Losing My Religion (Interview with
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics.
The conversation on his channel: • How Emerson Green Beca...
Linktree linktr.ee/emer...
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent discussion. Loved it.
I am an agnostic atheist to the extent that I claim that Gods and gods to not exist, but I know I could be wrong. It's just that I don't think that I am wrong. And yes, I think Christian apologetics is crap. Mind you, I operate at the level of J Warner Wallace, Frank Turek etc. I think those guys do great harm to apologetics. They keep it dumb. And I agree. We atheists put ourselves in boxes because too many of us are inflexible in our imaginations. Loved your comments about skepticism too. We are too much like born again Christians who have the bible as the one and only true authority. We dogmatise our ideas about the world and easily become just as boring and inane as Christian apologists.
Apologetics is for the believer not the outsider. Engaging with arguments for a specific position is a lot more involved than simply watching a bite sized dumbed down video. Be it a Frank Turek or an Aaron Ra the instant gratification nature of “content” works against the nuance and suspension of personal belief that is needed when learning. There are many interesting arguments for theism and even Christianity but they seem to be buried under memeable assertions.
I used to be an agnostic atheist, until I realized that there's no point in reserving a theoretical possibility for an incoherent, non-explanatory, unparsimonious, ill-defined, and non-evidential concept like a god. Why do you think that atheists put themselves in boxes, and what evidence do you have to support that?
Personally, I'm a naturalistic, determinist, and non-afterlife believer because such positions are more logical and parsimonious, not because of any unwritten "obligations" or "doctrines" like in religion.
@@noonesomeone669 What good arguments/evidence is there for theism/Christianity that isn't itself a fallacy, non-parsimonious or explanatory claim, or complete fabrication/lie? Also, why are you harping on Aron Ra? While I disagree with him on certain things( unrelated to philosophy of religion), he is at-least far more well-read and intelligent than any apologist.
@@jackkrell4238 Interesting does not mean convincing or good. Kierkegaard for instance has an argument for Christianity based in existentialism or one can find a well defined argument for polytheism in Proclus as examples. In either case the arguments for their positions and what they say about reality and the human condition are more in-depth and interesting than bite size takedowns of Christians or gotcha questions for atheists. I used both a prominent Christian and atheist to illustrate two sides of a divide engage in an action I find to be an issue. That issue is simple, people in general are being harmed by engaging with “content” over deeper study and reflection. It is the debate me bro mindset and gawking at absurd personalities I am taking issue with not the person.
Emerson, have you looked into the philosophy of Advaita? It crossed my mind when you were talking about “you” in the context of free will. Turns out, the “I” we equate to our identity is really hard to pin down upon closer examination.
Moreover, the philosophy did serve to resurrect God for me at least, having been an atheist of great conviction for well over a decade.
I’d like to see you or Joe as agnostics debate someone like TJump on the question of whether or not there is ANY evidence for theism. Tjump takes the route of there being “no evidence”, while you and Joe acknowledge there is some, just not enough to convince you (perhaps yet).
I actually addressed this in a video called 5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology. It’s a very silly thing to say.
@@EmersonGreen cool I’ll check that out man, thanks! Although we disagree, I really enjoy your channel. It’s fun watching someone as young and as intelligent as you pursue truth earnestly. It will be really interesting where you land in 10 or so years. Here’s to hoping you someday become a Christian!!
@@EmersonGreen I guess that it all comes down to definitions. Definitions for atheism, for agnosticism, for evidence, etc.
Great video, as are all your podcasts/ videos. Though not enough discussion about why you believe "weird stuff"
I'm going to persuade you on this Joseph of Cupertino thing :)
Emerson, would you say this reasoning accurately reflects your compatibilism?
Premise A: Our choices are the necessary result of prior conditions (determinism is true).
Premise B: People all have an experience of "free will" and therefore have the motivation to understand and define it.
Premise C: The "free will" people experience is simply them feeling like their decisions are the result of their own reasoning/desires (aka "leeway freedom" and "source freedom").
Conclusion: We have "free will" in a perfectly well-defined sense compatible with determinism.
What you are describing is just the illusion of free will in a deterministic world, similar to how the concept of "self" we as brains fabricate is illusory. Free will and determinism are contradictory, so they can't be paired together. People's actions are precisely not the results of isolated actions, but either causally influenced actions( and are therefore not "free") or are random( and therefore the person doesn't have free will.)
