The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe 'Philosophy of Religion Part II' eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe2 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
I really appreciate it that you guys present arguments in the best light you can, and don't just laugh off the ones you disagree with. It makes having an unbiased understanding of different perspectives in philosophy much easier.
The first time i watched this chanel i thought just usual...but after i watch several video this channel is so good...its make easy to understand complicated words from philosophy...thank you so much.
These videos are always so well done. Both sides always articulate strong points. They are the reason I am passing my philosophy class, thank you so much!
Thank you guys so much. Truly. Gotten me through my philosophy of religion course (: perfect for revision for exams and explainers when i have not understood things
Gentlemen we are not addressing the issue of epistemic rationality here. To use a commonly used example one could find great happiness in the spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot. They could even organize their friends ans life around this belief but simply because it brings a personal meaning to their lives does not make it any more objectively true. Just because it makes one feel a certain way does not give them epistemic justification, for believing things without good reasons.
7:22 - He makes an interesting point. A common question asked to atheists is "what would make you believe in a God?", which is indeed an important question worth answering. But we should also ask the theist "What would make you LOSE your belief in God?" If there is nothing that could (even in principle) change your mind, then your belief/disbelief is a product of wishful thinking, whether you're theist or atheist.
@Ella atheism does not make a claim. Atheism is simply the position of saying I do not see evidence of any gods. I have never met an atheist (I am sure they exist out there though) that says no gods exist and know this to be 100% true. Also contrary to what you said, if God appeared in front of me and other people and spoke to me and demonstrated he is God I would change my position.
@@mileskeller5244I am a theist and have asked myself this question. There are answers. Yes, there are things that would end my belief in G-d. This is a really good question as it clearly differentiates between true faith and wishful thinking, as you say. Peace
Can the statement "All statements that cannot be falsified are meaningless." be falsified? At first glance I can't see how it could be. And if it can't be falsified then the falsification principal is itself meaningless according to its own standard. Which would make the falsification principal as self defeating as the verification principal.
Actually it is not so. The statement itself gives the definition of meaningless which is something that cannot be verified. So in a way the statement is self-verifying.
if i dont complete this 25 marker on religious language tonight i fail my course, but youve just saved me. back when i first started and i was doing the work properly i watched your videos, but id almost forgotten about this channel, and how good it is. you give great overviews of the arguments and the topics as a whole, and make them much more understandable when you look further in. the animations really help too, and keep you involved where other videos of people just monologuing it fail to do so. really have to thank you, perfect videos
With religious language, if it needs to pass the verification principle, couldn't you say that the ontological argument for the existence of God actually defines God, and by that definition it entails that he must exist due to existence being part of perfection? If God is definable into existence, then religious statements could be analytic, therefore passing the verification principle, and therefore giving religious statements meaning. Could this be a way to defend religious statements?
@@metolse475 Well I'm no expert on Wittgenstein, or philosophy of language for that matter, but Laurence BonJour's argument for the existence of a priori knowledge/arguments I find to be compelling. It basically goes that it is necessary to have a priori justification to make inferences from experience to conclusions that go beyond experience. We believe mathematical truths will always hold, but I'm sure you and I have yet to test that any number multiplied by 2 will always double the original number. Yet we are sure it will double. We have yet to experience this truth, so how can we infer it is true? Because we have a priori knowledge. That is what I believe BonJour would say, and that is how I would respond to that.
@@cameronamis994 I think the Ontological argument is really interesting but almost certainly false. A perfect golden mountain would exist due to existence being a part of perfection, but it doesn't exist. Why should we think it would in the case of God? My point was when I wrote this comment, though I think my message wasn't very clear, was that the verification principle says a statement is meaningful if it is empirically verifiable, or true by definition. Well, I wonder if those who apply the Ongological argument can say that because by definition God exists, therefore to talk of God is to talk meaningfully.
it appears to me that the falsification principle falls into the same problem as the verification principle as when it is applied to statement beyond scientific ones it sounds like this "any statement that can't in anyway be falsified is meaningless" but the question I would ask is how does one falsify this statement ? hence it fails it's own criteria great video guys I enjoy your content
Well, the principle could be disproved by finding an example of a meaningful statement that can't be falsified. So we know how the falsification principle could be proven false.
