ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Appeals to Faith
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ต.ค. 2014
- From the Atheist Debates Patreon project (tinyurl.com/prn...
A brief look at appeals to faith and why they don't and can't add anything of substance to conversations about the foundations of a belief.
There's an additional context that isn't discussed in this video, primarily because it appeals to a specific interpretation of faith as 'confidence that is granted by God'... that sort of justification will be addressed in future videos about direct revelation and the 'divine sense'.
Matt is really good. He offers thoughtful and reasonable answers to important questions. He is really underrated as an important figure for non-theists.
Mark Rzepecki
I adore Hitchins, but when it comes to learning Matt is the go-to man for grasping the intricacies.
He's a true wiz when it comes to recognizing, explaining, and correcting fallacious arguments. (In regards to the god claim)
Outside of the god claim, he's just human and prone to all the biases and fallacious arguments he calls out.
I am loving this series!! I always enjoyed Matt Dillahunty's rants on the Atheist Experience, but it's really cool to see him give a well-organized presentation on one topic at a time. These are all worth watching multiple times.
I agree, Matt does a great job distilling down the theist arguments from his many years on the Atheist Experience. He and AronRa produce the most useful videos.
Love this! I love Matt's other brainchild, Ironchariots.com too!
*****
_"He and AronRa produce the most useful videos."_
To be honest, people like ***** have much better content with respect to counter apologetics.
Gnomefro Never heard of him. Thanks for the info.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so"
~Mark Twain
Faith is reassuring yourself, that the magic beans you gave your all for,
really are magic.
This series is fantastic! Thanks so much for clarifying these "finer points".
Matt, If you read this. I wanted to let you know that over the past 5 years you have inspired me because you are the best atheist debater I have ever seen. As an atheist myself, I have learned so much from your videos and how to address arguments from my theist friends. Thanks for all you do!
That quote from David Hume is rationality in a nut-shell. I define faith as any belief that is out of proportion to the evidence. Which makes it irrational by definition.
That was great Matt. Thank you very much. I've had a million of those debates where one side just up and declares victory by appealing to faith. I always start like you do and get them to define faith, which means everybody defines it a little differently. But your discussion of Hebrews opened my eyes a little better on what that scripture is saying, the forked definition, which of course is circular ultimately. I often ask a person, "Who told you to have faith?" They say the bible. "So you have faith in the bible because the bible told you to have faith in the bible?" They answer yes to that question usually and see no problem with it at all.
😂 I'm Christian and that is even funny to me! Lolz! But seriously, Matt is right, these types of debates are stressful and what's the point! I actually get pinned down by folks who quote the Bible but say I can't be a believer because I don't quote the Bible. I tell them I ate it, and they get mad because they have to quote it and still don't know what it really means...
I don't think this is a issue of theists and nontheists, might be more of a virtue signalling problem 👍
Well said as ever, Matt. I have yet one more meaning of "faith." It's one I consider an actual virtue:
"To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float." - Alan Watts
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
+Dylan Ost Faith was never meant to "prove" anything. That is my argument.
L zio Glad we agree.
Why not agree with Nietzsche that "The falseness of a
judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment... The
question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving,
species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding..."
Oh. I agree as well. I wouldn't dare commit a "fallacy fallacy". rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
Dylan Ost
Logic can tell us that if we want to accept whatever conclusion is validly deducible from certain premises, then such-and-such is the conclusion that we should accept. But this is a pragmatic (if-then) ‘ought’. Logic can’t tell us that we have a categorical moral obligation to ‘be reasonable’ or to value truth over falsehood
Excellent series Matt - thank you! Calm, clear, concise, well reasoned, rational, refreshing, and very useful… a real pleasure!
Great timing Matt! I've been having a debate with a christian on TH-cam for the past few days, and guess what card he just pulled? Yup, he literally said "my faith is based on evidence". I linked him to this. I told him why I laughed ridiculously loud when he posted his latest comment.
