I've seen this line thrown around a lot lately "It's my truth". It's His/Her Truth" "That's just their truth" - Thank you for addressing how fundamentally wrong it is to say that. This video was definitely needed
It's not wrong, it's true. It is for you as well. To say that 'the grass is green' is a statement of truth, is to understand what grass is, and where it is. If its color is experienced as green, then the statement is understood to ne true. Thus: truth is relative to understanding.
@@santacruzman Truth is objective, regardless of what MY experience is. Grass exists objectively, regardless if it's something i see, taste hear, touch OR not. Im sorry but truth is objective. If someone says "It's MY truth" then that isnt truth - it is subjective experience. Truth known by the collective human species is not absolute but the closest approximation we have to reality - Truth is still objective. So no, both of you are horribly incorrect.
I like Eric Murphy's definition for truth (at least I first heard it from him) - there's Truth, and truth. Capital T Truth is something objective, with which we might never reach 100% confidence. And colloquially, truth is our best approximation to Truth according to the most reliable epistemic methods we have available.
Funnily enough, the same exact fable is used in India to explain how science cannot find the real truth, because we're just blindly observing few parts of the universe. It's apparently spirituality that gets us to the real truth, i.e, understanding the elephant.
The problem with the parable of the elephant is that the blind people could talk to each other, and each one could circle around the elephant feeling different parts, and eventually they'd agree that all of their initial assessments were part of the same objective truth. This is how science works.
Yes, in real life this is what would likely happen, however I don't believe the point of the parable is to express an accurate account of how blind folks would determine what an elephant is. Saying that a parable isn't realistic seems to miss the point.
@@bryansiepert9222 I couldn't disagree more. A parable is when you present a hypothetical but eminently possible situation, and explore how people would behave in that situation, in order to teach a lesson about reality.
Note 3) Truth and belief. “Truth is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” Presumably, each blind man can return to his “trunk” and reacquaint himself with it when belief fades. His low-t truth doesn’t go away. The blindmen have a ‘science of the blind’ once they pool their knowledge and verify each other's experience. They could then run experiments to accumulate even more blind science, but to speak of a whole elephant must always remain a point of conjecture for the blind. To posit an elephant from a thick snake, a fan, a tree trunk, a wall, and a rope, is a fanciful feat, but to then posit a capital-E based purely on the e, seems blind.
Matt, I watched a debate you were involved in where an elderly gentleman from the audience participated in asking you questions. He was super sad and heartbroken and barely was able to speak, and he asked you “Matt….what happened?” This guy was a member of your former church when you were a Christian and very involved in your church. I SAW YOUR FACE IMMEDIATELY FALL…..and I saw CLEAR guilt and VULNERABILITY in your face! It was brief, but unmistakable. That was powerful to me. Deep deep inside you aren’t as positive there is no God as you portray yourself. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Yabut. "It's true for me" does imply that people do choose their beliefs. It's a process to cognitive ease vs. cognitive dissonance... comfort zone preferred.
@@fozzsr Indeed. I notice it often in places like Malaysia when someone switches from "I believe" to "Muslims believe" which means there is a difference between "I believe x therefore I'm a Muslim" vs. "I'm a Muslim therefore I believe x." So, I'm wondering how to distinguish the two, semantically: the articulated (received / doctrinal belief) vs. the non-articulated (instinctive or intuitional) belief. Any suggestions?
@@fozzsr I am similarly unencumbered by a formal education. Let's pick some words. For the beliefs we can't choose we have words like: instinct, reflex, gut-feel and intuition. These are the unprofessed ones. For the beliefs we have formed after a process or rationalising (and thus can be articulated/professed) we have words like: creed, ethos, ethics, philosophy (in the colloquial sense), principles and policies. And perhaps there is a third one... the beliefs that have been shaped simply by coming in contact with the world but we haven't really thought much about - the nurtured beliefs (as opposed to the 'nature' beliefs, which are the first one). Are there others? So, three types. What would be your favourite word for each category? Is extuition a word? I think I'll coin that one as the name of the third group.
@@fozzsr 👍 Noted. 'being convinced' is a process. I wonder how conscious that process is. If you have any further thoughts on it, I'd be interested. (us high school level kids should stick together) :D Putting it another way... because actions speak louder than words, what would be your method for deciding whether or not to trust someone's words if you haven't seen how they act/behave in any/all situations? Can you tell the difference between someone who is deliberately (intentionally) deceiving you vs. someone who is trying to convince you of something that they genuinely believe even though they have deceived themselves (e.g. Your parents telling you that Santa is real vs. them telling you that Jesus is real).
@Fernando Scasioso Please elucidate. I know this is semantic thing but I'd like to find appropriate terminology for the 'leap of faith'. As an example, I was on a plane with a Jain... long conversation about garlic, onions and even water containing 'essence'. I asked, incredulously, You don't really believe that, do you?" and he replied "Yes, I choose to." But it's again the difference between "I believe" and "Jains believe". He did seem genuine though; as if he had convinced himself. It's obviously something more complex than simply choosing between two flavours of ice-cream; it must be a process of cognitive bias relating to cognitive ease/dissonance.
@Fernando Scasioso If you met someone who stated that they believed that they were an orangutan living on Mars (or even more crazy-sounding, that a first century Jew could walk on water and raise the dead), how would you describe the process by which they had become convinced of that, given that (let's say, for sake of argument) everyone around them had been telling them that they were _not_ an orangutan living on Mars?
The line "humanity is the way for the universe to know itself" was likely "borrowed" from the first episode of Carl Sagan's show Cosmos. It's true if you perceive the universe and humanity as part of nature. It's not true if you ascribe consciousness to the universe.
@Fernando Scasioso lol. You can't be serious? You shouldn't throw out unsubstantiated claims. That's all you've done. That is the only lazy thing that occurred here. Either share the evidence that is the basis of your belief, or shut up, because without the evidence your opinion is worthless to others on the internet. I provided the exact source of where I first heard this. You did not. It's not my job to do your homework.
So a few years ago, I was playing nerd games against a guy at the local nerd games shop, and he remarked "I always have bad luck against you." I responded with something like: "nah that's confirmation bias. who's sitting across the table from you can't possibly influence how you shuffle a deck of cards or roll dice in any meaningful way." him: "it totally does though." me: "no that's just your brain playing tricks on you, looking for patterns where there are none. it's a well-understood psychological phenomenon, common to all humans." him: "but i definitely have worse luck against you." *continues for several minutes* me: "it's mathematically impossible." him: "maybe in YOUR reality, but it's possible in MY reality." me: *mind blown* "whaaat?? there's only one 'reality,' that's why it's called 'reality'." *argument continues for way too long* yes, I promise that everything he said was said in pure sincerity. he seemed to genuinely think that what was "true for him" was different from what was "true for me" and that those both counted as "truth." blew my fucking mind. who knew there were people who really thought like that? (for the record, the only reason i made a big argument about it is because he says that kind of shit ALL THE TIME and it drives me up the wall. to hear him tell it, he has "bad luck" against at least 85% of the regular players in that shop. I think he's just bad at games, and it's rude to constantly credit your opponent's successes to mysterious, nebulous "luck" forces rather than admit sometimes that you got outplayed.)
It is also kinda "rude" of you to say that you think he is bad / asume he is bad. Unless you know what he drew, what was in his hand. How he played his hand. You will also have to test his deck by having other players use his deck, and see if they do better. And while you do all this, you have to collect all the data and then analyze that data, and then you can make a conclusion. It is very, very unlikely that he is unlucky 85% of the time. BUT! It is possible, that he really is unlucky. That he never get the card he needs when he needs it, that his starting hand is often bad, and that his opponenets more often than he, gets the card they need when they need it. Etc etc. Unlikely, but possible. Kinda him being an odd one out. ;)
“‘So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?’-It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use. This is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.” L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §241
This is a fascinating discussion. For me, I try to bring up what I hope would be easy to understand. 1) you can have faith you can fly... but if you jump off a building... 2) 1+1 will always be 2. Mathematics is a simple guide to what is true. I do not need faith to believe 1+1=2. It just IS. 3) They can believe all they want if they want to believe they have 3 kidneys. But we all know we only have 2. 4) The grasping of the elephant is one they bring up often. To me then... a god intelligent enough to make us understand will find a way to make us understand. Just like your answer of "If there is a god... he or it will know exactly what it will take to convert me".
I think it is *true* to say that without the explosions of some supernovas billions of years ago, there would be no sun, solar system or Earth, or life as we know it. I think that was Sagan's point.