3:20 to 4:15 - This seems to artificially restrict what one means by "empirical" and makes the verification principle far more arbitrary. If someone did undergo an afterlife experience in which they meet God etc., this experience would surely furnish evidence for God's existence. To exclude this as an in principle possible means of verification despite coming from experiences of sight, sound, etc. would therefore seem extremely arbitrary and irrational for constructing a verifiability criterion of meaning.
Note well: The verification principle is an assumption, and therefore does not need to meet its own standard. Think of it this way, immediately following the verification principle (or any apparently self-defeating statement) comes the implicit rider "except for this statement."
If you're looking for scientific answers, lead a scientific life. If you're looking for religious answers, live a religious life. No one can really tell the other, that theirs is invalid. Religious individuals should make more effort to listen, and practice silence. Scientists often tell us terribly astute, and interesting things about the valley of the shadow.
But believers pretend to "know" NATURAL and superNATURAL facts -beyond the LANGUAGE field-, and that's were science criteria can be correctly used to dismiss them. 🤷
Relegating spirituality to be within a non-scientific language game only restricts it to the ever-diminishing pocket of scientific ignorance, commonly described as a 'God of the Gaps'.
My take away from discussion is Religion has meaning only to those who BELIEVE in the Religions arguments promoting the specific religious belief. The buy in to the belief is a subjective experience of what the religion means to them. Having a believe doesn’t constitute being the basis of truth or non truth of the religious belief.
In my opinion, meaning is nessecarily dependent upon value since it is only through the existence of some value that something stands apart from gibberish. And you can be right or wrong about what you should value to achieve your goal of wellbeing. Things such as religious language necessarily have no value since through the falsification principle we can see that they have no truth value. Therefore, religious language has no meaning.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe 'Philosophy of Religion Part II' eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe2
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
I really appreciate it that you guys present arguments in the best light you can, and don't just laugh off the ones you disagree with. It makes having an unbiased understanding of different perspectives in philosophy much easier.
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed the video.
The first time i watched this chanel i thought just usual...but after i watch several video this channel is so good...its make easy to understand complicated words from philosophy...thank you so much.
You're welcome, thanks for watching and we are glad you find these videos helpful.
These videos are always so well done. Both sides always articulate strong points. They are the reason I am passing my philosophy class, thank you so much!
Thank you very much 😀 glad you enjoyed.
The philosophers referenced are a useful place to start for further study. Thanks.
this video kinda slayed tbh . philosophy vibe W
Thank you 😃
Thank you guys so much. Truly. Gotten me through my philosophy of religion course (: perfect for revision for exams and explainers when i have not understood things
You’re welcome, glad we could help 😀
Astounding comeback by the religious guy.
He's not the religious guy. They take a philosophical subject and debate all sides to explain it.
Great video. It was helpful.
Thank you, glad we could help :)
Philosophy Vibe please make more videos
We have loads more in the pipeline!
their voices make me and my class mad. they talk with no expression.
Thank You, Dialogues are the best way to learn philosophy.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Great ending, the analogy of a tennis racket on a soccer field was outstanding!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed :)
Gentlemen we are not addressing the issue of epistemic rationality here. To use a commonly used example one could find great happiness in the spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot. They could even organize their friends ans life around this belief but simply because it brings a personal meaning to their lives does not make it any more objectively true. Just because it makes one feel a certain way does not give them epistemic justification, for believing things without good reasons.
7:22 - He makes an interesting point. A common question asked to atheists is "what would make you believe in a God?", which is indeed an important question worth answering. But we should also ask the theist "What would make you LOSE your belief in God?"
If there is nothing that could (even in principle) change your mind, then your belief/disbelief is a product of wishful thinking, whether you're theist or atheist.
But the very point to which this is based is self refuting
I have asked this to many theists. The vast majority say there is no situation that could falsify their claim.