This is an important video. As unlikely as it might be any time soon, the majority of the world's people would drastically change if the contents of this video was absorbed into society.
I disagree. Believers believe for irrational reason... When you reason with us, we delve deeper into our belief...
I would hope that you would hear less correction attempts from people who believe because they Know they are incorrect and have no business correcting others...
A Christian should make you say, wow, what's their secret! Lol! Not, oh no! I have to watch videos to get these yahoos to sssshhhhhuuuuusssshhhh
Thank you so very much for taking the time to make these videos Matt.
Such honest, clear thinking. Much appreciated. I admire your passion and patience.
Matt, thank you soooo much for your work and contribution to humanity! You have improved the quality of our collective awareness and increased our value as a species.
I agree SOOOO much with the interruption thing. Starting a premise where the first thing is false and the rest of the argument hinges on the false premise, ruins the entire argument for both.
"Do not turn up your volume - the introduction is silent"
Still turned up my volume.
*"You just must to have faith" = "you must believe all the bullshit I´m telling you without the need of evidence"*
Are you thinking of the bullshit claim that All men are created equal?
I liked this a lot. Thanks.
One thing I like to do to cap off a discussion (and the "faith" issue is applicable, here), is by projecting a kind of "What am I doing wrong?" attitude. In other words, after all has been laid out, asking the opponent if you are really being unreasonable by not accepting their side of the argument. It's a good way to challenge the opponent's position without making them defensive, to put them in a position where they are invited to be on the offensive (but probably have very little to offer), and to kindle introspection.
Furthermore, I think that if a lot of us would do well to reflect on our own discussions in the past, where the opponent seemed particularly stubborn. Turn the question back on yourself: "Can I really blame my opponent for not agreeing with my argument?" A lot of the time, you will realize that you weren't doing your best to make yourself understood, or that you spend a great deal of time talking at your opponent, rather than having a real conversation.
1 person appeals to faith.
Thanks Matt, still enjoying these videos.
What a well done video Matt. You present it excellently.
I have always thought that all spiritualism is an intractable confidence in your own intuition.
Kinda like a way of coping with the complexity of our relatively advanced brains.
I dont think dolphins are troubled by questions of mortality or "meaning."
Ignorance is bliss. A shield of ignorance makes you "strong." Believing in supernatural nonsense gives people that bliss and that strength.
This is the best video I've heard so far on the topic of faith. Very good job!
Hi Matt, I really enjoy watching you on The Atheist Experience. I appreciate your approach, being that you came from a religious background, and how knowledgeable you are when presented with an argument from one who believes in God. You have my respect!
Nice man! Debating a “faithful scientist” in a few days and this helps load the cannon!
As an atheist, it's very easy to prove God. I define the "God" concept as a load of horse manure. A load of horse manure is real. Ergo, God = A load of horse manure = Real, so God would be real. Theists -- in particular Abrahamic Theists -- place an impossible burden on themselves by making their God(s) beyond the definable, and thus not only unprovable, but also most likely illogical, and often absurd.
I define God as a generalization of a Riemannian manifold in which a weaker condition of nondegeneracy is imposed on the metric tensor.
Francois Tremblay holy hell is this beautiful
Unlike religion, at least a pile of horse manure is useful as fertilizer.
David Pearson In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ' you will keep on hearing , but will not understand ; you will keep on seeing , but will not perceive ; for the heart of this people has become dull , with their ears they scarcely hear , and they have closed their eyes , otherwise they would see with their eyes , hear with their ears , and understand with their heart and return , and I would heal them .'
Matthew 13:14-15 NASB
"All men are created equal" is a load of horse manure, too.
This one is a fantastic addition to your series.
Very well done. I'm enjoying the top quality videos but I hate waiting so long :o
I think I'll be bringing this video and your Pascal's Wager video to the attention of my university's secular humanist society
I don't have faith the chair will hold me up...I have doubt that it will collapse.
We don't need faith or doubt for the chair to function as a chair. We need faith in a theism for that theism to even appear to us to function under our own confirmation bias.