I pedantically disagree a bit on the phrase "agree to disagree". Sometimes you are presented with a logic that is so fallible, so insane, that your best option is to remove yourself from the presence of the idiocy.
Hi Matt. I love the background and decor! It's relaxing on the eyes on screen. Thank you. Maybe check for shadows when adjusting lighting. It's a problem I'm trying to solve for future filming projects.
Thanks for your enlightening perspective of truth, Matt. There's not much I disagree with you about, and you've turned me on to philosophical concepts like none other. I know you shy away from upfront political discussion, and I think I understand why, but I'd love to hear your opinions about that too. But alas, political beliefs are a subset of one's personal truth. But can politics be objective? Most everyone values the concept of wellbeing. Either way, keep up the good fight, brother.
That’s okay, so long as the blind men themselves realize this, recognizing the potential insufficiency of their abilities to accurately understand the world around them, and keeping themselves open to the possibility of changing that consensus should new evidence or new investigative techniques come to light. In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson voicing a talking pig; “science is a horizon to search for, not a prize to hold in your hand.”
I prefer to use "the case" rather than "truth" in discussions on these topics, because it avoids getting derailed from what we're actually talking about.
I felt that I should have a: large cup of black coffee, a cream color turtleneck, a black berret, and been snapping my fingers at the end of this short philosophical experience, maaaaaan. 👍
I think Matt partially addressed this, but there is a certain use of "my truth" that is valid. That is, the truth about what one's own subjective experience is. Like if you experience a certain behavior by other people as always being scary, regardless of how we may objectively assess that behavior, it is true that it is scary for you.
The problem is that we have multiple versions of this that aren't the same by any stretch and shouldn't be conflated. Like when many people say "speak your truth" or "that's my truth" they're saying that's their experience or how they perceived their experiences and the like. While others are using the term to manipulate more than anything and give their positions more weight than they would have otherwise.
Three perspectives of other people's truth from the perspective of one's own truth; 1) The others genuinely believe their truth is the actual truth; 2) The others desire that their truth is actually true; 3) One's own truth is not actually the truth.
Just some thoughts...I think a lot of problems surrounding the debate between religion and science started back around Aristotle's time when the physical sciences split from the metaphysical. Physical sciences flourished by using experimental data rather than using logic and cause and effect thinking. Meanwhile metaphysical theology lost its grounding in the physical world, and religions (what I like to think as myths or stories about theological concepts) become more and more about self promotion instead of an exploration of the links between the physical and non physical world. I think a full understanding of reality cannot be obtained without the unification of these two disciplines. Interestingly theoretical physics and number theory are now pushing at the edges of these metaphysical questions, such as what are the requirements for the creation quantum forces or even the requirements for the creation of law of physics and numbers. These questions are the same questions asked by Platonic scholars and it is these meta physical laws that give rise to numbers, numbers to laws of physics, laws of physics to matter. Most people would say I'm an atheist however I believe our world relies on physical laws but those laws rely on metaphysical causation that is beyond physical experimentation and can only be attained with logic and cause and effect thinking. Its just a shame that religions have hung onto a myth instead of the theology that holds them up. To my mind god sits behind mathematics and is no more alive, sentient or controlling that the number 1.
Notes on Dillahunty THE truth vs THEIR truth Note 1): Matt’s Capital T Truth is itself a metaphor. The regularities of human existence are mapped in our brains via the sensorimotor system’s constant environmental interaction (in and through the body). Thus, each of us develops and hones these interactional strategies, evolving, as it were, into better predictors of interactional outcomes. It makes perfect sense -- it is True -- to speak of your truth and my truth and _the_ Truth. Matt seems to be struggling with his inner platonist.
I agree with your sentiment but the pretentious scientism doesn't impress me. It would be pathetic if speaking like this were truly the best way to get through to people who don't acknowledge the limits imposed by our subjectivity.
You were making sense right up to the subject of whether the universe has a conscious or not. It is at that point you went against everything you just said. When presenting the universe does not have a conscious as fact, you're just as guilty as those who think the opposite is fact. The proper response should be that with our current understanding, we don't have any evidence to support a universe with a concious. However, one must remember that an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Don't get me wrong. I love science, particularly when it comes to the universe. Still, it has always grated me when someone will empirically say "we know" when it's really "as we currently know". We used to "know" the Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't. We used to "know" the sun was the center. It wasn't either. If I recall right, when I was in grade school, we "knew" the universe was about 6 billion years old. Now, we "know" it's about 13 billion years old. On top of that, we "know" it's flat and it's expanding. The truth is that we don't know. These are just our current understandings with the evidence we currently have.
When I think of their truth or my truth it is more of what life has been lived than a statement of fact. Like the truth of growing up poor or a minority is different than growing up wealthy.
*Matt, "Relativity"* Moral and objective Relativity. I came across these ideas in the idea of the singularity before the big-bang. The idea that the singularity is infinitely small is a "objective relativism". Before the Big-bang what do you have to compare the singularity to, what is there that is relative? If there is something that is infinitely small, then there has to be something else that is infinitely large. "It's a matter of Relativity."
Something seemingly infinitely small existing does not necessitate the existence of anything infinitely large. But then your entire comment is just word salad.
We can. However, the form/presentation (linguistics) may differ as we learn more and more. Maths, just like linguistics, have its many flaws. The biggest issue I can perceive is between languages... how we correlate maths with our approximation of reality often eludes the people that are assigning reality to its variables. If that's the case, then the issue is obvious. If they are more accurate about their depiction and the calculations aren't faulty (and consider most of the important variables "3/3 laws") then we have a high degree of confidence that what we are saying is "true". 99% is far better than 20% certainty, but... at a certain era (when primitive societies were still imagining divine explanations to stabilize their own mind/diminish their fear) the 20% was what they could see, touch and knew as constant. The words/sounds they used to communicate these had another language in pictography... both of these things were attempts to be consistent and correlate what is real from what isn't. Sadly, 20% wasn't enough to build much of anything reliably... They did end up passing on some knowledge that allowed us to turn that understanding into 30% then 40% etc. While we're at the 95 to 99% mark (some beliefs in science are a bit off mostly due to how we distinguish certain topics thatpoint towards classical physics and the other one that points towards quantum Without the classical glance) depends on how much credibility you give to things you dont understand. Still, a college graduate grasps 70 to 90% of reality. Sociological factors being the most confusing, still. Aside from that, we're almost doing good... we just need someone to readjust the constraints of the mind and toss away some linguistic nonsense that we should've left in the past. I like the term Love, but we're so dumb when it comes to defining it. We could easily say: "it is to care for something or someone more than we care for ourselves" but that would Not be accurate. It would be Much better than most definitions I've encountered, but... countless components of it are Soooo much better if you are to ask people that spent some time pondering it (and already had a 90-95% understanding of reality). If you don't understand most of the words in your own language... you're not in that 90%. I'm not talking about specific terms, but major influences in the colloquial/utilitarian functions. If you want to reproduce and you can't juggle a whacko impression (at the very minimum) of what is love, you're either being used and in a relationship or you simply wont have a relationship At all. If you're interested in building your own home and dont know how a hammer works (generic materials, basic physics), then you simply Will not even want to learn. It's too much of a gap. You will find other means to accomplish that task. All of these topics dont require much, but without a basis; you're not there. Men and women can learn to acquire that knowledge and it is everyone's duty to learn at Least 60% AND the right stance to bridge the gap without disrupting. You will be taken advantage of unless you learn how and whom to trust, but... there are some concepts that can bridge the 60-95% gap without hurting yourself. These are the principles that need to be taught. Religion doesn't teach those and I barely started to figure these out (bring them from unconscious to conscious notions). It's a shame that technology already surpasses us and we haven't gotten to the regulation of such advancements (psychologically inept vs physical capabilities).
God is the elephant you can't see, hear, feel, touch, smell or sense in other ways than using pure imagination. The blind men are just using pure imagination to "sense" the parts of the imaginary elephant, and then guess that the imaginary trunk is a snake, the imaginary ear to be a fan or the imaginary tail to be a rope. And from the the perceptions and interpretations of those imaginations ... hocus pocus ... religions. That's why there are thousands of religions and gods.