@@mileskeller5244 and likewise for the atheist claim
@Ella atheism does not make a claim. Atheism is simply the position of saying I do not see evidence of any gods. I have never met an atheist (I am sure they exist out there though) that says no gods exist and know this to be 100% true. Also contrary to what you said, if God appeared in front of me and other people and spoke to me and demonstrated he is God I would change my position.
@@mileskeller5244I am a theist and have asked myself this question. There are answers. Yes, there are things that would end my belief in G-d. This is a really good question as it clearly differentiates between true faith and wishful thinking, as you say. Peace
Can the statement "All statements that cannot be falsified are meaningless." be falsified? At first glance I can't see how it could be. And if it can't be falsified then the falsification principal is itself meaningless according to its own standard. Which would make the falsification principal as self defeating as the verification principal.
Actually it is not so. The statement itself gives the definition of meaningless which is something that cannot be verified. So in a way the statement is self-verifying.
Got a test tomorrow. This helped a lot, cheers :).
You're welcome. Good luck in the test.
if i dont complete this 25 marker on religious language tonight i fail my course, but youve just saved me. back when i first started and i was doing the work properly i watched your videos, but id almost forgotten about this channel, and how good it is. you give great overviews of the arguments and the topics as a whole, and make them much more understandable when you look further in. the animations really help too, and keep you involved where other videos of people just monologuing it fail to do so. really have to thank you, perfect videos
You're welcome, glad we could help. Good luck in the course.
i f*cking love all this from both sides bravo
Thank you 😀
This video is AMAZING and it's helpin me in my journey. Thanks a lot!
A pleasure, glad we could help 😀
With religious language, if it needs to pass the verification principle, couldn't you say that the ontological argument for the existence of God actually defines God, and by that definition it entails that he must exist due to existence being part of perfection? If God is definable into existence, then religious statements could be analytic, therefore passing the verification principle, and therefore giving religious statements meaning. Could this be a way to defend religious statements?
What about Wittgenstein's "language games". How a priori argument holds no value since it cannot be proven through empirical evidence?
@@metolse475 Well I'm no expert on Wittgenstein, or philosophy of language for that matter, but Laurence BonJour's argument for the existence of a priori knowledge/arguments I find to be compelling. It basically goes that it is necessary to have a priori justification to make inferences from experience to conclusions that go beyond experience. We believe mathematical truths will always hold, but I'm sure you and I have yet to test that any number multiplied by 2 will always double the original number. Yet we are sure it will double. We have yet to experience this truth, so how can we infer it is true? Because we have a priori knowledge. That is what I believe BonJour would say, and that is how I would respond to that.
I wouldn’t use the ontological argument to argue anything, it is such a weak argument even Aquinas disagreed with it .
@@cameronamis994 I think the Ontological argument is really interesting but almost certainly false. A perfect golden mountain would exist due to existence being a part of perfection, but it doesn't exist. Why should we think it would in the case of God?
My point was when I wrote this comment, though I think my message wasn't very clear, was that the verification principle says a statement is meaningful if it is empirically verifiable, or true by definition. Well, I wonder if those who apply the Ongological argument can say that because by definition God exists, therefore to talk of God is to talk meaningfully.
it appears to me that the falsification principle
falls into the same problem as the verification principle
as when it is applied to statement beyond scientific ones
it sounds like this "any statement that can't in anyway be falsified is meaningless"
but the question I would ask is how does one falsify this statement ?
hence it fails it's own criteria
great video guys I enjoy your content
Well, the principle could be disproved by finding an example of a meaningful statement that can't be falsified. So we know how the falsification principle could be proven false.
@@justanaccount749 this circular reasoning. cause you determine what is meaningful by falsification principle
3:20 to 4:15 - This seems to artificially restrict what one means by "empirical" and makes the verification principle far more arbitrary. If someone did undergo an afterlife experience in which they meet God etc., this experience would surely furnish evidence for God's existence. To exclude this as an in principle possible means of verification despite coming from experiences of sight, sound, etc. would therefore seem extremely arbitrary and irrational for constructing a verifiability criterion of meaning.
