Brady made a great point. Referring to “spirituality” is completely a waste of time and a disservice to one’s self. It causes you to invest time trying to understand a system that simply doesn’t exist and use lingo for terms that actually have scientific terminology and explanations. Investing your time in one’s spirituality is only taking away from time to truly understand yourself from a materialistic (the only) approach.
Brady, you nailed it on the "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into." A similar dumb things atheist say, "I didn't get smarter when I became an atheist." Perhaps, but I did become smarter when I learned reasoning, healthy skepticism and logic. All praise to you 3 (I'm throwing Albert in the mix) for holding weekly masters classes.
I not only didn't get smarter when I became an atheist, I realized just how much less intelligent I actually was compared to when I was a born-again Christian.
I enjoyed the cross-examination of the NDE at 1:21:35. I actually spend a lot of time watching TH-cam videos of NDEs from both Christians (who claim to have seen Jesus) and non-Christians who claim to have seen other things. I think further cross-examinations would be a good topic of discussion. These NDEs are all over the place with multiple versions of Heaven, Hell, Christ, etc.
I had a ghost story from when I was a kid. Then when I thought about it it didn't make sense. Like when Brady said this ghost at the funeral home didn't have anything better to do than to move chairs... the "ghost" I saw didn't have anything better to do than stand at the foot of the bed for a few seconds until it heard my mom's footsteps 🤔
One additional thought regarding the aphorism "All movements go too far" -- recognizing this helps us finely parse the virtues and excesses of a movement, so that the excesses don't invalidate the whole thing in our eyes.
I think the idea of chopping up your episodes is a great idea. I love your content, but I don't often have 2+ hours to devote to it. Seems to me more people would watch if the lengths were less intimidating, even though I appreciate the in-depth discussion. Looking forward to the NDE portion. I tend to listen to your show in chunks of like 20-40 minutes.
i am taking the time to comment because I care. not to troll or be a contrarian. i normally love the critical thinking displayed on this podcast, and most of the content. but when you guys talk philosophy you sometimes miss the mark, even on basic stuff. some feedback: 17:20 right, nobody should have a monopoly on reason. some theists and non-theists know how to reason. critical thinking for the win! when it comes to the science of analyzing an argument (logic) and understanding rules of inferences we all should study the basics. i suggest the classic “A Concise Introduction to Logic” by Patrick J. Hurley. 1:48:00 and on. glad to hear you guys are not restricting evidence to only sensory data (empiricism). or are hard naturalists/materialists, i.e., metaphysical naturalism. which is a bankrupt and silly worldview that is self-refuting and would destroy science. Alvin Plantinga explained this very well in his book called “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” (there are atheist philosophers who make the same point, like Thomas Nagel). btw jwit uses the word metaphysical in a way where it seems to be synonymous with immaterial. that is not what that words means in philosophy when talking about the nature of reality (ontology). to tie the above together; there are arguments in the literature (philo of religion and philo of mind) that use logic/reasoning to argue for intelligent design (fine-tuning, cosmological arguments) or a form of substance dualism. "All movements go too far" could be said of certain version of atheism. where they include materialism, certain types of morality, and “oughts” that come with it (see stuff like atheism plus by Jey Mcreight, later adopted by Richard Carrier). or even secular humanism. NOTHING follows from the statement that no Gods exists (or even the silly newer version, the lack of belief in a God).
This is a thoughtful post and I appreciate you offering some sources like Plantinga's book to support statements like hard naturalism being silly and bankrupt. I would want a defense of that view instead of a bald assertion, and you provided a place to look. Thanks.