@@jackkrell4238 As I stated, people have an emotional/aesthetic experience of freedom as they make choices (most of the time). Therefore we are compelled to understand what that feeling is, and to give it a name. If you'd rather call it "the illusion of free will" then you can, but I don't really see the point given you've also stated that "free will" in that sense isn't even a coherent concept. I'm fine with saying "this is what we experience, this is how it works, and we'll choose to call it free will" even if it's not free will in the libertarian sense. I just don't see the point in saying "the only thing that is allowed to be called free will is libertarian free will, and also libertarian free will is impossible to even conceive of." If we agree that "the illusion of free will" is enough to make sense of personal responsibility, then there's no reason I can see to INSIST that the only legitimate "free will" is the incoherent nonsense kind.
Loved the part when Emerson made clear that atheism neednt mean materialism or the absence of an afterlife. You can be an idealist and an atheist at the same time like Schopenhauer. Also that atheists might think more of God if they were more aware of their personal death. Nice interview. Good insides😅😊. Thx If he (Emerson) reads this. Any idea what you would do on the death bed? Just any thoughts? Like you I sit on the fence, somehow lukewarm and more or less comfortable. It really troubles me at times.
Atheism equals materialism mantra is one of most frustrating outcomes of an education system and wider culture that is philosophically illiterate. The tendency for apologists not to be charitable with their intellectual opponents is something that should be called out.
@@noonesomeone669 How is it a "mantra". Plenty of atheists are materialists through the same lines of reasoning/critical examination. The same can't be said with thesits/apologists.
Why an atheist believe in an afterlife beyond mere appeals to emotion/ personal fear is above me.
@@noonesomeone669 This is true. Although I consider myself a physicalist and an atheist, I consider the latter to be entailed by the former, and not vice versa. Atheists need not be physicalists.
@@jackkrell4238 Because they might be substance-dualists who believe in eternal souls.
28:25 I can imagine for some people the realization that no supernatural force is coming to help you could be difficult. For me the realization hasn't made life harder because i think its easier to just accept the situation than to constantly have false hope that only delivers at the rate of chance. Its easier for me to watch the pediatric trauma code fail understanding that this is the world we live in than it would be if i had to struggle with why God or the gods would allow it.
I disagree with Emerson on free will. What he seems to suggest (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that because the concept of free will is useful linguistically and is practical socially, and because it tracks with our intuitions, that therefore it must exist. This reasoning could be applied to a whole host of other concepts. It seems that because Emerson feels like he has free will, and because appealing to it is useful, then therefore it must be true.
Some could say that about religion
@@jansasiadek2507 exactly. Religion has utility and tracks with my intuitions so therefore I believe it’s true. Moral realism has utility and tracks with my intuitions, so therefore it must exist.
I think free will is "useful" in pretty much the same way as other common concepts, like doors and baseball and cats (which you presumably think are real). Like I said, this gave me an initial hunch and a motive to reexamine the arguments. When I did, I realized that neither leeway freedom nor sourcehood freedom were truly threatened by determinism (meaning certain conceptions of both are compatible with determinism). I see no good argument against the idea that I have the freedom to do otherwise and the power of self-determination. Since it really seems like I am free, and there aren't great grounds for doubting my own freedom, I affirm that I am free.
@@EmersonGreen Are you comparing solipsism with free will skepticism? A lack of free will does not mean we don’t make choices, does not mean my actions have no meaning or effect. It just means that our will was caused by antecedent events outside of our control.
It seems like compatibilists have found a clever way to address two separate questions:
1. Is our free will caused or uncaused by antecedent events?
2. Is there a rational argument for determining degrees of responsibility?
Compatibilists (both sourcehood and leeway) have a way to answer the second question without ever even addressing the first. This seems like compatibilists are circumventing the free-will question altogether.
@@EmersonGreen I dont have a clue honestly how does a person who does not believe in free will, act. I feel like no one actally believes that, everyone punishes and rewards, and is proud of what they do, people not having free will may be true, but in my experience everyone who touches on this subject, means to shift the blame for some minor sins of their own. Yet no one ever defends with this argumentation trurly abhorent acts like genocide, or pedofilia (I dont think they should, simply mean that we will throw idea of no free will, whenever consequences of it, would be dire)
First 😁
You don't have free will, no one really has.
We were given free will we had no choice in the matter!
Nobody has it except me
Is it not possible for the same cause to have different effects, and for which one of them obtains to be the result of objective chance? I think thay there is such a thing as objective chance in reality. I simply reject determinism.