Note well: The verification principle is an assumption, and therefore does not need to meet its own standard. Think of it this way, immediately following the verification principle (or any apparently self-defeating statement) comes the implicit rider "except for this statement."
This channel is so goddamn (pun intended) criminally underrated
Thank you :) we're growing slowly but surely.
If you're looking for scientific answers, lead a scientific life. If you're looking for religious answers, live a religious life. No one can really tell the other, that theirs is invalid. Religious individuals should make more effort to listen, and practice silence. Scientists often tell us terribly astute, and interesting things about the valley of the shadow.
'Blik' in Afrikaans means 'bin', perhaps because our heads are filled with rubbish.
excellent, you did a lovely job guys. this is how philosophy should be instructed. thank you guys.🙏🙏🙏
But believers pretend to "know" NATURAL and superNATURAL facts -beyond the LANGUAGE field-, and that's were science criteria can be correctly used to dismiss them. 🤷
Relegating spirituality to be within a non-scientific language game only restricts it to the ever-diminishing pocket of scientific ignorance, commonly described as a 'God of the Gaps'.
My take away from discussion is Religion has meaning only to those who BELIEVE in the Religions arguments promoting the specific religious belief. The buy in to the belief is a subjective experience of what the religion means to them. Having a believe doesn’t constitute being the basis of truth or non truth of the religious belief.
Spiritual and religious language speak of unevidenced/non falsified concepts.
Meaningless. .
greet video and great way to express the ideas of philosopher, thank you
You're welcome, thank you for watching.
Great great...highly underrated channel
Thank you.
I love the evaluation in each video
Thank you, glad you liked it :D
In my opinion, meaning is nessecarily dependent upon value since it is only through the existence of some value that something stands apart from gibberish. And you can be right or wrong about what you should value to achieve your goal of wellbeing. Things such as religious language necessarily have no value since through the falsification principle we can see that they have no truth value. Therefore, religious language has no meaning.
Did you watch the falsification part of the video?
I did enjoy the vibe
Great :)
Please make video of Kant criticism
In theory verified but not practice
thanks
You're welcome :)
Thank you sir☺️
You're welcome :)
Where could I get theological content like these?
god
Just don’t use religious language in civil life regardless if it s meaningful or meaningless
@4:47 can anyone please give an example to explain?
This channel is dope
Thank you very much :)
Good unbiased view of two sides of an argument.
Thank you :)
7:00 these are some creepy people
Wonderful❤
Thank you :)
I agreed with the final conclusion using 'language in the context'
In the US South to express the idea that you are an amoral atheist, one utters "I am Born-Again Evangelical Christian".
The argument for the existence of God will always come out on top because of the overwhelming evidence
I invented my own religious language called FOLVASIN, rooted in Afrikaans. The exercise is to engage with the texts more deeply:
HUL'HEERS-BITEERTIN - SOOS-LEEREUR YEESISDEUR BITEER
AL'OUIRIN ONSIN;
HEEMILBINNIN, BIHEILIGEURT EU'NAAMIN!
LAAT-KOMEERT EU'KONINKRYK: LAAT-EU'VIL DOENEERT,
NES-HEEMILSOOS NES-OPAARDIN.
D'EENDAG DAAGINLIKSIN-BROOT GEEFEER.
OOKS, NES-FIRGEEVIER SKULDIN-ONSIN,
ON'SOOS SKULDIRS-ONSIN NES-FIRGEEVEUR.
OOKS, LEIYEER FIRSOEKING-UIT,
OM, FIRLOOSEER BOOSIN-FAN.
[OM, ALKONINKRYK EU'AAN BIHOORDIG,
OOKS-KRAG OOKS-HEERLIKHEIT, EEVIGHEIDIG!]
AMIEN.
PASAALIM 23
HERDIREER-MEI, HUL'HEER;
NIENSAL-EKS IETS TEKORTIN.