I'm atheist and started studying scripture because of the picking and choosing from the bible what preachers go on about. Actually studying the translation (or trying 😄). Think of the scene from the west wing when I now debate back
Hey Matt, I was just wondering what you meant when you said "that we don't get to say that this property being a part of a whole means it's a property of the whole?" Was it meant as an analogy for our limited understanding of something should not infer an objective truth about something else? I was also curious about your thoughts on the simulation theory that has been cropping up in news feeds recently? And thank you for making these videos. I've been an atheist since I was about 7; but growing up in an undereducated, underserved community made that sort of thinking tantamount to being a murderer it seemed. So to know that we (atheists) have a debater and educator of your caliber fighting on the front lines has given me renewed hope that indoctrination will eventually become a thing of the past.
Matt, I'm a big fan of both you and Alex O'Connor. When he travelled over to your neck of the woods, as much as I liked seeing you guys interacting, I felt a little awkward with his slightly aggressive pushing of the vegan agenda. I say this as someone who has both gravitated to atheism and veganism in the last 20 odd years. I say this with no disrespect to Alex (I wish I'd had just an iota of his eloquence, not just at his age but now) but, would you acknowledge the pitfall of becoming overly 'evangelistic' with regards to both ideologies and that both can be counterproductive? And in doing so, while both atheists and vegans, may have valid points, they neuter their stance by getting overly swept up in a newly realised outlook. I've definitely had an unbridled determination to speak up for my lack of religiosity and my willing to talk out for animal rights. The thing I've learnt over a long period of time is that you don't change people's opinions through ramming your opinions down their throat (no pun intended) like they are the enemy. What advice would you give to both camps in terms of sharing something they both feel undoubtedly passionate about without just pissing everybody else off? I tried to be 'that vegan' for a long time. Got me absolutely nowhere. I found showing that you can have a really good time as someone who doesn't eat meat (having been a massive carnivore previously) was much more effective. Do you think there are valid comparisons to be made in that respect with conveying your perspective?
The problem with “objective truth” is that objective truths must be objectively verifiable, and objective verifiability requires objective definitions. But definitions are always subjective-for example, artificial intelligence is always trained on subjective inputs. None of the statements that MD asserts are “objectively true” or “objectively false” pass the criterion of objective verifiability. For example, he says that “An elephant’s trunk is a large snake” is objectively false. But one could argue that an elephant’s trunk is an evolved snake with a very large appendage. (I agree that it would require a supreme stretch to classify an elephant’s trunk as a snake, and I myself would never do so. But the statement “an elephant’s trunk is not a snake” still does not pass muster as “objective truth”.) MD could counter this by saying that once the definitions are fixed, then truth can be verified objectively based on these definitions. But definition cannot be cleanly separated from verification. This is related to the supposed distinction between “analytic truth” and “synthetic truth”, which the philosopher W.V.O. Quine showed to be untenable. Quine said: “The lore of our fathers is a fabric of sentences [that] develops and changes, through more or less arbitrary and deliberate revisions and additions of our own, more or less directly occasioned by the continuing stimulation of our sense organs. It is a pale grey lore, black with fact and white with convention. But I have found no substantial reasons for concluding that there are any quite black threads in it, or any white ones.” Every physical theory involves the “fallacy of composition”, because physical theories presume that principles that apply in a certain region of spacetime also applies in other regions. MD says, “If in fact somebody's subjective personal view of the truth is truthful and accurate then it should be easy for them to demonstrate this such that we can recognize that it is in fact a part of our truth.” This statement is amply contradicted by experience. Max Planck said, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Or more briefly, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”) It is impossible in practice to debunk conspiracy theories, because you can never prove that your “facts” have taken into account the full depth of the conspiracy. The CIA and KGB (and others) go to great lengths to cover their tracks. MD talks about “accurate model of reality”. He quotes the definition “Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” What does “doesn’t go away” mean? I suppose he means, “still exists”. What does it mean that something “exists”, and how do you determine “existence”? Do rainbows and mirages “exist”? Do hallucinations “exist”? MD equates “the truth” with “the universe”. What does he mean by “the universe”? All we have access to is perceptions. Is what he calls “the universe” anything more than a concept that he is using to organize his perceptions?
I suppose you read superficially and don't want to take the time to understand the argument. You might learn something if you read Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"@@SansDeity
"truth" is a paradox. Opposites attract and repel... objective truth is knowing a thing is true subjective truth is guessing a thing is true based on the person's personal experience of "truth". Truth has many levels to it what's true for you might not be true for me until I experience your truth hands on
1. You can know truth to a reasonable level of certainty, just because I cannot know something to be true with absolute certainty doesn't change the fact that it is true. It is true by definition that all bachelors are unmarried, but it is not possible for me to know that with absolute certainty, as that would require me to be infallible, but that wouldn't change the fact that all bachelors are unmarried, it is still true by definition and whether or not I am capable of absolute, omniscient certainty is irrelevant. It is nonsense to say truth is subjective, because you have no basis for accepting reality as it is, thus you might aswell consider becoming a solipsist. Objective truth is true, therefore it is not based solely on opinion, it is that simple. 2. Truth is not based on "personal experience", because I did not come to the conclusion that Evolution is true via personal experience. I suppose you could say it was personal experience in the sense that I personally experienced observing the embarrassment of evidence to support Evolution, but I did not arrive at the conclusion that Evolution is true via pure personal experience, I observed evidence that was sufficient enough to conclude Evolution is true. 3. Is it not then true that truth is only found through personal experience?
the universe phrase is not like that. it goes "we are A PART of the universe" that is concious not that we are in fact the universe, and its a metaphore, a very beautiful one in fact that being a part of the universe that is in fact concious and we are made from the same materials because we are living in the universe and we evolved in it and from it we can say poetically that we are the universe trying to figure itself out.
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but it's also worth realizing that people take the message differently. It's not uncommon that people hide comforting delusions behind romanticism and poetry. The two may easily merge, and so it isn't necessarily Matt's fault that both come under his attack here.
@@micahchermak6386 Thanks for the clarification. The small part bit helps. Kinda puts it in perspective. **rim shot** I'm sorry. That's hilarious in my head.
I can confront someone with an inconvenient fact and trigger their cognitive dissonance. Even so, I don't have to be any the worse for it. It's just too bad that they can't be any the better for it.
I always thought their truth, my truth was a political thing. It stops me having to say their opinion, my opinion. Opinions are easily dismissed so they invented a new phrase
@Logical Christian that’s not a fact, that’s only a belief. A fact must be VERIFIED and have evidences that validates and confirms it as a FACT. No amount of belief or faith makes something a fact either. That’s just being ignorant and dishonest
It's a shame that "agreeing to disagree" was grouped in with calling something "your truth". I agree to disagree when I've already made my argument well enough, I understand my interlocutor's point of view well enough, it's clear that the other person won't be convinced (and I don't believe their point of view is factually correct nor otherwise convincing) and there's no point in continuing the discussion. It has nothing to do with "my truth", it has to do with the fact that endlessly going around in circles, as each of us get ever more frustrated with the other person with not agreeing with them, is a waste of time, effort and sanity. If you ever end an interaction with someone you disagree with, you can call it by any other name, but that's literally agreeing to disagree. You disagree. You agree to end the conversation without resolving the disagreement. Therefore, you agree to disagree. There are more and less amicable ways to agree to disagree (and certain things that make more or less sense depending on the context), but simply saying "let's agree to disagree" has generally worked fairly well the few times I've used it. Some people might choose to end an interaction if they're unable to defend their beliefs, but this isn't specific to agreeing to disagree. Also, some people may call something "their truth" if they just want to end the interaction for reasons mentioned above, so I'd be cautious of a strawman here. I might even go one step further and say I would have very strong doubts that anyone actually believes that truth is entirely subjective (beyond, perhaps, some people who've dipped their toes into philosophy and think they're experts now). If anything, I suspect people who use "my truth" believe, like most of us do, that their beliefs correspond to the objective truth, and they simply use "my truth", "their truth" or "your truth" as a way to dismiss people who disagree with them, because they don't want to engage any more and other techniques to end discussion haven't worked or they lack the ability or patience to present a compelling argument. If you go on a tangent about how truth isn't entirely subjective, they "win" because they don't have to defend their original point any more, and they can just keep repeating that it's your truth. If you continue trying to engage with the original point, they "win" because they can just keep repeating that it's your truth. It seems less like an actual serious statement and more just a shortcut to a petty victory.
If you think that the elephant analogy is the best interpretation of explaining people's personal spiritual experiences, then you obviously don't understand what a spiritual experience actually is. Having said that, it is absolutely correct, to question people's subjective experiences. Documented peer reviewed cases of veridical NDE's are the closest thing to evidence for human duality that I've found. In my opinion there is no way that anyone can come away from the collected data on veridical NDE's and still be a hard core atheist.
