thinking is absolutely mystifying. They seem like very nice people, and are probably perfectly competent in everyday life, but it never ceases to baffle me that they can't see their own contradictions.
This is a really interesting interview - and I'd really like to know if this talk had any impact on them. As a European (I grew up in Germany), I am kind of fascinated to see that guys like these apparently never had their beliefs challenged in any way. That these questions seemed intriguing to them because they'd apparently never had these thoughts before, or been asked similar questions. While I agree that it might be more effective to have a one-on-one conversation, this "partner interview" wasn't without merit. Sarah doesn't seem to care much anyway what Kyle thinks. ;-p And Sarah's dominance, or talkativeness, gives Kyle ample opportunities to ponder silently about Anthony's questions. Look at Kyle between 15:57 and 17:15, for example. You can almost see his mind rattling over the questions and the issue-riddled answers his girlfriend is giving. Of course, I cannot know but I have the impression that he realized some problems with the beliefs that his girlfriend and he himself are holding. I wouldn't be surprised if episodes like this left keeping him thinking. Anyway, the two seem to be a lovely couple. I hope they will learn to apply their critical thinking skills to the belief system they've clearly been indoctrinated into.
As a person from Québec I share the same reaction. Although I have family in the USA and knew they were observant Catholics I never realized how prevalent Evangelical Christian churches were until my eldest daughter went to North Carolina for her PhD. Strangely enough her lack of religious knowledge left her wanting in discussions with students as she assumed that any "advanced" country had, in great measure, left religion behind some time ago.
Faith without evidence is blind faith. No one should follow a faith without an evidence. Also unsolved mysteries and experiences do not constitute evidence for faith. To be free from blind faith we should look for the authenticity of supporting texts in linguistics, history, logic and scientific methods. If we believe in something and associate all our desires, hopes and fear around that "something" it's blind faith. I wish i could have a discussion with the interviewer :)
To me, seeing these people, religion really presents itself as a factory churning out people deprived of any linguistic accuracy, skepticism and curiosity. So ugly! Your work is so important, man!
I was really hoping you would ask them how much of their 100% was dependent on faith because they both said that without it it's not very believable. Overall one of the best videos I've seen.
The guy was clearly being influenced by the girl. That's rather typical, I find, with any two people, whether they are friends, companions, family members... etc. When a person takes control of a conversation - in this case by answering the questions first, and more authoritatively - the other person in the conversation, who clearly hasn't thought about the issue as much, will tend to parrot what the more authoritative person says. The guy was clearly showing doubt, showing it with an uncomfortable posture. Finally, near the end of the video he diverged with his girlfriend on the question of whether strong belief actually makes something true. That's when he got to them. His concession on that point opened her up to the idea that she may be wrong. Interesting how that works. I'd be interested to see a street epistemologist pair up with a psychologist who specializes in social psychology. It'd be really interesting to see how a psychologist might guide the conversation.
It's sad in a way b/c I think they're scared. I've been there. Frankly, this is why the whole concept of faith/Hell, Heaven is toxic. It truly prevents people from having a critical moment with regards to thinking over this topic. Great work, Anthony!!
Anthony did your interlocutors ever rewatch there interview and comment or did you ever get a follow up interview? Kinda think you should have revisited the pie chart in the beginning after they mentioned that faith is a factor in there god belief because in the beginning the pie chart was 60% how I was brought up and 40% experience. Faith wasn’t a factor. Would have like to see the percentage faith was in the beginning of your conversation as opposed at the end where it seems like they didn’t need faith and could have relied on experience alone.
Thanks for another great video Anthony. It baffles me that these people can claim 100% belief. People are so afraid of their doubts, particularly people who were raised in faithful or religious families. Doubt is perceived as a negative to most of these people. People (particularly of this more progressive generation) take ideas from their religion (in Sarah's case Christianity) and then say that as long as you have faith in something bigger, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong you will still receive salvation etc. Not only does that contradict all Christian doctrine, it contradicts basic logic. She's doing back flips for her beliefs to make them what she wants. How is this productive? How is this positive? How is faith anything more than pretending to know what you don't know? This girl Sarah says "you've opened up my eyes, but I'm still going to walk away believing 100% what I believed before" I respect her personal experiences but it concerns me how little truth means to her.