In german wie have no word for faith. There is only "Glauben" which means believe. So in german you only can say: "I believe it is time to do something" or "I believe in god" or "I have belief". "Faith" could be translated to "trust", like saying: "I believe in you". So in german belief in something only means to assume something... but the believers dont like to hear that.
Die erste Definition von "Glaube/Glauben" im Duden ist "gefühlsmäßige, nicht von Beweisen, Fakten o. Ä. bestimmte unbedingte Gewissheit, Überzeugung". "Believe" kann auch als "für wahr halten" oder "annehmen" übersetzt werden. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." kann also übersetzt werden als "Glaube ist für wahr zu halten/anzunehmen, wovon man weiß, dass es nicht so ist." "Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason." kann übersetzt werden als "Glaube ist die Ausrede, die Leute benutzen, wenn sie etwas für wahr halten/annehmen, ohne einen guten Grund zu haben." "Glauben" (Verb) hat laut dem Duden 6 Bedeutungen, z. B. "für möglich oder wahrscheinlich halten, annehmen; meinen" oder "für wahr, richtig, glaubwürdig halten; gefühlsmäßig von der Richtigkeit einer Sache oder einer Aussage überzeugt sein". Du kannst also immer noch "ich glaube" sagen.
For the English speakers:
The first definition of "Glaube/Glauben" in the Duden is "emotional, not based on evidence, facts or the like, unconditional certainty, conviction". "Believe" can also be translated as "für wahr halten" (reckon to be true) or "annehmen" (assume). So "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." can be translated as "Glaube ist für wahr zu halten, wovon man weiß, dass es nicht so ist." "Faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason." can be translated as "Glaube ist die Ausrede, die Leute benutzen, wenn sie etwas für wahr halten, ohne einen guten Grund zu haben." "To believe" has 6 meanings according to the Duden, e. g. "reckon to be possible or likely, assume; mean" or "reckon to be true, right, plausible; instinctively be convinced of the truth of a matter or a statement". So you can still say "I believe".
As a person who "believes in God", I actually like that. I don't really like the connotations of "faith". I can't say I know anything about the unknown, such as what happens after I die. Interestingly nor can you. So, faith is sort of pointless. Believing, on the other hand, has great value. If I believed that this life is it and there is nothing afterward, I would be stressed with every year that I get closer to the end. However, I believe in heaven and reincarnation, so I have much less stress about the subject.
@@carljensen5730 why would you want to believe in things you can't prove exist?
I really appreciate that info! I'm curious if the biblical translation could also mean "belief".
I'm now curious why it's so important for us believers to use the word faith... I don't, it's an odd word that doesn't flow from me easily.
@@SNORKYMEDIA excellent question! I am a believer... Hmmm... Why did I first believe? Hmmm... Family taught me of God... I prayed on my own at 5 and had a real experience from that prayer... Got as far away as agnostic... Aaaand now I'm back!
Matt, I really enjoy your show (I find it on TH-cam). I just found these videos and I want to thank you for them. I really appreciate not only your breadth of knowledge but also your teaching style. Watching your videos has made me much smarter of better informed. Thank you!
You might want to donate to his Patreon account if you can. People like Matt should be supported, even if it's just a buck per video.
This has been so helpful especially because I live in a small town in the Bible Belt and I come across so many people that just say you have to have faith
Thor is a real god. Proof: He said he would protect mankind from ice giants. When was the last time you were killed by an ice giant? exactly.
or maybe I am parodying.
Not just the last time YOU were killed by an ice giant. When was the last time anyone you know was killed by an ice giant? Or you even heard of anyone being killed by an ice giant? Exactly. Thor is real.
Global warming proves that the Fire Giants are growing in numbers.
You nailed it
When was the last time you even seen or heard of a ice giant check mate
@@shadowbonbon3 Exactly! Thor is doing an AMAZING job.