There is no evidence supporting near death experience, but plenty against unfortunately religious see what they need to convince themselves of their own deluded mind's. Spirits/souls just part of the man made myths some can't let go.
@@jwright3417 you are speaking from opinion my friend. I promise you there is plenty of researched evidence regarding verifiable Near Death Experiences from credible non religious, non biased sources. Most people have no idea that this evidence exists so I don't blame you for being unknowledgeable about it. If you have any sources you can provide as a skeptical counter argument of their validity, then by all means present it to me.
@@lindal.72421. Yes, most likely plenty of "researched evidence" that you're LABELING as evidence for Near Death Experiences rather than it actually being evidence of Near Death Experiences, as is usually the case with theists who say there is sufficient evidence to conclude such things can even happen in reality. How do you know such cases aren't results of people lying, or people being mistaken about what they experienced, or cases of hallucination and flawed senses, or all 3? 2. Noone has to prove your claims are false, you have to prove they are true, that is how you conclude something is true rationally. 3. What are your sources?
@@irish_deconstruction I promise you, these are well researched and documented in peer reviewed medical journals. NDE'S are widely accepted as a legitimate phenomenon in the scientific community, with millions reporting these experiences worldwide. Where the disagreement lies is due to to materialist scientists refusing to actually look at the data specifically concerning 'Veridical' NDE'S. If you yourself want to know more about whether these experiences are real and judge for yourself, I suggest you look up, Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, Dr. Jeffrey Long, NR. Penny Sartori, or you might like to read The Science Of Near Death Experiences by John C. Hagan which is essentially explaining the findings from the research.
My problem with the elephant story is this: wouldn't the people with access to the leg have the best information, and be closest to understanding the core of what an elephant is? They should be able to recognize a leg, if nothing else than from their own anatomy, so they know the elephant is a large creature of such-and-such texture. They would not know what makes an elephant unique, but they would have the best idea of what it is. Similarly, some epistemological approaches are better than others, and some people are using better evidence than others.
Matt claims that someone is committing the “fallacy of composition”: who says “we are part of the universe and we are conscious. Therefore the universe is conscious.” He refutes this by saying that we are an infinitesimal part of the universe. But this refutation doesn’t hold water. Why does physical size matter? We say that people are conscious, and agree that consciousness resides in the brain. So it’s not necessary for every body part to be conscious in order for an organism to be conscious. What difference does it make if the physical size of the conscious portion is large or small? Should we say that a person with a smaller brain than another is “less conscious”? Matt says that humans are an “expendable” part of the universe. Is that an objective judgement or subjective? Certainly the idea that humans are the consciousness of the universe seems “ridiculous”. But many things that have seemed “ridiculous” which have eventually been accepted by mainstream science. Lack of imagination is not proof. The smallest biological molecule has a size of a couple of angstroms. Biological organisms now completely fill the earth, which has a diameter of over a million billion angstroms. So size is not a limit to influence.
You could have just Googled the fallacy. But it wasn't "size" that was important... it was COMPOSITION. It's literally there in the name of the fallacy, and you still missed it. The properties of the parts (this pigment is red/wet/faded) may not apply to the whole (this painting is red/wet/faded)
Hey Matt, would you ever debate flat earthers? IMO flat earthers are to physics and history what creationists are to evolution, a religiously motivated backlash to facts that go against their beliefs.
12:08 I have taken care in formulating this response. I watched this with your views on transgenderism in mind. Specifically, the proposition that one should use an individual's preferred pronouns where those pronouns differ from traditional uses of the pronoun (e.g. calling a biological male "she/her/hers"). The line in particular I found notable was "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing it." This seems to preclude a transgendered person's belief that they are X gender. With that in mind, I ask you this: Why should a layman call a person by their preferred pronouns if the pronouns they have selected are not reality? (Bearing in mind the definition of reality that you gave) NOTE: I do not have a firm opinion one way or the other on calling someone by their preferred pronouns. This is an issue I am still exploring.
3:08 Ah, we're getting to the "Elephant In The Room" re: the Truth here! LOL Aron Ra sums it up best when he says that Truth is only thus if it's concordant with that which can be PROVEN. Not exactly his words verbatim, I admit, but as close as I can get to what Aron Ra says.
@The Maverick Truth, that is, *real* truth is based on verifiable fact. That which can be proven, not just fanciful fairytales that you religious people cling to.
@The Maverick I stand by what I've already said. I add nothing further as there is nothing further to add. CASE CLOSED. Go and listen again to this video, then go and watch some of Aron Ra's, Seth Andrews' and Richard Dawkins' videos. then you'll learn what *truth* really is. CASE CLOSED. No further correspondence will be entered into.
@Fernando Scasioso Aron Ra is correct in what he says. If something is claimed to be true, but has absolutely no evidence to back it up, then the claim, and the claimant should be dismissed out of hand., and by the way, you posted yur comment twice!
Matt claims there is objective truth over and over again. Meanwhile he can’t defeat hard solipsism. He admits he can’t truly know anything with absolute certainty. And he’s built a career and a fan base on “I don’t know”. Matt’s best arguments are with himself. He can’t speak without contradicting himself.
"He who go to bed with itchy butt, wake with stinky finger." ancient chinese proverb
I've seen this line thrown around a lot lately "It's my truth". It's His/Her Truth" "That's just their truth" - Thank you for addressing how fundamentally wrong it is to say that. This video was definitely needed
It's not wrong, it's true. It is for you as well. To say that 'the grass is green' is a statement of truth, is to understand what grass is, and where it is. If its color is experienced as green, then the statement is understood to ne true. Thus: truth is relative to understanding.
@@santacruzman Truth is objective, regardless of what MY experience is. Grass exists objectively, regardless if it's something i see, taste hear, touch OR not.
Im sorry but truth is objective. If someone says "It's MY truth" then that isnt truth - it is subjective experience. Truth known by the collective human species is not absolute but the closest approximation we have to reality - Truth is still objective.
So no, both of you are horribly incorrect.
@Fernando Scasioso "All truth is relative" - uumm no. You dont make a good point, and i disagree with you 100%. Great talking, cheers.
Fake newssssssssssssssss! It doesn't fit my narritive!
Next video on "THE facts vs ALTERNATIVE facts"...
Matt I started my own TH-cam channel after watch you for so long. I appreciate your content. One day I will reach your level.
Good for you! I've got your "The problems in Genesis 1(Bible study)" video loaded up and will watch that next.
I like Eric Murphy's definition for truth (at least I first heard it from him) - there's Truth, and truth. Capital T Truth is something objective, with which we might never reach 100% confidence. And colloquially, truth is our best approximation to Truth according to the most reliable epistemic methods we have available.
Matt dropping 4 bombs at once. A cluster bomb of knowledge.
Hellz yeah 🙂
What is the best way to acquire knowledge?
@@Catholictomherbert Walmart ($3.99 a pound) 😉
Make that 5
Clusterbombs are sadly not allowed under the Genova convention :(
Funnily enough, the same exact fable is used in India to explain how science cannot find the real truth, because we're just blindly observing few parts of the universe. It's apparently spirituality that gets us to the real truth, i.e, understanding the elephant.
"The truth is not the truth." - Rudy Giuliani the Mayor of Orangeville
Was he equivocating?
Laughed til I couldn't catch my breath. Thank you!
@Dane Edwards Hillary isn't president bud. Not sure why y'all can't let her go.
@@Vivi2372 Because she can't go away.
Here's a beauty:
'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'
Donnnie Trump
The problem with the parable of the elephant is that the blind people could talk to each other, and each one could circle around the elephant feeling different parts, and eventually they'd agree that all of their initial assessments were part of the same objective truth. This is how science works.
Yes, in real life this is what would likely happen, however I don't believe the point of the parable is to express an accurate account of how blind folks would determine what an elephant is. Saying that a parable isn't realistic seems to miss the point.
@@bryansiepert9222 I couldn't disagree more. A parable is when you present a hypothetical but eminently possible situation, and explore how people would behave in that situation, in order to teach a lesson about reality.
These videos really calm my nerves.Thanks matt.
I'm happy to interpret "my truth" as "the truth as far as I can tell".
Matt is a very good speaker and presents the subject in a superior way. He is gooood. May the sphegetti monster bless him.