Unfortunately some of these people are just gonna go home and think "God tested me today"
I think the general idea is to ask the questions they have never asked themselves. I wish someone had done this to me when I was 19. In my opinion if all they take out of this conversation is "God tested me today" then they are never going to ask or answer these questions. I believe the hope is to lead them into a new thought path with some critical thinking directions.
yea i agree to many its just not possible for them to think outside the little box they live in since they were indoctrinated at a young age probably it would take a lot to even get them to consider that they could be wrong.
I sure hope not
It isn't exactly street epistemology, but I always challenge people to repeat stuff they say about their god, but replace the name god with "fred" or with the phrase "a guy named fred." Sometimes, it puts their words in a helpful perspective and it causes them to reflect on their silliness
but they thought about it
i really marvel at anthony’s abilities to always ask an appropriate “next question” in order to keep the conversation going in a non threatening way. he has really fine tuned his skills.
I have a feeling the guy would have slightly different answers without her around
+Jason camenzind I think she is going to have different answers in about a month. Antony planted the proverbial mustard seed. GG
+Jason camenzind
He should have asked the guy first on each question. The guy didn't seem like he would answer in conflict with the girl's answers where I think she would have been fine answering differently than he did.
+Jason camenzind Slightly? His attitude throughout made it seem like the conversation would have been totally different.
Yup. He seemed pretty vaginized.
+John Doe I agree, thought that he was wavering some but then she would give her answer and he would snap back
"Could i just believe in anything and make it true?"
"Yeah...I think so"
How do you hold in your frustration, Anthony?
I think he holds it in because he is keeping his eyes on the prize. Losing patience would accomplish nothing.
I think he holds it in because he keeps his eyes on the prize. Losing patience would accomplish nothing productive.
I love his face when she says it a couple of times
Or when she said all Gods are true but holds belief in one God
Remaining calm, and without any patience is how almost all things are achieved. Otherwise, keeping Zen practice is one of the best methods that exists. Frustration is an internal creation. If you're often frustrated then you're often creating discomfort within yourself. Become very cool with the Moment and you Can literally kiss frustrations good-bye - and which means you're not holding them. Smiling. This are the practices of Sages.
Anthony: "Can I just believe in anything and make it true?"
Sarah: "Yeah, I think so"
Kyle: "I believe whatever she says"
I really don't like when two people get interviewed. Religion is oftentimes a very social thing and their answers will often get manipulated because one interlocutor will feel the need to express how "religious" he/she is in order to impress the other interlocutor. It still was a very interesting conversation, nonetheless. I just get the feeling that these two - especially since they seem to be dating - influenced each other's answers.
+SailingSeignior You're right, and if it's a couple, the woman is usually the dominant part. It took him more than 20 minutes to express a differing opinion (25:57) - for a few seconds.
+Etothe2iPi "the woman is usually the dominant part" - let's just leave that hanging there.
Etothe2iPi Yeah, the woman seemed to influence him quite a bit. The man also seemed to impact her answers, as well. You can tell when they both look at each other before answering questions. It's as if each of them looks for the approval of the other before answering. You can tell they aren't being quite as honest as they want to be. Couples do this with practically all types of conversations, though. It's as if they don't want to ruffle each other's feathers because it would just start a fight between the two that they would rather not have. Anyone that has been in a relationship knows that feeling.
I think that's fine that couples do that but honesty and openness become key when having discussions with Anthony and I don't think having multiple interlocutors is a good way to achieve those things.
+SailingSeignior
It could well be that two people will influence each other's answers; but they won't influence each other's thoughts. With a bit of luck these two will go away and have a reasoned discussion, and both of them will benefit in later life by having their groundless beliefs questioned.
sometimes ya gotta find Jesus in order to get between some legs.
"Faith is an advantage: because without it how do you know your belief is real."
Sorry, but with faith how do you know your belief is real?
These two have clearly never been challenged like this. This type of conversation needs to become mainstream. Great interview.
This is one of the best lines you have ever used "if you can never be right can you never be wrong?" street epistemology at its best as I see it!
craigy paxton Thanks. I'll be releasing the audio only version of this talk as a ('Street Epistemology') podcast in the next few days.
It is ironic that Sarah has 100% strong faith, yet she didn't have a definition for faith.