@@david_deboe cool. another book would be mind and cosmos by Thomas Nagel (an atheist). and on TH-cam you can find the debate between Alex Rosenberg (a naturalist) vs William Lane Craig. and in Craig's second rebuttal (around the 1 hour mark, to save you some time) he explains the difference between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism (methodological naturalism is fine) which is key in these type of discussions. positivism, for example, is self-refuting because the statement that science is the only source for knowledge is itself not a scientific but a philosophical statement. some very smart friends of mine are atheists but are not naturalists. they don't believe everything is reducible to the natural sciences. (e.g., logic, beauty, truth, meaning, value, identity over time, qualia and intentionality)
I would argue that philosophy disconnected from reality is a waste of time. It gives us such discussions as "how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin". Also, it always befuddles me how people try to discredit science by claiming there's stuff out here that aren't detectable by our senses. If this is true, how did you detect it 🤔 it's a ploy to try to make claims unfalsifiable and allow them to make up things which is the very thing we're combatting.
Okay, I've now listened to a YT recording of Plantinga's lecture on some of the main points of his book at Biola U. And I'm disappointed. As a Christian, I hadn't read very much of Plantinga but I regarded him as a sophisticated thinker and held him in respect. Plantinga attempts some rhetorical ju-jitsu by taking one of the main critiques that a skeptic would level at him ("it can't be proven that my position is NOT true, therefore it IS true") and turning it around as an accusation against naturalists. This is entirely disingenuous and a straw man argument. Plantinga also constructs a pure logic argument that attempts to show that naturalism casts doubt on the reliability of its own evidence (our physical senses) and is therefore self-defeating. This argument rests on a false all-or-nothing dichotomy and breaks down when you try to map it onto our real processes of obtaining and evaluating information. Moreover, he demonstrates that he hasn't adequately engaged with evolutionary science. He claims that the mechanics of Darwinian evolution only apply to our decisions and actions and that beliefs are irrelevant. But of COURSE our beliefs are fully enmeshed in that system; they both arise from our physical/chemical experiences and direct our behaviors. Maybe Plantinga has done better elsewhere, but in this lecture he comes across as just one more apologist spinning webs of pure sophistry.
@@thetruest7497 i am going to be as polite as I can and say that your first sentence is question-begging ( we can only know reality via empirical data). other might include rational introspection (thought experiments) and intuitions (including seeming about morality and religion). you sounds very much like Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson. google this: Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy. by Massimo Piliucci (his friend and fellow atheist)
Quantum mechanics isn't fringe science, fringe thinkers try to pretend to understand quantum mechanics as evidence of spirituality, which I find disingenuous.
The caller has a superficial understanding of science. It's one of those "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" situations. You could in some sense say that everything is "vibrations" but that's not a good choice of words; it makes people assume that subatomic physics behaves like vibrations at the macro level and leads to imaginative and evocative but false ideas about reality. This is kind of how I feel listening to KRS-ONE talk about any academic subject.
My sweet and devout grandmother has a beautiful oak tree outside her window that she cites as evidence of God's glorious creation. I look at the tree and appreciate its majesty, and feel some wonder and gratitude for being able to enjoy it, but those are feelings inside me. The tree grew there because of natural processes that require no divine explanation.
If you begin with referring to the natural world as "creation," you assume the conclusion before you explain its existence. That's called "begging the question."
I'd urge you to be careful about making jokes about trans people unless you are one yourself, just as whites should steer clear of making jokes about Black people. It's just far too easy to cause harm even if you didn't intend it.
Brady made a great point. Referring to “spirituality” is completely a waste of time and a disservice to one’s self. It causes you to invest time trying to understand a system that simply doesn’t exist and use lingo for terms that actually have scientific terminology and explanations. Investing your time in one’s spirituality is only taking away from time to truly understand yourself from a materialistic (the only) approach.
Research in the wrong hands is simply confirmation bias! Love it, Jwitt!
Your musings are pure gold, fellas!
Another banger fellas! Keep it up. 🔥🔥🔥
For the algorithm. Great video.
It would have funny if the woman at the funeral home was like shit since ol ghost wanted to do work he had him wash our car… that shine was heavenly
Brady, you nailed it on the "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into." A similar dumb things atheist say, "I didn't get smarter when I became an atheist." Perhaps, but I did become smarter when I learned reasoning, healthy skepticism and logic.