Preach Matt!! Personal pet peeve to hear “It’s my truth” said boldly as if that’s the mic drop.
💌💌💌
Note 3) Truth and belief.
“Truth is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.”
Presumably, each blind man can return to his “trunk” and reacquaint himself with it when belief fades. His low-t truth doesn’t go away.
The blindmen have a ‘science of the blind’ once they pool their knowledge and verify each other's experience. They could then run experiments to accumulate even more blind science, but to speak of a whole elephant must always remain a point of conjecture for the blind.
To posit an elephant from a thick snake, a fan, a tree trunk, a wall, and a rope, is a fanciful feat, but to then posit a capital-E based purely on the e, seems blind.
Matt, I watched a debate you were involved in where an elderly gentleman from the audience participated in asking you questions. He was super sad and heartbroken and barely was able to speak, and he asked you “Matt….what happened?” This guy was a member of your former church when you were a Christian and very involved in your church. I SAW YOUR FACE IMMEDIATELY FALL…..and I saw CLEAR guilt and VULNERABILITY in your face! It was brief, but unmistakable. That was powerful to me. Deep deep inside you aren’t as positive there is no God as you portray yourself. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
So matt wasnt supposed to show empathy on seeing an old man emotionally manipulating him by crying in his face? Is that what you're saying?
Yabut. "It's true for me" does imply that people do choose their beliefs.
It's a process to cognitive ease vs. cognitive dissonance... comfort zone preferred.
@@fozzsr
Indeed.
I notice it often in places like Malaysia when someone switches from "I believe" to "Muslims believe" which means there is a difference between "I believe x therefore I'm a Muslim" vs. "I'm a Muslim therefore I believe x."
So, I'm wondering how to distinguish the two, semantically: the articulated (received / doctrinal belief) vs. the non-articulated (instinctive or intuitional) belief.
Any suggestions?
@@fozzsr
I am similarly unencumbered by a formal education. Let's pick some words.
For the beliefs we can't choose we have words like: instinct, reflex, gut-feel and intuition. These are the unprofessed ones.
For the beliefs we have formed after a process or rationalising (and thus can be articulated/professed) we have words like: creed, ethos, ethics, philosophy (in the colloquial sense), principles and policies.
And perhaps there is a third one... the beliefs that have been shaped simply by coming in contact with the world but we haven't really thought much about - the nurtured beliefs (as opposed to the 'nature' beliefs, which are the first one).
Are there others?
So, three types. What would be your favourite word for each category?
Is extuition a word? I think I'll coin that one as the name of the third group.
@@fozzsr
👍 Noted.
'being convinced' is a process. I wonder how conscious that process is.
If you have any further thoughts on it, I'd be interested.
(us high school level kids should stick together) :D
Putting it another way... because actions speak louder than words, what would be your method for deciding whether or not to trust someone's words if you haven't seen how they act/behave in any/all situations?
Can you tell the difference between someone who is deliberately (intentionally) deceiving you vs. someone who is trying to convince you of something that they genuinely believe even though they have deceived themselves (e.g. Your parents telling you that Santa is real vs. them telling you that Jesus is real).
@Fernando Scasioso
Please elucidate.
I know this is semantic thing but I'd like to find appropriate terminology for the 'leap of faith'.
As an example, I was on a plane with a Jain... long conversation about garlic, onions and even water containing 'essence'. I asked, incredulously, You don't really believe that, do you?" and he replied "Yes, I choose to." But it's again the difference between "I believe" and "Jains believe".
He did seem genuine though; as if he had convinced himself.
It's obviously something more complex than simply choosing between two flavours of ice-cream; it must be a process of cognitive bias relating to cognitive ease/dissonance.
@Fernando Scasioso
If you met someone who stated that they believed that they were an orangutan living on Mars (or even more crazy-sounding, that a first century Jew could walk on water and raise the dead), how would you describe the process by which they had become convinced of that, given that (let's say, for sake of argument) everyone around them had been telling them that they were _not_ an orangutan living on Mars?
"You can't handle the truth". Colonel Jessop.
This comes up all the time in socio-cultural debates, too
The line "humanity is the way for the universe to know itself" was likely "borrowed" from the first episode of Carl Sagan's show Cosmos.
It's true if you perceive the universe and humanity as part of nature. It's not true if you ascribe consciousness to the universe.
Sagan always did have a flair for the poetical phrasing of scientific concepts. 😊
It's probably what I miss the most about him.
@Fernando Scasioso That may be, but unless you can site an earlier source I'll stick with the earliest I'm aware of.
@Fernando Scasioso lol. You can't be serious?
You shouldn't throw out unsubstantiated claims. That's all you've done. That is the only lazy thing that occurred here.
Either share the evidence that is the basis of your belief, or shut up, because without the evidence your opinion is worthless to others on the internet.
I provided the exact source of where I first heard this. You did not. It's not my job to do your homework.
So a few years ago, I was playing nerd games against a guy at the local nerd games shop, and he remarked "I always have bad luck against you."
I responded with something like: "nah that's confirmation bias. who's sitting across the table from you can't possibly influence how you shuffle a deck of cards or roll dice in any meaningful way."
him: "it totally does though."
me: "no that's just your brain playing tricks on you, looking for patterns where there are none. it's a well-understood psychological phenomenon, common to all humans."
him: "but i definitely have worse luck against you."
*continues for several minutes*
me: "it's mathematically impossible."
him: "maybe in YOUR reality, but it's possible in MY reality."
me: *mind blown* "whaaat?? there's only one 'reality,' that's why it's called 'reality'."
*argument continues for way too long*
yes, I promise that everything he said was said in pure sincerity. he seemed to genuinely think that what was "true for him" was different from what was "true for me" and that those both counted as "truth." blew my fucking mind. who knew there were people who really thought like that?
(for the record, the only reason i made a big argument about it is because he says that kind of shit ALL THE TIME and it drives me up the wall. to hear him tell it, he has "bad luck" against at least 85% of the regular players in that shop. I think he's just bad at games, and it's rude to constantly credit your opponent's successes to mysterious, nebulous "luck" forces rather than admit sometimes that you got outplayed.)
It is also kinda "rude" of you to say that you think he is bad / asume he is bad.
Unless you know what he drew, what was in his hand. How he played his hand. You will also have to test his deck by having other players use his deck, and see if they do better. And while you do all this, you have to collect all the data and then analyze that data, and then you can make a conclusion.
It is very, very unlikely that he is unlucky 85% of the time.
BUT! It is possible, that he really is unlucky. That he never get the card he needs when he needs it, that his starting hand is often bad, and that his opponenets more often than he, gets the card they need when they need it. Etc etc.
Unlikely, but possible. Kinda him being an odd one out. ;)
“‘So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?’-It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use. This is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.” L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §241
This is a fascinating discussion. For me, I try to bring up what I hope would be easy to understand.
1) you can have faith you can fly... but if you jump off a building...
2) 1+1 will always be 2. Mathematics is a simple guide to what is true. I do not need faith to believe 1+1=2. It just IS.
3) They can believe all they want if they want to believe they have 3 kidneys. But we all know we only have 2.
4) The grasping of the elephant is one they bring up often. To me then... a god intelligent enough to make us understand will find a way to make us understand. Just like your answer of "If there is a god... he or it will know exactly what it will take to convert me".
I think it is *true* to say that without the explosions of some supernovas billions of years ago, there would be no sun, solar system or Earth, or life as we know it. I think that was Sagan's point.
I pedantically disagree a bit on the phrase "agree to disagree". Sometimes you are presented with a logic that is so fallible, so insane, that your best option is to remove yourself from the presence of the idiocy.
@daniel letterman
Troll.
Hi Matt. I love the background and decor! It's relaxing on the eyes on screen. Thank you. Maybe check for shadows when adjusting lighting. It's a problem I'm trying to solve for future filming projects.
Why do I find the thought of being an atom in Matt's toenail a bit disturbing.
Thanks for your enlightening perspective of truth, Matt. There's not much I disagree with you about, and you've turned me on to philosophical concepts like none other. I know you shy away from upfront political discussion, and I think I understand why, but I'd love to hear your opinions about that too. But alas, political beliefs are a subset of one's personal truth. But can politics be objective? Most everyone values the concept of wellbeing. Either way, keep up the good fight, brother.
Even if all the blind men agree that the elephant’s trunk is a snake, they still do not have the truth.