She "never even thought about that".
I find it interesting because i am constantly checking and rechecking my beliefs and the reasons i believe them.
I am constantly evolving my ideas and beliefs. I pride myself in the fact that any belief i do hold i can justify with evidence, definitions, and an explanation :)
I find it weird when people hold a strongly held belief yet they struggle to even defend it.
No this is Patrick Well she also admitted that she could be wrong, so try to square that with 100% certainty. 😉
To me, she sounded like someone who considers herself 100% COMMITTED to the idea of belief in God, even if she's not actually 100% confident that the belief is correct. It also seemed like she wasn't letting herself connect the dots between "faith isn't reliable" and "faith in God isn't reliable." Like she was experiencing the cognitive dissonance and maybe even recognizing it, but pushing it from her mind to focus on the belief.
***** good points
Not only is it weird, but I think it's pretty dangerous
I tossed away pride many, many, many years ago..because you hold yourself back with it. Try this: You do something, win something, and you sense "pride" inside. Look back at it 2 years later. Do you still have the same sense of "pride"? Do the words that others said to confirm the "believe" in pride remain? Now, reconsider the same thing a year from then. Is the Pride still there with the same intensity? Is there any weakness in the pride? Passion is stronger than pride and it remains because passion is an inside recognition of self. No one says they are passionate about you. People ask, "Have you found your passion?" Huge differences. If you're passionate about what you do, you will keep that memory of that much stronger than any pride.
Sarah considers a lot more stuff. You could hear that since she did most of the talking. Most people need some nudges before they locate their inner voice, and when they do..they start processing more and challenging stuff more and come to much better conclusions - if they do.
Anthony does a much better job at this than Matt Dillahunty (who becomes angry way too easily..).
Anthony, I absolutely love what you are doing. Watching these videos has had an IMMEDIATE positive influence on my approach in discussing these matters with friends and family who are believers. I intend to continue down that path and really seek to fully employ this kind of method. I'm really impressed with the progress that can be made. So positive and so honest. Thank you X 1,000,000.
Anthony -- Comparing your late 2015 videos to your early 2014 videos, it's obvious that you've refined your technique.
I recently had the opportunity to talk with three young proselytizers (they approached me), and I was able to have a civil conversation with them, thanks to what I've learned from your videos.
Thank you.
That's great to hear! And thanks. I'm always trying to improve at this. Thanks for watching.
I can't help but get the sense that what is coming from them, and particularly Sarah, is just a stream of consciousness. I think her head is full of religious concepts and catch phrases that she has grown up hearing and she is trying to verbalize these things on the fly. It is obvious that she has never been seriously questioned about her religious precepts or had to explain them to anyone, except another believer, or maybe someone who is amenable to the whole idea of faith. It is fascinating to see Sarah come to some small realization that maybe she hasn't seriously considered everything when it comes to the veracity of her faith. She is still a long, long way from truly questioning it in a serious manner, but I think this is a conversation that she will remember for quite a while.
This girl is an epistemological nightmare.
It's been close to a year, I'd be very interested in knowing what she believes now. With the doubt that Anthony gifted her, and time to sit on it, I bet it has changed
HAHAHAAA
She is actually smart . But a clear example of how smart people can be religious . The most important part of her entire ordeal was faith. Once you accrue this high pedestal of importance to faith in your logic system, even after proving the right to you, you cannot be convinced to shift because there is no objective truth for a person who relies on faith as a crutch. A better discussion is with people who actually are Bible literalists or people who think they are the ones that are true and no one else is
"epistemological nightmare"... You mean, like, an idiot?
It’s horrendous. I’m so thankful that I know how to use my brain
Anthony's doing his part to help mankind
19:14 "We've gone in circles here." Yep. Circular reasoning is astounding at times like these.
That 2-person dynamic just plagues this entire interview. It makes it more interesting because neither has entrenched themselves in the beliefs to where it's threatening for them to critically think, but honesty wains at moments. Kudos to you for pulling it off as well as you did, Anthony.
For the rest of her life whenever some one says 'take it on faith' shes going to question it.
Yeahp, that's the point
Well done sir! Again.
I admire your patience and your keeping the pace of the conversation steady.
" I base my whole belief on faith" -> what is faith? --> "no idea"
The moment where they where thinking about faith was beautiful.