All praise to you 3 (I'm throwing Albert in the mix) for holding weekly masters classes.
I not only didn't get smarter when I became an atheist, I realized just how much less intelligent I actually was compared to when I was a born-again Christian.
@@IheartDogs55 This is a little bit hard to parse but I think I get what you're saying, and yeah, same here.
@@david_deboe I also throw Albert into the mix, btw. 😉
I enjoyed the cross-examination of the NDE at 1:21:35. I actually spend a lot of time watching TH-cam videos of NDEs from both Christians (who claim to have seen Jesus) and non-Christians who claim to have seen other things. I think further cross-examinations would be a good topic of discussion. These NDEs are all over the place with multiple versions of Heaven, Hell, Christ, etc.
1:27:33, that's like saying I'm gonna believe in Santa cause every Christmas I've never gotten any gifts 🎁😅😅
I had a ghost story from when I was a kid. Then when I thought about it it didn't make sense. Like when Brady said this ghost at the funeral home didn't have anything better to do than to move chairs... the "ghost" I saw didn't have anything better to do than stand at the foot of the bed for a few seconds until it heard my mom's footsteps 🤔
The Benny Hinn clip of giving for legal miracles...YIKES! Disgusting!
Awesome !!!!
90s? Hell I was involved in both sides of the “deliverance” session as late as the 20 teens. That church is still doing those things to this day.
"Yesterday opon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
😁😄
Lol
One additional thought regarding the aphorism "All movements go too far" -- recognizing this helps us finely parse the virtues and excesses of a movement, so that the excesses don't invalidate the whole thing in our eyes.
I think the idea of chopping up your episodes is a great idea. I love your content, but I don't often have 2+ hours to devote to it. Seems to me more people would watch if the lengths were less intimidating, even though I appreciate the in-depth discussion. Looking forward to the NDE portion. I tend to listen to your show in chunks of like 20-40 minutes.
Could of been a squatter. All you need is a suit and tie and people won't ask questions 😂😂😂
Lol
It's pseudointellectual! If you want to give to get out of legal troubles, give to a lawyer.
Lol right?
It's the incongruency of the text that allows for such damaging interpretations.
i am taking the time to comment because I care. not to troll or be a contrarian. i normally love the critical thinking displayed on this podcast, and most of the content. but when you guys talk philosophy you sometimes miss the mark, even on basic stuff.
some feedback: 17:20 right, nobody should have a monopoly on reason. some theists and non-theists know how to reason. critical thinking for the win! when it comes to the science of analyzing an argument (logic) and understanding rules of inferences we all should study the basics. i suggest the classic “A Concise Introduction to Logic” by Patrick J. Hurley.
1:48:00 and on. glad to hear you guys are not restricting evidence to only sensory data (empiricism). or are hard naturalists/materialists, i.e., metaphysical naturalism. which is a bankrupt and silly worldview that is self-refuting and would destroy science. Alvin Plantinga explained this very well in his book called “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” (there are atheist philosophers who make the same point, like Thomas Nagel).
btw jwit uses the word metaphysical in a way where it seems to be synonymous with immaterial. that is not what that words means in philosophy when talking about the nature of reality (ontology).
to tie the above together; there are arguments in the literature (philo of religion and philo of mind) that use logic/reasoning to argue for intelligent design (fine-tuning, cosmological arguments) or a form of substance dualism.
"All movements go too far" could be said of certain version of atheism. where they include materialism, certain types of morality, and “oughts” that come with it (see stuff like atheism plus by Jey Mcreight, later adopted by Richard Carrier). or even secular humanism. NOTHING follows from the statement that no Gods exists (or even the silly newer version, the lack of belief in a God).
This is a thoughtful post and I appreciate you offering some sources like Plantinga's book to support statements like hard naturalism being silly and bankrupt. I would want a defense of that view instead of a bald assertion, and you provided a place to look. Thanks.