That’s okay, so long as the blind men themselves realize this, recognizing the potential insufficiency of their abilities to accurately understand the world around them, and keeping themselves open to the possibility of changing that consensus should new evidence or new investigative techniques come to light. In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson voicing a talking pig; “science is a horizon to search for, not a prize to hold in your hand.”
@@MadHatter42 but they don't realise it, as they think the trunk, is a snake
I prefer to use "the case" rather than "truth" in discussions on these topics, because it avoids getting derailed from what we're actually talking about.
Right on Matt, love your work, give Kitty a head scratching for me!!!
I always enjoy these talks.👍
I felt that I should have a: large cup of black coffee, a cream color turtleneck, a black berret, and been snapping my fingers at the end of this short philosophical experience, maaaaaan. 👍
Manuel Festoli that was an awesome comment. I could hear the descending stand-up baseline as I read it. I also have a pointy goatee for some reason.
Bassline, not baseline
I think Matt partially addressed this, but there is a certain use of "my truth" that is valid. That is, the truth about what one's own subjective experience is. Like if you experience a certain behavior by other people as always being scary, regardless of how we may objectively assess that behavior, it is true that it is scary for you.
Until you understand "truth" you will never know Truth in its fullness
You can still know truth with a reasonable level of certainty.
The problem is that we have multiple versions of this that aren't the same by any stretch and shouldn't be conflated. Like when many people say "speak your truth" or "that's my truth" they're saying that's their experience or how they perceived their experiences and the like. While others are using the term to manipulate more than anything and give their positions more weight than they would have otherwise.
💌💌💌
Love your input for years now. Would love to see you on the joe rogan podcast show
So why, after all these years, isn't Matt invited by Joe Rogan to talk? Is someone asking Joe NOT to invite Matt? An influencial theistic sponsor?
Three perspectives of other people's truth from the perspective of one's own truth; 1) The others genuinely believe their truth is the actual truth; 2) The others desire that their truth is actually true; 3) One's own truth is not actually the truth.
I really enjoy your videos Matt. You are a very sensible and intelligent man.
Just some thoughts...I think a lot of problems surrounding the debate between religion and science started back around Aristotle's time when the physical sciences split from the metaphysical. Physical sciences flourished by using experimental data rather than using logic and cause and effect thinking. Meanwhile metaphysical theology lost its grounding in the physical world, and religions (what I like to think as myths or stories about theological concepts) become more and more about self promotion instead of an exploration of the links between the physical and non physical world. I think a full understanding of reality cannot be obtained without the unification of these two disciplines. Interestingly theoretical physics and number theory are now pushing at the edges of these metaphysical questions, such as what are the requirements for the creation quantum forces or even the requirements for the creation of law of physics and numbers. These questions are the same questions asked by Platonic scholars and it is these meta physical laws that give rise to numbers, numbers to laws of physics, laws of physics to matter. Most people would say I'm an atheist however I believe our world relies on physical laws but those laws rely on metaphysical causation that is beyond physical experimentation and can only be attained with logic and cause and effect thinking. Its just a shame that religions have hung onto a myth instead of the theology that holds them up. To my mind god sits behind mathematics and is no more alive, sentient or controlling that the number 1.
Truth is absolute... Everything else is interpretation of evidence, based on perspective.
Wise dude
Notes on Dillahunty THE truth vs THEIR truth
Note 1):
Matt’s Capital T Truth is itself a metaphor.
The regularities of human existence are mapped in our brains via the sensorimotor system’s constant environmental interaction (in and through the body). Thus, each of us develops and hones these interactional strategies, evolving, as it were, into better predictors of interactional outcomes.
It makes perfect sense -- it is True -- to speak of your truth and my truth and _the_ Truth.
Matt seems to be struggling with his inner platonist.
That was complete word salad that doesn't prove what you're claiming it does.
I agree with your sentiment but the pretentious scientism doesn't impress me. It would be pathetic if speaking like this were truly the best way to get through to people who don't acknowledge the limits imposed by our subjectivity.
My truth = headcanon of the universe
"Nearer and nearer approximations to the truth." Ampliative truth.
You were making sense right up to the subject of whether the universe has a conscious or not. It is at that point you went against everything you just said. When presenting the universe does not have a conscious as fact, you're just as guilty as those who think the opposite is fact.
The proper response should be that with our current understanding, we don't have any evidence to support a universe with a concious. However, one must remember that an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Don't get me wrong. I love science, particularly when it comes to the universe. Still, it has always grated me when someone will empirically say "we know" when it's really "as we currently know".
We used to "know" the Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't. We used to "know" the sun was the center. It wasn't either. If I recall right, when I was in grade school, we "knew" the universe was about 6 billion years old. Now, we "know" it's about 13 billion years old. On top of that, we "know" it's flat and it's expanding. The truth is that we don't know. These are just our current understandings with the evidence we currently have.
Dissing on Sagan... hardcore. ;)
The truth is what I say it is. If you disagree, you are wrong. Any questions?
When I think of their truth or my truth it is more of what life has been lived than a statement of fact. Like the truth of growing up poor or a minority is different than growing up wealthy.
💌💌💌
Have a happy thanksgiving, Matt.
*Matt, "Relativity"*
Moral and objective Relativity.
I came across these ideas in the idea of the singularity before the big-bang.
The idea that the singularity is infinitely small is a "objective relativism".
Before the Big-bang what do you have to compare the singularity to, what is there that is relative?
If there is something that is infinitely small, then there has to be something else that is infinitely large.
"It's a matter of Relativity."
I may say that the "density" of that infinity small is infinitely large. The concept of singularity englobe both.
Something seemingly infinitely small existing does not necessitate the existence of anything infinitely large. But then your entire comment is just word salad.
1:16 You should’ve started fading to black there, and then come back and continued. 😁
I have a saying 'one who claims to be wise is truly ignorant and one who can admit ignorance is truly wise'...
The way i always understood "their truth" is as a subjective description.
"My truth/Her truth etc etc" sounds so Orwellian. It makes more sense to say: From my POV/side of things/opinion etc
💌💌💌
I love you dude. I'm coming to Austin soon
We can. However, the form/presentation (linguistics) may differ as we learn more and more. Maths, just like linguistics, have its many flaws. The biggest issue I can perceive is between languages... how we correlate maths with our approximation of reality often eludes the people that are assigning reality to its variables. If that's the case, then the issue is obvious. If they are more accurate about their depiction and the calculations aren't faulty (and consider most of the important variables "3/3 laws") then we have a high degree of confidence that what we are saying is "true". 99% is far better than 20% certainty, but... at a certain era (when primitive societies were still imagining divine explanations to stabilize their own mind/diminish their fear) the 20% was what they could see, touch and knew as constant. The words/sounds they used to communicate these had another language in pictography... both of these things were attempts to be consistent and correlate what is real from what isn't. Sadly, 20% wasn't enough to build much of anything reliably... They did end up passing on some knowledge that allowed us to turn that understanding into 30% then 40% etc. While we're at the 95 to 99% mark (some beliefs in science are a bit off mostly due to how we distinguish certain topics thatpoint towards classical physics and the other one that points towards quantum Without the classical glance) depends on how much credibility you give to things you dont understand. Still, a college graduate grasps 70 to 90% of reality. Sociological factors being the most confusing, still. Aside from that, we're almost doing good... we just need someone to readjust the constraints of the mind and toss away some linguistic nonsense that we should've left in the past. I like the term Love, but we're so dumb when it comes to defining it. We could easily say: "it is to care for something or someone more than we care for ourselves" but that would Not be accurate. It would be Much better than most definitions I've encountered, but... countless components of it are Soooo much better if you are to ask people that spent some time pondering it (and already had a 90-95% understanding of reality). If you don't understand most of the words in your own language... you're not in that 90%. I'm not talking about specific terms, but major influences in the colloquial/utilitarian functions. If you want to reproduce and you can't juggle a whacko impression (at the very minimum) of what is love, you're either being used and in a relationship or you simply wont have a relationship At all. If you're interested in building your own home and dont know how a hammer works (generic materials, basic physics), then you simply Will not even want to learn. It's too much of a gap. You will find other means to accomplish that task. All of these topics dont require much, but without a basis; you're not there. Men and women can learn to acquire that knowledge and it is everyone's duty to learn at Least 60% AND the right stance to bridge the gap without disrupting. You will be taken advantage of unless you learn how and whom to trust, but... there are some concepts that can bridge the 60-95% gap without hurting yourself. These are the principles that need to be taught. Religion doesn't teach those and I barely started to figure these out (bring them from unconscious to conscious notions). It's a shame that technology already surpasses us and we haven't gotten to the regulation of such advancements (psychologically inept vs physical capabilities).