Iiiiiii still think Pascal's Wager is an elaborate joke. Pascal was a very inteligent person, a good philosopher, a briliant matematician. He would have to spot the fallacy instantly and it makes no sense to stand by this argument, knowing that it's bad. I honestly think, he was trolling. That or the the entire argument is fabricated by modern christains and slapped with Pascal's name for the authority boost. Wouldn't be the first time.
I've always thought he was trying to mollify the Christian authorities so he wouldn't be prosecuted for atheism. Of course it's always possible for even a very intelligent and educated person to be illogical-look at CS Lewis.
Pascal's Wager has been so badly presented for so long that I think most people haven't actually encountered a decent version of it. Not that it's successful, but most of the objections only work against poor versions.
At it's strongest, Pascal's Wager is an argument about behaviour, not about whether God exists. It basically says that we should always risk a finite loss in order to achieve a chance at an infinite gain. This is an uncontroversial application of the probability theory that he invented. So, as long as the potential cost of being a pious Christian is finite (ie earthly suffering), it's always a good bet if the potential benefit is infinite (ie heavenly reward).
The only real problem is that he forgot about the possibility of being condemned to hell by other gods, which destroys the whole argument. But that's the only real flaw.
Harry Ray Which he would have spotted immediately, being a man who invented probability. He would know best that the finite set of options in such a case must include ALL possible options and he would not just ignore most of them.
If someone knew how to spot false dichotomy, it would be matematician like Pascal. He couldn't have possibly been ignorant about this.
It is much more likely that like Darwin's eye qote, Pascal's Wager has been quote mined to seem like it's a rational argument for belief, while in reality it's a snarky comment about how theists fake belief in god, because of ignorant fear of consequences.
Harry Ray "possibility of ... other gods... But that's the only real flaw." I'd say it's the most damning flaw, but there are other glaring flaws, mainly with assumptions. Why, and how does one know God only wants belief? What's the big deal about belief? What if God rewards compassion, or a skeptical truth seeking attitude, and doesn't care about belief? Why does Hell have to be eternal?
teavea10 None of those issues are strictly relevant. The genius of Pascal's Wager is that one need not know anything about god. All you have to accept is that there's at least some *possibility* that a god exists who will reward piety. That's it. You don't even have to accept the existence of hell, it works just as well as long as you accept the *possibility* of heaven as a reward for piety.
I'd like to say that one of the most important things in these discussions/debates is to make it useful and productive. It's also important to not to put yourselves above others, always be honest, skeptical, don't be afraid to conclude if the evidence and reason is leading there and if you can learn something new from a discussion than go for it. It's more about discovering something new and questioning the conclusions than converting someone, or proving something.
15:12-17:15
This is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks Matt.
"You have faith that your breaks work."
I literately got that argument when I shared my loss of faith. And made a similar reply.
I got that one while debating a coworker. Effectively he used the breaks in a vehicle we were in to demonstrate his point. Then I broke it down, explained to him the difference between faith and reasonable expectations based on evidence. He stopped preaching to me after that lol.
"You just have to have faith." That's not very far from "You just have to believe me."
That’s exactly what it is.
I love this Matt... original language exegesis on Heb 11:1. As a veteran, full-time pastor in a major denomination I know that most Christians don't get that in church!
thank you matt for being a great leader and teacher
Nice exposition of the subject.
I feel it should not be necessary. When they say "you have to have faith", we know what they mean and they know it: that they essentially admit that they have no reasons left, many reasons against, and nonetheless "fake it until you make it".
When adding lines like the hebrews verse, I can only ask them to explain what it means, because I doubt it's (usually) more than verbosity.
Then again, the whole schtick seems to be trying to escape the exposition of their doublethink by constantly using different meanings of "faith" in some monstrous equivocation fallacy. So I guess an exposition like this may be useful enough to flush out all their hiding places and force them to actually face their beliefs.
In the end though, when this is brought up it's no longer a question of "why do you believe?" - it's an admission that there is no why. It becomes a matter of *how* they believe, and *how* they're unable to look at it critically.