+Ethan Sutton yep, it's at about 13:00
If I were in a plane crash and ended up being the only survivor, I'd be asking what kind of a God would choose to save only myself and allow a few hundred other people to perish?
That's pretty much how I look at every situation where a God "intervenes" to save *certain* people, in everyday life, be it accidents, or mass shootings, or sickness.
"I've never even thought about that." One of my favorite phrases to hear.
Wow. People are being too hard on these 2. Theyd never thought of these things before, and we are watching them work through it.
Did I just witness two pre contemplatives moving to contemplatives? If not, it was close. Great intervention Anthony!
I think in most religions it is virtuous to say you are at the 100% point. doubt is discouraged even if evidence only gets you to 60%. people take a leap of faith even from 10% to 100%. it is encouraged in the Scriptures about doubting thomas.
+stephen yarde They also believe a vengeful celestial dictator is policing them for thought crimes... so it's a bit like asking North Koreans how much they love Kim Jong Un.
stephen yarde That’s what I was thinking too.
They are indoctrinated and conditioned to regularly remind themselves of their 'faith', else damnation and hell - not unlike Scientologists fearing the wrath of their congregation.
Well, you certainly gave them a lot to think about! That's my favorite part of your videos, the moments where they acknowledged that they are going to think about what transpired in your conversation, rather than dismiss it outright. That's amazing!
People very often think that stating *what* they think explains *why* they think it.
Cudo's Sir. This is a difficult situation to approach. This vid was a classic - great job. It does leave me perplexed how college educated people can be so disengaged with their own beliefs and ideas. Even when they realize the disconnect - there is a protective mechanism that seems to through rationale to the side and the dogma takes over. Very interesting. Keep up the good work.
They were scared to let go of their faith, absolutely terrified. Wow!
I see it as quite normal Think how hard it has to be to give up on a security blanket.
You've been told by everyone you know that there is a God who loves you and cares about you. This God has a plan for you and everyone else, but thinks you are special. They say God can help you get through anything imaginable and if you believe with all your heart, you will never die and will live for eternity in paradise with everyone you ever cared about.
Meanwhile, if you question that belief in God in any way, you risk being damned for all eternity, ostracized by all you are close to, and the only reward would be intellectual honesty.
Hell yeah they are scared to question that belief. It has been ingrained in them for years.
Amazing discussion! Gotta Love Anthony. SE is a great way to learn about people’s beliefs.
If Sarah wasn't there Kyle would have given a different interview.
Yup, religious or not, a cute girl will make a guy say or believe anything,🙄
What gets me the most out of watching all of these interviews is that the believers have never actually asked themselves these questions, it blows my mind that they can arrive at a position without ever questioning the validity of it and method of how they got there and if it's a reliable way.
26:29 She seems to have missed the fact you suggested a football team might win the World Series for the next thousand years. As far as I know, football teams don't win baseball games. She still seems to think it's a valid belief, as long as you *WANT* to believe it. (Head-scratchingly bizarre.)
I find it interesting that so many (if not all!) of the people you talk to genuinely enjoy the discussions. They seem to relish the opportunity to deeply consider their beliefs; it's probably something they haven't really done before.
Sarah particularly had a clear dissonance between "unreliable faith" and "100% confidence". Interestingly, despite acknowledging that she could be wrong, she pretty much admitted that she believes because she wants to believe.
Hopefully they won't go down the road of that other Kyle, of fearing doubt.
In a way, yes, but I still think we might be seeing mostly the interviews that worked out. What is interesting to me is that it's all so surprising to them at their age to hear such questions and issues. It seems they never had any exposure to anything resembling philosophy in their studies. It is good to know that most seem to appreciate such discussions though.
I love the way they get so much more curious and engaged at the end
It's like they have no idea what they're saying. It's so awesome to see you ask all the right questions.
"I truly believe . . . if you believe 100% in what you believe in, you can never be wrong." (10:20)
Wow. I believe I'm fabulously rich and good looking. Also, I have a ski chalet in Switzerland.
I believe you will invite me there !
It's so wholesome hearing someone say they'll think about their methods to reach their belief after an interview. I can't think of a better outcome to street epistemology.
I love your videos but they increasingly give me a sense of dread, knowing what shallow and non-critical thinking people are inheriting the earth.