LAAT-LEGEER GROENVEIFELT-IN NEER;
NAA'N-STILLINVAATIRS LEIYEER.
SIEL-MEI FIRKWIKEER-HUL';
PAAYINREGFERDIGHEIT‐IN LEIYEER;
NAAMINS-HUL', OM-ONTVIL.
AL-GAANEER-EKS, DOOTSKAADUDALDEUR;
GLADNIKS-SAL-EKS BOOS FREESIER;
OM, MEISAAM EU'SAAM LOOPEER:
FIRTROOSEER-MEI, EU'STOK, EU'STAF.
TAABIL-BIREIYEER MEIFOOR,
TEENSTAANIRS TEENAANSIGTIG;
HOOF-MEI, EU'OOLIEYEER;
BEEKIR-MEI, OORLOOPEER.
NET-GOETHEIT, NET-GUNS
SAL-FOLGEER-MEI;
AL'DAAGIN-LEEVINDIN;
HUL'HEERSHUISBINNIN
SAL-BLEIYEER-EKS;
AL'DAAGIN-LENGTIN.
SALIGSPREEKINGIN
GISEEGINT-ARMIS-GEESBINNIN;
OM, HEEMIL-KONINKRYK, SAL-HULLIN BIHOORTIER.
GISEEGINDEERT-TREURIGIS;
OM, SAL-HULLIN FIRTROOSIER.
GISEEGINDEERT-SAG-GEESTIS;
OM, AARDIN SAL-HULLIN BIGERVIER.
GISEEGINDEERTIS; REGFERDIGHEIT,
NAA'N-HONGIREER, NAA'N-DORSEER;
OM, SAL-HULLIN FIRSAADIGIER.
GISEEGINDEERT-BALMGEESTIS;
OM, BALMGEESTIGHEIT, SAL-HULLIN BIVEISIER.
GISEEGINDEERT-SKOONGEESTIS;
OM, HUL'HEER, SAL-HULLIN SIENIER!
GISEEGINDEERT-FREEDINBISTEUNIRS;
OM, KINNIRIN-HUL'HEERS, SAL-HULLIN NOEMIER!
GISEEGINDEURTIS; HULLIN-FOLGEURT,
FOLGINDIN-REGFERDIGHEIT;
OM, HEEMIL-KONINKRYK, SAL-HULLIN BIHOORTIER.
GISEEGINDEERT-EUIN, D'EENTEIDIN
OOKS-BILEEDIGEERT, OOKS-FIRFOLGEERT,
ALLIN-SLEGS-EUIN OOKS-FALSLIK-SEGEERT.
OOKS-BLEIVEESEER-EUIN, OOKS-YUIGEER;
OM, LOON-GROOTIN-EUIN HEEMILIN-IN:
NES-FOOR-PROFEUTIN, NES-EUIN, SOOS-FIRFOLGEURT.
TROON-STUK - AAYAT-AL-KOERSI
HUL'HEER!
GEEN-BIHAALFT-HUL', ALL'HEER!
HUL'LEEVINT; HUL'BISTAANONNIRHOUIR.
HUL'NOOIT-OORFALEERT, OOK-SLAAPSUG, OOK-SLAAP.
ALLINBINNIN; OOKS-HEEMILINBREET,
OOKS-AARDINVOL HUL'BIHOORDIG.
VIE-DAAR HUL'MEER KAN-INTREER;
SONNIRMEER TOESTEMMING-HUL'?
AL-KENEER-HUL', VAT-LEGEER OOKS-FOOR,
OOKS-AGTIR-HULLIN; NIK-SAL KANIER-HULLIN,
PUNKIE-FIRSTAANIER, HUL'FOLKENNIS-OMRUIMTIN;
HUL'BIHAAL-VILIERINT.
HUL'TROON FIRSTREKEER, OOR-HEEMILIN, OOR-AARDIN;
HUL'ALBEI-BIVAAREERING, FAARIER GIEN-BIMOEGIERING.
OOKS, HUL'AL'HOOGSTIN, HUL'AL'GROOTSTIN!