And I mean that in sincerity: they're not unwilling, but religions have made them unable to do so. Might well be the defining characteristic of ideologies in general, and the reason we should be so careful with them.
That's a good way of looking at this. There are so many different degrees of belief and acceptance of ideology, and I think the personality of the believer is far more a factor in that than any other. Maybe it's just the age-old problem of obedience to authority, instilled in all of us from birth.
If you are interested in having these conversations, I suggest you read about Sagan's dragon if you haven't already. (AKA dragon in my garage) It has worked well for me in the past. It explains a lot in a short time.
very interesting Matt. I really enjoyed it and can't wait to see more of you're up coming videos.
I have never really heard such insightful commentary on religion and I am really impressed . . . thank you so much, Matt!!! (This should be a college course on reason)
The into has no sound. So I turned the volume up, thinking it wasn't loud enough. Ouch, my ears.
My apologies. I'll try to get back to edit this. I'm actually working on some intro music...but I'll see about fixing this clip later.
Have you no faith in your sound system?!?
Matt Dillahunty
But that would mean having to reupload it, right? I think that does more damage than good. Maybe just put a TH-cam built-in annotation at the beginning instead? Just to state that it's silent on purpose
Matt Dillahunty Hey Matt, how you been?
Yay! Well done Matt!
I was talking to a thiest and they said "if you want to believe and open your heart, then you'll be able to recognize the truth." She asserted this while ignoring all my reasoning and evidence because I just don't understand because I haven't truly tried to believe first..
tell her to truly beleive she is a donkey
Do you believe that All men are created equal? Or do you actually have evidence to support that claim?
If only people were reasonable, logical and intelligent as you Matt... And by that said, yet another great video Matt!
What you're saying about confidence reminds me of what Ozymandias said about presuppositionalists. When the presuppers say that "God reveals things to me such that I am 100% certain" *cough Sye Ten cough*, that's just them saying "I am 100% confident of this thing". Well...that's not useful information. It doesn't do anything at all for me, the other guy, to evaluate the truth of their claim. So, what if a guy from a snake handling church says "God reveals to me such that I am 100% certain, that I will not be harmed by snakes"...and then he gets bitten and dies? Well, his 100% certainty meant squat. He refused to analyse all pertinent information (such as that bit about safety from snakes in the bible being more than likely a completely forgery).
I'll be touching on this later...when we talk about revelation. There's a view, in Christianity, that faith is a gift from god, which puts it in the context of revelation that grants confidence (along the lines of the presups you mention).
Matt Dillahunty Cool, looking forward to that Matt! Plus, you're welcome to my patreon money.
exodiathecoolone The dead snake handler is swept under the carpet of God's mysterious ways. Then we get into science requiring faith to believe in the evidence blah blah ...
Faith is a blue mold growing on lazy brains.
Here's a question I've yet to hear a Christian give a decent answer, ..many won't even attempt to answer it.
Why didn't Jesus tell his followers that people with a different skin color should be treated with utmost respect, they must not be sold into slavery. Yes, he said "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself", but during the slave trade, blacks weren't even afforded the respect of being human, they were simply a white mans commodity. Jesus could have made it abundantly clear that people of a different race were *not* to be mistreated. But he didn't do this. He could also have given us his clear and unambiguous view on homosexuality so that we'd be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever what he thought. But he didn't do this.
I was not around at that time to know but I think that the Christian William Wilberforce did a great job fighting against slavery. Conflating homosexuality with slavery seems irrational on a number of fronts. Do you understand why?
Not only did Jesus NOT clarify slavery as immoral, it's pretty clear that he had no problem with slavery. In the new testament, JC said "Slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones." (paraphrasing).
Big Ralph he also said "the greatest among you will be your slave" - I do believe that things became better after Jesus was resurrected. I believe that minds became sharper to solve challenges before he was crucified as resurrected we were not yet blessed with the "mind of Christ". If you are trying to construct an arugement for the effacy of the resurrection you are off to an interesting start.