+Raoul Borans Most people hardly give philosophy thought when growing up, and they accept what their parents teach them. To take on a subject such as religion, a topic which has defense mechanisms built in such as faith and un-testable claims, and manage to switch positions is a real task. Anthony just gets them critically thinking about the topic so that they may begin to unravel why they believe what they do.
As someone explained to me and I'm paraphrasing: Religion is full of a bunch of little stories to put your mind at ease about the really tough questions, so that you may just put them in your back-pocket and not give them thought. Atheism opens up all those existential questions and lets you figure it out.
People aren't stupid in any way for not critically thinking about this topic, but they just have different interests. Good thing we have people like Anthony to bring attention to their wrongful beliefs.
+Raoul Borans I don't think you need to be more worried than before. The fact is that this style of thought - epistemology - is not something people normally think about. We're the weirdos for thinking about it.
Use of this thought-discipline, and it's spread, I think is kinda like technology. The world is better with the Internet, and better medicine, and more efficient energy systems, and epistemology. And things will continue to get better, judging by the spread of all these things.
Before people had the internet/etc, people weren't dumb - Just lacking a great tool. And people who haven't reviewed their belief systems with epistemology aren't non-critical thinking people either. They just haven't had a spotlight shined in the right place yet.
+Raoul Borans If its any comfort I'm fairly young and very interested in philosophy and developing ones own morals and opinions. But ya, seeing a lot of people around me is kinda depressing :/
+Miles Kelley
_"The fact is that this style of thought - epistemology - is not something people normally think about. We're the weirdos for thinking about it."_
That's one thing, but we are talking about university students here aren't we? Surely those guys would have had to have some kind of methods course? I mean, I'm not familiar with .. did that guy say he was studying "business" or something like that, but surely there is some element of making rational decisions based on things you observe in the world there as well, so they'd need at least a primer on epistemology.
It wouldn't have been taught as epistemology and they wouldn't be taught to think how do we know what's true and what isn't and it would be very rare for them to then turn it around on to other beliefs that they may have.
I have re-watched this video 3 times in as many years and it remains one of my favorites. Watching this couple really struggling with their cognitive dissonance in an honest way. Its like watching animals in wild dealing/coping with a novel encounter. Clearly they've never examined their beliefs this closely. It reminds me of me, but w/o a guide helping me to reason it out. Thanks.
It seems like he parroted every one of her responses. I think it's much better to interview them separately.
I see now the issue with dual interviews. Their answers reinforce each other and it's difficult for many people to answer honestly unless theyre in a one-on-one
Knightfall8 Yes, exactly. This video shows that tendency for people to agree with the other.
Knightfall8 have you heard the joke that you should take two Mormons on your fishing trip, because if you take one, they’re drink all your booze. 🤣
This somehow reminds me of George Carlin interview about people in large groups
Great video! How representative is this of all the conversations you have?
I'm amazed how long this interview lasted! This shows the power of listening and being heard out without debate. It required the entire process before they freely expressed that anything is true with belief. Even if belief/faith is a terrible way to know something is true. Their body language and awkward smiles betrayed their insistence on 100% belief.
How far off is this from best possible outcome for SE?
I'm glad I watched this entire interview! This manner of engagement is universally effective. We can't help wanting a quick solution and fast end to a debate. Nothing about this was drawn out, it was perfectly timed.
I think that one useful, additional thing to say when asked things like "What if you were the only survivor of an airplane crash?" at 31:11, would be "If my having survived the crash is an indication that some entity was looking out for me, what should we think about all the people who died in the crash? Who was looking out for them?". A counter-question like that, while it may not prove anything per se, would still be "safe" for the interlocutors and it may also provide extra food for thought to them, especially in a postlude context.
(I know I'm commenting a super old video but I'm a long-time follower so I re-watch your videos from time to time. I'm also sure you've already thought/considered the simple thing I've just said, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to say it anyway. Keep up the great work, Anthony, and thank you. Greetings from Florence!)
Faith undefined.
Vital component.
Reflection moment.
9 years later, I wish they could come back for an update.
16:50 The guy on the right.....he’s starting to get it. Starting to realize the problems with his definitions. It’s a beautiful thing to see such realizations happen.