I hate to make it go to 200 likes to 201 but the videos just too good.
Matt reminds me of Roland Martin in a debate 😂😂
God is the elephant you can't see, hear, feel, touch, smell or sense in other ways than using pure imagination. The blind men are just using pure imagination to "sense" the parts of the imaginary elephant, and then guess that the imaginary trunk is a snake, the imaginary ear to be a fan or the imaginary tail to be a rope.
And from the the perceptions and interpretations of those imaginations ... hocus pocus ... religions.
That's why there are thousands of religions and gods.
I seem to smell what he leaves on the floor...ooh I just stepped in it, gross💩 🤮
Intelligent message.
I'm atheist and started studying scripture because of the picking and choosing from the bible what preachers go on about.
Actually studying the translation (or trying 😄). Think of the scene from the west wing when I now debate back
Cheers Matt
I really enjoy listening to these talks and have learned alot.
💌💌💌
Hey Matt, I was just wondering what you meant when you said "that we don't get to say that this property being a part of a whole means it's a property of the whole?" Was it meant as an analogy for our limited understanding of something should not infer an objective truth about something else? I was also curious about your thoughts on the simulation theory that has been cropping up in news feeds recently? And thank you for making these videos. I've been an atheist since I was about 7; but growing up in an undereducated, underserved community made that sort of thinking tantamount to being a murderer it seemed. So to know that we (atheists) have a debater and educator of your caliber fighting on the front lines has given me renewed hope that indoctrination will eventually become a thing of the past.
💌💌💌
Remember Philip Morrison's series called, "The Ring of Truth?"
Thank you
The truth is controlled by Thanos with the reality stone
goodman mat I enjoyed that
Matt, I'm a big fan of both you and Alex O'Connor. When he travelled over to your neck of the woods, as much as I liked seeing you guys interacting, I felt a little awkward with his slightly aggressive pushing of the vegan agenda. I say this as someone who has both gravitated to atheism and veganism in the last 20 odd years.
I say this with no disrespect to Alex (I wish I'd had just an iota of his eloquence, not just at his age but now) but, would you acknowledge the pitfall of becoming overly 'evangelistic' with regards to both ideologies and that both can be counterproductive?
And in doing so, while both atheists and vegans, may have valid points, they neuter their stance by getting overly swept up in a newly realised outlook.
I've definitely had an unbridled determination to speak up for my lack of religiosity and my willing to talk out for animal rights. The thing I've learnt over a long period of time is that you don't change people's opinions through ramming your opinions down their throat (no pun intended) like they are the enemy.
What advice would you give to both camps in terms of sharing something they both feel undoubtedly passionate about without just pissing everybody else off?
I tried to be 'that vegan' for a long time. Got me absolutely nowhere. I found showing that you can have a really good time as someone who doesn't eat meat (having been a massive carnivore previously) was much more effective. Do you think there are valid comparisons to be made in that respect with conveying your perspective?
The problem with “objective truth” is that objective truths must be objectively verifiable, and objective verifiability requires objective definitions. But definitions are always subjective-for example, artificial intelligence is always trained on subjective inputs.
None of the statements that MD asserts are “objectively true” or “objectively false” pass the criterion of objective verifiability. For example, he says that “An elephant’s trunk is a large snake” is objectively false. But one could argue that an elephant’s trunk is an evolved snake with a very large appendage. (I agree that it would require a supreme stretch to classify an elephant’s trunk as a snake, and I myself would never do so. But the statement “an elephant’s trunk is not a snake” still does not pass muster as “objective truth”.)
MD could counter this by saying that once the definitions are fixed, then truth can be verified objectively based on these definitions. But definition cannot be cleanly separated from verification. This is related to the supposed distinction between “analytic truth” and “synthetic truth”, which the philosopher W.V.O. Quine showed to be untenable.
Quine said: “The lore of our fathers is a fabric of sentences [that] develops and changes, through more or less arbitrary and deliberate revisions and additions of our own, more or less directly occasioned by the continuing stimulation of our sense organs. It is a pale grey lore, black with fact and white with convention. But I have found no substantial reasons for concluding that there are any quite black threads in it, or any white ones.”
Every physical theory involves the “fallacy of composition”, because physical theories presume that principles that apply in a certain region of spacetime also applies in other regions.
MD says, “If in fact somebody's subjective personal view of the truth is truthful and accurate then it should be easy for them to demonstrate this such that we can recognize that it is in fact a part of our truth.” This statement is amply contradicted by experience. Max Planck said, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Or more briefly, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”)
It is impossible in practice to debunk conspiracy theories, because you can never prove that your “facts” have taken into account the full depth of the conspiracy. The CIA and KGB (and others) go to great lengths to cover their tracks.
MD talks about “accurate model of reality”. He quotes the definition “Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” What does “doesn’t go away” mean? I suppose he means, “still exists”. What does it mean that something “exists”, and how do you determine “existence”? Do rainbows and mirages “exist”? Do hallucinations “exist”?
MD equates “the truth” with “the universe”. What does he mean by “the universe”? All we have access to is perceptions. Is what he calls “the universe” anything more than a concept that he is using to organize his perceptions?
You're pretty confused. Sorry
I suppose you read superficially and don't want to take the time to understand the argument. You might learn something if you read Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"@@SansDeity
You can say instead “here’s the insight scoop”
As usual Matt randomly dumps a bunch of videos all at once...
I don’t complain. 😁
THE TRUTH vs THE SUPERNATURAL TRUTH
;-)
"truth" is a paradox. Opposites attract and repel... objective truth is knowing a thing is true subjective truth is guessing a thing is true based on the person's personal experience of "truth". Truth has many levels to it what's true for you might not be true for me until I experience your truth hands on
1. You can know truth to a reasonable level of certainty, just because I cannot know something to be true with absolute certainty doesn't change the fact that it is true. It is true by definition that all bachelors are unmarried, but it is not possible for me to know that with absolute certainty, as that would require me to be infallible, but that wouldn't change the fact that all bachelors are unmarried, it is still true by definition and whether or not I am capable of absolute, omniscient certainty is irrelevant. It is nonsense to say truth is subjective, because you have no basis for accepting reality as it is, thus you might aswell consider becoming a solipsist. Objective truth is true, therefore it is not based solely on opinion, it is that simple.
2. Truth is not based on "personal experience", because I did not come to the conclusion that Evolution is true via personal experience. I suppose you could say it was personal experience in the sense that I personally experienced observing the embarrassment of evidence to support Evolution, but I did not arrive at the conclusion that Evolution is true via pure personal experience, I observed evidence that was sufficient enough to conclude Evolution is true.
3. Is it not then true that truth is only found through personal experience?
Well said Matt!
The truth with liberate us all, their truth will keep us lost
primary class is now over.
the universe phrase is not like that. it goes "we are A PART of the universe" that is concious not that we are in fact the universe, and its a metaphore, a very beautiful one in fact that being a part of the universe that is in fact concious and we are made from the same materials because we are living in the universe and we evolved in it and from it we can say poetically that we are the universe trying to figure itself out.
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but it's also worth realizing that people take the message differently. It's not uncommon that people hide comforting delusions behind romanticism and poetry. The two may easily merge, and so it isn't necessarily Matt's fault that both come under his attack here.
Well you have your opinion and i have my opinion of what happened in a certain scenario and we need to discuss and figure out the actual truth.
@Behindthefog labels labels but who are you talking about peterson?
We are conscious.
We are part of the Universe.
The Universe is conscious.
Wha...?
We are of the universe.
We are conscious.
We are (a small part) of the universe being conscious of itself.
@@micahchermak6386
Thanks for the clarification. The small part bit helps.
Kinda puts it in perspective. **rim shot**
I'm sorry. That's hilarious in my head.
I would very much like to converse with you, possible you could answer a bunch of questions I have
I would recommend to email him or call into The Atheist Experience 🙂
Matt dillahunty should discuss sophism.
3:58 ...nice...
I can confront someone with an inconvenient fact and trigger their cognitive dissonance. Even so, I don't have to be any the worse for it. It's just too bad that they can't be any the better for it.
I always thought their truth, my truth was a political thing. It stops me having to say their opinion, my opinion. Opinions are easily dismissed so they invented a new phrase
💌💌💌
Matt, your microphone is saturating. You'll sound better if you deal with this.