It's because the writers of the gospels who put words in Jesus' mouth (and apparently never set foot in Galilee or Judea) didn't think slavery was wrong. Jesus could very well have condemned slavery and his chroniclers would have left it out.
Robert Miller
That kind of speculation doesn't really get us anywhere. I personally don't think there was a historical Jesus.
As always a pleasure.
Matt, you do such a good job at this...excellent and thank you.
I think there is one more aspect of faith that you didn't mention, Matt, and actually DOES have a limitedly useful context in the real world; I guess I would call it parental faith.
As young children, just learning about the world around us, it is often necessary for parents to just insist on obedience regardless of reason. Even for the most rational-minded, teach-them-to-think-for-themselves type of parent, there are times when there is just not enough time to explain all their reasons for a command they might have to give. It is only recently that the idea that children should obey their parents has been challenged at all. Most people, especially those who are raised in religious households, have this belief instilled in them very early: children must obey their parents.
So if we are looking at Matt's definition of faith, there are demonstrably ZERO good reasons to use faith as evidence. But with parental faith, we do have real world evidence that it can be useful. We can see that parents *generally* have their children's best interest in mind, and that *generally* a parent has a better understanding of the way the world works than the child. All adults have survived childhood, and well-adjusted adults often point to their parenting as a reason they grew up into well-adjusted adults. I'm not talking quality of life here, I'm talking survival.
And what is god, if not an extension of that? The parent metaphor is intertwined in so many religions! And while I don't have any proof of this next claim off-hand, if you could track how people have described god over the centuries, I would bet that since around 1776, monarch analogies have dropped and parental analogies have risen, at least in the USA. How many times have I seen the pejorative "sky-daddy" in the comments section of Atheist Experience videos?
In a way, many people never feel "grown up." They never feel like the image of the all-knowing and all-powerful person that they may have projected onto their parents as kids. Especially as they grow to realize their parents have flaws just like any human, that projection then becomes god for them, I should wager. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to think that people are taking the real-world evidence that children should trust their parents, and projecting it onto god. Parents say "Just listen to me because. Period" and the bible says "Just listen to me because. Period." End of discussion for them.
So when debating people who appeal to faith, I think some Socratic method questions along these lines might yield some good results too. Maybe.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not advocating for a "children must obey" style of parenting, I'm just acknowledging that it has been pretty predominant, and I recognize that some amount of authoritarian nature is bound to be present in the parent/child relationship no matter how much personal freedom the parent wants to instill in the child. Just saying.
Aye. Thanks. I may include that in a bonus, later...as there are verses that make appeals to a child-like mind - and then point out that we should grow up. :)
Matt Dillahunty Excellent! I'm really happy to be able to add to the discussion. :)
Zachary Cates "I guess I would call it parental faith."
Actually, this is a genetic predisposition coded into ALL offspring. Those which implicitly believe in their parents are more likely to survive than those who go against the direction of their parents. It isn't faith at all, and in fact we are programmed to behave in that way. I believe this is a fundamental reason why many people have the religion of their parents.
Just as a parent says "Dont touch that, it will hurt you" they also say "God is real, believe in him". A child without a fully functional mind that has developed its own cognitive abilities will not be able to differentiate between these two statements and so will take BOTH of them as being factual truth. As this is compounded over the years, by the time they reach the point in which their neo-cortex has finished developing, the neural pathways have been so strongly formed that it becomes hard to differentiate between that which was genuinely real (ie "dont touch that hotplate, it will hurt") and things that were said which were only believed to be real based on faith (ie "Believe in god or you will go to hell").
Enigmatical Jedi
Well, it might be genetic, but I doubt it. It's certainly not ALL offspring since some species of animal have zero parent/offspring contact.
Actually, if you think about it, the ability to obey parents is a necessarily learned behavior, since you have to first learn how to communicate in some way with your parents. Some species can do this quickly, humans take longer. Infants can't control their responses based on command, they only respond to stimuli. A hungry baby won't stop crying until it is fed (or too exhausted to keep going). Over time, a child learns, perhaps subconsciously, that parents provide the things they need: food, shelter, contact, etc.