This was SO good. You really managed to get them to think. I also liked how you introduced the 100% scale later in the conversation and then immediately asked where they started and where they were now. They appeared to give it a bit more thought compared to the times you introduce it to people at the very beginning and mention it later. Might want to try that a few more times to see if you notice any difference in how often people claim 100% both times.
I love this outcome. I'm wondering if maybe Sarah thought later, "You know, a lot of people come out of coma without the kind of affect it had on me." What I mean is that some folks come out of coma who are not religious minded folks. I love the ones you do with younger folks. You can see them really thinking about the questions you have presented. It is nice to see that even when you can tell that they are questioning themselves, that it is O.K.. It is very refreshing to see this happen to young people who don't yet have a religious agenda if you will. But I'm sure it has a whole lot to do with your approach! The honesty that you exude and everything about the way you are going about this is second to none man. I'm a better man for having found your videos and we need more people like you. Thank you!
I wish i had your patience anthony! great conversation! nice kids too
Wow, you made them think deeper than all of their professors combined!
This might be the best secular exchange yet. Fantastic conversation Anthony.
And we get to the circular reasoning of "You have to have faith to have faith that your faith is true"...
Texans have a history of being incredibly religious. The lack of thinking is also evident looking at a history of Texas's laws.
The lack of critical thinking is truly scary.
Thank you Anthony for your work, it truly is invaluable. Teaching others how to think it such a great tool which will hopefully help little by little over time.
Thanks for your work! Try to not get discouraged in doing good work
But Austin is different
Their age matches their opinions. It showed that they never thought about their beliefs but took them for granted and repeated them out of indoctrination, hence the unreasonable conclusions they arrived at. I think this conversation was beneficial to them.
Anthony you are amazing ! this is truly mind changing for them i think, you shook their faith
At 26 minutes, the mirroring finally breaks down. Until this point, they were both determined to be "in simpatico". Sarah was biting the bullet: Believing in something, the simple act of believing alone, can make something true. And Kyle started to disagree with that. And up until this point, Sarah had been mostly leading the conversation, and Kyle was mirroring Sarah. The cracks were showing before this point, but its only after it that both are more willing to concede that both faith and the mere act of believing alone are not as reliable as they once thought...I'm surprised that the question of "Have you ever believed in something that turned out not to be true?" didn't come several minutes earlier...but great job on this one! Doing a young dating couple had to be tough... Bonus footage was great, perhaps the best part! Loved how Anthony used the same scale and put himself at a positive 3-5%. It was a great way to answer the question!
I also found it interesting that they both said the Hindu could be more correct or they could be more correct, yet both still maintained 100% certainty. If they are open to the possibility they are mistaken, by definition they are not 100% certain.
Anthony should take credit for this one. It must be rewarding to see people work through the questions on their own without being told what to think. I can almost see the neurons firing as they attempt justify an intuitive position under external critique.
Good video, as usual. I would offer an alternate response to Sarah's question about a near-death experience: "Is it not more prudent to simply label that as unexplained until I know the explanation? 1000 years ago humans couldn't explain magnetism; did that make it a divine force?"
Why yes!
This is beautiful! We could be both 100% right about believing different things about the same source of creation... How frustrating is this kind of comforting and bias reasoning when we hear it. The hard thing of simply saying "i don't know..."
Man, this is such an excellent interview. Great listening skills brother.
Thanks
A little bit of begging the question there at 21 minutes. Just a bit of constructive criticism, Anthony. But, you are still doing tremendous work. I have been watching for about a year. Love your work. Keep it up!
Sarah, if you had serious medical condition and your doctor told you, "I'm going to prescribe you this medicine. It's never been tested or anything and never been studied scientifically at all, but I'm accepting it by faith that this medicine is going to alleviate the medical condition you have and I'm also going to accept by faith that there are not going to be any side effects." Would you take that medicine?
Also, at 25:40. So, if you believe that in the next second, you'll be able to fly through the air like Supergirl, your belief that you'll be able to do so will enable you to fly through the air like Supergirl??
I'm not trying to pick on Sarah; she seems like a sweet girl, but she's doing most of the talking. And I don't blame her. She is a victim of a society and culture that FAILS to teach young people how to think critically. Very unfortunate.