@@david_deboe cool. another book would be mind and cosmos by Thomas Nagel (an atheist). and on TH-cam you can find the debate between Alex Rosenberg (a naturalist) vs William Lane Craig. and in Craig's second rebuttal (around the 1 hour mark, to save you some time) he explains the difference between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism (methodological naturalism is fine) which is key in these type of discussions. positivism, for example, is self-refuting because the statement that science is the only source for knowledge is itself not a scientific but a philosophical statement.
some very smart friends of mine are atheists but are not naturalists. they don't believe everything is reducible to the natural sciences. (e.g., logic, beauty, truth, meaning, value, identity over time, qualia and intentionality)
I would argue that philosophy disconnected from reality is a waste of time. It gives us such discussions as "how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin". Also, it always befuddles me how people try to discredit science by claiming there's stuff out here that aren't detectable by our senses. If this is true, how did you detect it 🤔 it's a ploy to try to make claims unfalsifiable and allow them to make up things which is the very thing we're combatting.
Okay, I've now listened to a YT recording of Plantinga's lecture on some of the main points of his book at Biola U. And I'm disappointed.
As a Christian, I hadn't read very much of Plantinga but I regarded him as a sophisticated thinker and held him in respect.
Plantinga attempts some rhetorical ju-jitsu by taking one of the main critiques that a skeptic would level at him ("it can't be proven that my position is NOT true, therefore it IS true") and turning it around as an accusation against naturalists. This is entirely disingenuous and a straw man argument.
Plantinga also constructs a pure logic argument that attempts to show that naturalism casts doubt on the reliability of its own evidence (our physical senses) and is therefore self-defeating. This argument rests on a false all-or-nothing dichotomy and breaks down when you try to map it onto our real processes of obtaining and evaluating information.
Moreover, he demonstrates that he hasn't adequately engaged with evolutionary science. He claims that the mechanics of Darwinian evolution only apply to our decisions and actions and that beliefs are irrelevant. But of COURSE our beliefs are fully enmeshed in that system; they both arise from our physical/chemical experiences and direct our behaviors.
Maybe Plantinga has done better elsewhere, but in this lecture he comes across as just one more apologist spinning webs of pure sophistry.
@@thetruest7497 i am going to be as polite as I can and say that your first sentence is question-begging ( we can only know reality via empirical data). other might include rational introspection (thought experiments) and intuitions (including seeming about morality and religion). you sounds very much like Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson. google this: Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy. by Massimo Piliucci (his friend and fellow atheist)
Quantum mechanics isn't fringe science, fringe thinkers try to pretend to understand quantum mechanics as evidence of spirituality, which I find disingenuous.
The caller doesn’t understand science at all and is doing it a disservice with all the assertions.
The caller has a superficial understanding of science. It's one of those "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" situations.
You could in some sense say that everything is "vibrations" but that's not a good choice of words; it makes people assume that subatomic physics behaves like vibrations at the macro level and leads to imaginative and evocative but false ideas about reality.
This is kind of how I feel listening to KRS-ONE talk about any academic subject.
@@david_deboe couldn’t agree more.
Boy yall trying hard to deny the existence of God, but creation itself testifies
My sweet and devout grandmother has a beautiful oak tree outside her window that she cites as evidence of God's glorious creation.
I look at the tree and appreciate its majesty, and feel some wonder and gratitude for being able to enjoy it, but those are feelings inside me. The tree grew there because of natural processes that require no divine explanation.
What does it testify?
You’re trying very hard to suppress the fact that snakes talking and women getting pregnant without having sex are ridiculous ideas.
Stop lying
If you begin with referring to the natural world as "creation," you assume the conclusion before you explain its existence. That's called "begging the question."
Men but better looking. So, trans women?
I'd urge you to be careful about making jokes about trans people unless you are one yourself, just as whites should steer clear of making jokes about Black people. It's just far too easy to cause harm even if you didn't intend it.
I don't even understand this comment at all! Nowhere in the video was the idea of looks discussed!
@@IheartDogs55at the very beginning