But it doesn't really matter if it's learned or genetic because that doesn't affect my point at all. My point is that when we are young, all of us MUST rely on adults, regardless of what evidence we have that the adults are trustworthy. In *retrospect*, most of us can find evidence that our parents knew more about the world than we did, had our best interests in mind, and we had good reason to trust them BUT:
That doesn't change the fact that when we are young, we must have "faith" in our parents/caretakers. We must act on their guidance without evidence. We all do it, and we all recognize that it is unavoidable and even good for children.
From that point, parents can either exploit that faith, or wean their children off of it!
The hotplate analogy is a perfect example for this. One parent might treat the wound and tell their child it's ok they burned themselves, because they learned something about the world around them. Another parent might tell the child that this is the pain they will have to feel for eternity if they don't unquestioningly obey authority.
The reason I think we should ACKNOWLEDGE this type of faith is because theists equate all faith as good. You've demonstrated that we atheists probably ALREADY disassociate the trust children have in their parents with religious faith. But to theists, that is exactly the same as faith in a god. We need to point out to them how they may be the same, AND how they are different. Otherwise, when we try to say that faith in an ancient book or an unfalsifiable god is bad, they think we are saying that their children's faith in them is bad too.
Fantastic vid in the series...thanks Matt! Incredibly helpful.
Would love an update Matt. Always Learning From You!
Had an argument with two old friends about this, caused our friendship to end... They claimed I couldn't possibly understand that someone can just believe and that it doesn't require proof, even though I believed same things like they did for most of my life and also explained it to them that I understand that there are agnostic theists, such as they are...
Keep up the good work, Matt!
I feel that this video should be a required part of school curriculums.
I prefer using Young's Literal Translation for most references: "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction"
Basically the same thing you always say it is, Matt. It's hope that something is the truth and confidence it is true without being proven.
Appeal to consensus is probably the worst fallacy I've had to deal with, especially when each individual has a different reason for coming to that consensus.
My brakes HAVE stopped working at one point, so NO I don’t have faith my brakes will always work.
I have been waiting and hoping for a video like this for a long to and i think that this is the go to video for this subject,amazing video.
I agree with you about interrupting people. I think it is ridiculous that people will want to make an entire 5 minute argument without any interruptions. You may have an objection to one of their first premises, and this objection might render their entire argument null, so why bother going on? Jordan Peterson likes to do this in arguments, and his followers always like to applaud after he makes some long and convoluted argument, thinking that it must have been a valid argument because of the sheer volubility involved. Ok, I'm being a little harsh. But the point is, nobody should get angry if you stop them in the middle of an argument because of an objection. I think one of the only valid reasons to momentarily ignore an objection is that you may be afraid of forgetting your line of reasoning. In this case, you can politely acknowledge that the other person has an objection, but ask to continue because you don't want to lose track of your thoughts. Anyways, this goes to a deeper issue that many people have - that of not being able to present their thoughts in a concise fashion. Jordan Peterson writes in his self-help book that people should use language precisely. I completely agree on this point (though I also think Peterson should follow his own advice more often), but he should have also said to be as concise as possible. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse. When the other person does not understand what you have said, that is when you take extra time to explain what you mean.
Matt, thank you for posting this video and not disabling the comment section as The Atheist Experience does. Your frustration over "faith" as a definition is similar to the request that I have of non-believers as to what constitutes evidence. Another verse that relates to faith is in Romans 10:17 "faith comes by hearing" - The book of Romans is more directed towards people of non-faith - if you read Hebrews 11 it goes on to talk about faith "in action" it is often called the "heroes of faith" chapter because it ends with people willing to give up their lives literally for what they believe. Jesus spoke about "abiding" in his word to know the truth. What someone "abides" in or "listens" to the most seems to heavily influence "what they believe" - You have often said "tell me how you came to believe" - I could not advise someone to "just have faith" when that was not how I came to believe. -
The problem with people is not that they don't understand the problem with faith. It's that they don't want to, because believing in a God who watches over them makes them feel better and they would rather keep the fuzzy feeling than investigate the truth.