I feared for the strength of their relationship at a few points, it got a little tense. LOL
It's easy to despise these kids, but we were all there once (maybe when we were 5). Figuring out reality takes decades, and it only happens if you WANT to figure out reality. If you're happy with faith, you have no motivation to change. Congrats to Anthony for his patience.
I don't know why you would despise them. They were completely friendly people. Their way of believing things is a jumbled mess if that's what you're talking about.
That is what I'm talking about.
I don't despise anyone as individuals. I do feel however that the US is a hotbed of alienation , bringing up a new generation of superstitious people without let up. Try to get elected to any position in the US as an atheist. Tell me about the separation of religion and state again?
Really good one going to use this in Birmingham UK this weekend
Sarah needs to see the lecture "faith: pretending to know what you don't know. " it really explains the difference between faith and hope
You find some of the nicest interlocutors. These people are so smiley and nice seeming.
2 is more difficult.
The upside is that they have each other to keep the questions going.
They probably will be talking about this conversation.
Sarah & Kyle: You need faith to make your beliefs true. Faith is an advantage!
Anthony: What is faith?
Sarah & Kyle: Wow that's hard to answer!
This is exactly why I wish over 30% of time in school would be about thinking how to think, not just teach facts (based on our best effort at least). Philosophy of science, epistemology, logical fallacies, all that.
13:30 is the perfect example of growing up without questioning your own beliefs.
To be asked what faith means when you've said 3 times that it is the primary way that they can be 100% certain, and then saying they have no idea and that they've never thought about it...makes me wonder what comes to mind when they say faith WITHOUT thinking about what it actually means.
Did they just use the word because every time they used it, people accepted it? "faith! oh yes, key word, no more questions needed"
not ragging on them. But it does show why questioning your own beliefs are important day-to-day
This interview was beautifully conducted by Maestro Anthony.
Hi Anthony. Great stuff. At the end of an interview like this I would love to hear you ask a 1 to 100 scale question about how reliable faith is. Love these talks. Thanks
I listen to this on my headphones at work and just smile.
Beaste Meauxde Cool. FYI many of my videos have been converted to podcast episodes--search for Street Epistemology and enjoy.
Anthony Magnabosco will do. Thanks for what you're doing.
if you believe it 100% ....then you can never be wrong.... . I had high hopes for Sarah. face palm in the middle, but hopeful in the end. "Is faith the best way to determine if something it true?" Had to write that question down to remember. Like the way to pie charted their belief.
The look on his face when she says I think you can believe things true....
(:
A masterpiece, Mr Magnabosco.
At the end, when they asked about the NDE, it might have been better not to have told them how you would have felt, but to have asked them if just because science or the doctors or the plane engineers couldn't understand why you survived the crash, that meant that God had to have done it. And then pivot to questions about whether lack of being able to explain something means that it was done by God.
Gawd is the ultimate answer for those seeking existential succour over knowledge.
Excellent interview, well done!Matthew
The body language is really fascinating to watch. The words and gestures sometimes contradict each other.
I would change the wording for 100%. Instead of "Absolutely sure, no doubt" to "I don't ever question it". It's a subtle difference but inserts a little wiggle room. It might get you some 99% instead of 100%
Maybe.
Great work.
+fotmasta That's a great suggestion.
has used 'faith' all her life but never thought about what it means. she seemed sweet though.
Love how they were by the end. Great outcome!
The lack of critical thinking is absolutely mystifying. They seem like very nice people, and are probably perfectly competent in everyday life, but it never ceases to baffle me that they can't see their own contradictions.
Especially the girl, they see them but refuse to acknowledge it from what they said
This is a really interesting interview - and I'd really like to know if this talk had any impact on them. As a European (I grew up in Germany), I am kind of fascinated to see that guys like these apparently never had their beliefs challenged in any way. That these questions seemed intriguing to them because they'd apparently never had these thoughts before, or been asked similar questions.
While I agree that it might be more effective to have a one-on-one conversation, this "partner interview" wasn't without merit. Sarah doesn't seem to care much anyway what Kyle thinks. ;-p
And Sarah's dominance, or talkativeness, gives Kyle ample opportunities to ponder silently about Anthony's questions. Look at Kyle between 15:57 and 17:15, for example. You can almost see his mind rattling over the questions and the issue-riddled answers his girlfriend is giving. Of course, I cannot know but I have the impression that he realized some problems with the beliefs that his girlfriend and he himself are holding. I wouldn't be surprised if episodes like this left keeping him thinking.