The available truth is better than the unavailable truth. What theists seem to misunderstand is that god is always, as ever, unavailable.
The good thing about science is that it’s true... whether or not you believe in it. (Neil deGrasse Tyson)
@Logical Christian that’s not a fact, that’s only a belief. A fact must be VERIFIED and have evidences that validates and confirms it as a FACT.
No amount of belief or faith makes something a fact either. That’s just being ignorant and dishonest
@Logical Christian I responded to your fallacious claim, that is not a fact, but a mere belief. It’s not my fault you can’t comprehend that.
Truth is Relative
Wrong
@@SansDeity That's true for you not for me
It's a shame that "agreeing to disagree" was grouped in with calling something "your truth".
I agree to disagree when I've already made my argument well enough, I understand my interlocutor's point of view well enough, it's clear that the other person won't be convinced (and I don't believe their point of view is factually correct nor otherwise convincing) and there's no point in continuing the discussion.
It has nothing to do with "my truth", it has to do with the fact that endlessly going around in circles, as each of us get ever more frustrated with the other person with not agreeing with them, is a waste of time, effort and sanity.
If you ever end an interaction with someone you disagree with, you can call it by any other name, but that's literally agreeing to disagree. You disagree. You agree to end the conversation without resolving the disagreement. Therefore, you agree to disagree. There are more and less amicable ways to agree to disagree (and certain things that make more or less sense depending on the context), but simply saying "let's agree to disagree" has generally worked fairly well the few times I've used it.
Some people might choose to end an interaction if they're unable to defend their beliefs, but this isn't specific to agreeing to disagree.
Also, some people may call something "their truth" if they just want to end the interaction for reasons mentioned above, so I'd be cautious of a strawman here. I might even go one step further and say I would have very strong doubts that anyone actually believes that truth is entirely subjective (beyond, perhaps, some people who've dipped their toes into philosophy and think they're experts now). If anything, I suspect people who use "my truth" believe, like most of us do, that their beliefs correspond to the objective truth, and they simply use "my truth", "their truth" or "your truth" as a way to dismiss people who disagree with them, because they don't want to engage any more and other techniques to end discussion haven't worked or they lack the ability or patience to present a compelling argument. If you go on a tangent about how truth isn't entirely subjective, they "win" because they don't have to defend their original point any more, and they can just keep repeating that it's your truth. If you continue trying to engage with the original point, they "win" because they can just keep repeating that it's your truth. It seems less like an actual serious statement and more just a shortcut to a petty victory.
💌💌💌
If you think that the elephant analogy is the best interpretation of explaining people's personal spiritual experiences, then you obviously don't understand what a spiritual experience actually is. Having said that, it is absolutely correct, to question people's subjective experiences. Documented peer reviewed cases of veridical NDE's are the closest thing to evidence for human duality that I've found. In my opinion there is no way that anyone can come away from the collected data on veridical NDE's and still be a hard core atheist.
There is no evidence supporting near death experience, but plenty against unfortunately religious see what they need to convince themselves of their own deluded mind's.
Spirits/souls just part of the man made myths some can't let go.
@@jwright3417 you are speaking from opinion my friend. I promise you there is plenty of researched evidence regarding verifiable Near Death Experiences from credible non religious, non biased sources. Most people have no idea that this evidence exists so I don't blame you for being unknowledgeable about it. If you have any sources you can provide as a skeptical counter argument of their validity, then by all means present it to me.
@@lindal.72421. Yes, most likely plenty of "researched evidence" that you're LABELING as evidence for Near Death Experiences rather than it actually being evidence of Near Death Experiences, as is usually the case with theists who say there is sufficient evidence to conclude such things can even happen in reality. How do you know such cases aren't results of people lying, or people being mistaken about what they experienced, or cases of hallucination and flawed senses, or all 3?
2. Noone has to prove your claims are false, you have to prove they are true, that is how you conclude something is true rationally.
3. What are your sources?
@@irish_deconstruction I promise you, these are well researched and documented in peer reviewed medical journals. NDE'S are widely accepted as a legitimate phenomenon in the scientific community, with millions reporting these experiences worldwide. Where the disagreement lies is due to to materialist scientists refusing to actually look at the data specifically concerning 'Veridical' NDE'S. If you yourself want to know more about whether these experiences are real and judge for yourself, I suggest you look up, Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, Dr. Jeffrey Long, NR. Penny Sartori, or you might like to read The Science Of Near Death Experiences by John C. Hagan which is essentially explaining the findings from the research.
My problem with the elephant story is this: wouldn't the people with access to the leg have the best information, and be closest to understanding the core of what an elephant is? They should be able to recognize a leg, if nothing else than from their own anatomy, so they know the elephant is a large creature of such-and-such texture. They would not know what makes an elephant unique, but they would have the best idea of what it is. Similarly, some epistemological approaches are better than others, and some people are using better evidence than others.
Why do you think the leg tells you more about the elephant?
I got one of those pet things, it's that phrase. Idk, it's weird to me.
Matt claims that someone is committing the “fallacy of composition”: who says “we are part of the universe and we are conscious. Therefore the universe is conscious.” He refutes this by saying that we are an infinitesimal part of the universe. But this refutation doesn’t hold water. Why does physical size matter? We say that people are conscious, and agree that consciousness resides in the brain. So it’s not necessary for every body part to be conscious in order for an organism to be conscious. What difference does it make if the physical size of the conscious portion is large or small? Should we say that a person with a smaller brain than another is “less conscious”?
Matt says that humans are an “expendable” part of the universe. Is that an objective judgement or subjective?
Certainly the idea that humans are the consciousness of the universe seems “ridiculous”. But many things that have seemed “ridiculous” which have eventually been accepted by mainstream science. Lack of imagination is not proof.
The smallest biological molecule has a size of a couple of angstroms. Biological organisms now completely fill the earth, which has a diameter of over a million billion angstroms. So size is not a limit to influence.
You could have just Googled the fallacy. But it wasn't "size" that was important... it was COMPOSITION. It's literally there in the name of the fallacy, and you still missed it.
The properties of the parts (this pigment is red/wet/faded) may not apply to the whole (this painting is red/wet/faded)
So in other words, human beings are not conscious, because consciousness is not a property that can be applied to the whole.@@SansDeity
methinks it is like a weasel
R🤣CKIN' SOME DAWKINS
Hey Matt, would you ever debate flat earthers? IMO flat earthers are to physics and history what creationists are to evolution, a religiously motivated backlash to facts that go against their beliefs.
12:08 I have taken care in formulating this response. I watched this with your views on transgenderism in mind. Specifically, the proposition that one should use an individual's preferred pronouns where those pronouns differ from traditional uses of the pronoun (e.g. calling a biological male "she/her/hers").
The line in particular I found notable was "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing it." This seems to preclude a transgendered person's belief that they are X gender. With that in mind, I ask you this:
Why should a layman call a person by their preferred pronouns if the pronouns they have selected are not reality? (Bearing in mind the definition of reality that you gave)
NOTE: I do not have a firm opinion one way or the other on calling someone by their preferred pronouns. This is an issue I am still exploring.
Why should you call someone by their preferred name instead of what's on their birth certificate?
3:08 Ah, we're getting to the "Elephant In The Room" re: the Truth here! LOL Aron Ra sums it up best when he says that Truth is only thus if it's concordant with that which can be PROVEN. Not exactly his words verbatim, I admit, but as close as I can get to what Aron Ra says.
@The Maverick Truth, that is, *real* truth is based on verifiable fact. That which can be proven, not just fanciful fairytales that you religious people cling to.
@The Maverick I stand by what I've already said. I add nothing further as there is nothing further to add. CASE CLOSED. Go and listen again to this video, then go and watch some of Aron Ra's, Seth Andrews' and Richard Dawkins' videos. then you'll learn what *truth* really is. CASE CLOSED. No further correspondence will be entered into.
@Fernando Scasioso Aron Ra is correct in what he says. If something is claimed to be true, but has absolutely no evidence to back it up, then the claim, and the claimant should be dismissed out of hand., and by the way, you posted yur comment twice!
Matt claims there is objective truth over and over again. Meanwhile he can’t defeat hard solipsism. He admits he can’t truly know anything with absolute certainty. And he’s built a career and a fan base on “I don’t know”. Matt’s best arguments are with himself. He can’t speak without contradicting himself.
What's that flower?
so true
Relative truth is debunked so easily. If someone says absolute truth doesn't exist, just ask *is that absolutely true?*
💌💌💌