Anyway, the two seem to be a lovely couple. I hope they will learn to apply their critical thinking skills to the belief system they've clearly been indoctrinated into.
As a person from Québec I share the same reaction. Although I have family in the USA and knew they were observant Catholics I never realized how prevalent Evangelical Christian churches were until my eldest daughter went to North Carolina for her PhD. Strangely enough her lack of religious knowledge left her wanting in discussions with students as she assumed that any "advanced" country had, in great measure, left religion behind some time ago.
And I'm guessing he's not even getting any pussy as God wouldn't like that. As an Australian this guys look ultimately pathetic.
Faith without evidence is blind faith. No one should follow a faith without an evidence.
Also unsolved mysteries and experiences do not constitute evidence for faith.
To be free from blind faith we should look for the authenticity of supporting texts in linguistics, history, logic and scientific methods.
If we believe in something and associate all our desires, hopes and fear around that "something" it's blind faith.
I wish i could have a discussion with the interviewer :)
To me, seeing these people, religion really presents itself as a factory churning out people deprived of any linguistic accuracy, skepticism and curiosity. So ugly! Your work is so important, man!
I really enjoyed this exchange.
I was really hoping you would ask them how much of their 100% was dependent on faith because they both said that without it it's not very believable. Overall one of the best videos I've seen.
RJizzyJizzle This one was a couple of years old so it might not include a lot of the good questions I tend to ask these days.
The guy was clearly being influenced by the girl. That's rather typical, I find, with any two people, whether they are friends, companions, family members... etc. When a person takes control of a conversation - in this case by answering the questions first, and more authoritatively - the other person in the conversation, who clearly hasn't thought about the issue as much, will tend to parrot what the more authoritative person says. The guy was clearly showing doubt, showing it with an uncomfortable posture.
Finally, near the end of the video he diverged with his girlfriend on the question of whether strong belief actually makes something true. That's when he got to them. His concession on that point opened her up to the idea that she may be wrong. Interesting how that works. I'd be interested to see a street epistemologist pair up with a psychologist who specializes in social psychology. It'd be really interesting to see how a psychologist might guide the conversation.
I want to see the double team of Anthony Magnabosco and Sam Harris trolling street preachers. GOGOGO!
It's sad in a way b/c I think they're scared. I've been there. Frankly, this is why the whole concept of faith/Hell, Heaven is toxic. It truly prevents people from having a critical moment with regards to thinking over this topic. Great work, Anthony!!
1:42 "There is somebody out there higher than us." Yes, and his name is Snoop Dog. It was low fruit but I had to do it.
I personally think it's Matt Dillahunty, I get my morals from him
@@Sammie551 I get my morals from Ben Shapiro. When Im feeling starved for some intellectual stimulation, I turn to Dave Rubin!
Anthony did your interlocutors ever rewatch there interview and comment or did you ever get a follow up interview? Kinda think you should have revisited the pie chart in the beginning after they mentioned that faith is a factor in there god belief because in the beginning the pie chart was 60% how I was brought up and 40% experience. Faith wasn’t a factor. Would have like to see the percentage faith was in the beginning of your conversation as opposed at the end where it seems like they didn’t need faith and could have relied on experience alone.
Thanks for another great video Anthony. It baffles me that these people can claim 100% belief. People are so afraid of their doubts, particularly people who were raised in faithful or religious families. Doubt is perceived as a negative to most of these people. People (particularly of this more progressive generation) take ideas from their religion (in Sarah's case Christianity) and then say that as long as you have faith in something bigger, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong you will still receive salvation etc. Not only does that contradict all Christian doctrine, it contradicts basic logic. She's doing back flips for her beliefs to make them what she wants. How is this productive? How is this positive? How is faith anything more than pretending to know what you don't know? This girl Sarah says "you've opened up my eyes, but I'm still going to walk away believing 100% what I believed before" I respect her personal experiences but it concerns me how little truth means to her.
The stubborn is strong with that little girl. I can't believe she used the sports team analogy.
i wish i had the same patience as you i do not and the people i typically talk to are not nearly as reasonable as this.