Brilliant Matt.. Judging between 1 to 10, I´ll sum that up and give you an 11.
Cheers.
Robert Gruner W.
Thanks Matt! your sharing has mad alot of hard concepts easy for me to grasp!!! and for that i thank u !
Wow, thanks Matt! Didn't know that bit about Hebrews. I learned something new and useful today.
Thanks to Junior Bible Quiz I was very familiar with that verse. Theist don't take kindly to atheist who know their bible better than they do.
Thanks, Matt.
I want to be able to speak to people like Mr. Dillahunty does. Calm, peaceful but firm.
You might change your opinion if you watch The Atheist Experience, lol.
An irony I see in the term belief is that religious believers consider their "belief" as something that represents a certainty. But in everyday conversion, belief expresses a possible uncertainty as in "I believe that's what he said." or "I believe that's what happened."
Swoon! I'd love to see a video about epistemology.
OK, you challenged your viewers to discuss how their faith is useful. A lLong time ago, a friend gave me a book called "Journey of Souls". The premise of this book is that our souls "live" forever. Before we are born, we chose this life. Like you might choose a vacation destination. We didn't know exactly what experiences we would have, but we chose the basic premise. After we die, we go to "heaven" and examine the life we chose. What did we learn? How did we grow? Did we grow? Then, we choose the next life. This spiritual belief really resonated with me, and it changed my life COMPLETELY. Why? Because I used to believe, as my mother did, that we are born, we live, we die, and that's the end. A pretty Atheist belief system. With that belief, I felt stressed to "do everything" in this lifetime, after all, I only have one shot. However, with my current beliefs, I have a different outlook on life. I feel free to get the most out of life, without feeling like I "have to do it all". I can focus on a few things and really get the most out of them. Is that not useful enough for you?
this doesn't sound liek something that dominates your life and decisions, its just a passive belief in YOUR mind that you use to get more out of things. there is not absolute rules or anything of the like its just a simple thought that helps you cope
If you choose each life but can't remember that fact while you're experiencing your present life, how do you correct mistakes made in previous lives?
@mattdillahunty is absolutely a hero of humanity! 👍🏽 indispensable information ℹ️ thank you 🙏 md!
"I'm convinced that people actually do care about reason and evidence. We look around the world and make decision based on our best understanding of the world based on the best evidence"
Can't disagree more with that convition Matt. I believe most people live their lives on intuition(based on instinct, prior beliefs(and primacy bias due to cognitive dissonance), innate(agent attribution) and developed(indoctrination) biases), and the induction of experiences(fire burns, burning hurts, don't put my feet in it). A more primal way of thinking that worked great in evolutionary history.
Reason, evidence and mostly critical thinking skills need to be developed, and for some people these come a lot more difficult then others. That is, if at all, as I do believe a certain amount of cognitive capability is needed.
That's also my hypothesis on why educated people are less likely to buy into the more extreme forms of religion and superstition, but you can't ignore those developed biases as they have strong emotional basis(WLC and his witness of the Holy Spirit).
very well put together and said thank you!!
I love these Matt thanks man.
The fun part is even if you fully convince them they may fall into a mode of thinking they are being tested, that their right move is to double down on their faith to pass this test.
Yeah. It's a downward spiral once you think like that.
What a great video!
You are amazing. Keep up the good work.
Absolutely brilliant and irrefutable analysis of the appeal to faith!
The bush over your left shoulder is poison ivy. It may come in handy some day, you never know. Not that I have done it but the thought of rubbing a little of the oil on the door handle of one of those cars with a fish in the back is funny....
Very well done!
Thanks Matt you have brought clarity to a potentially murky topic.
This brought to mind a JFK movie quote:
_Bill Broussard:_ "This is Louisiana, chief! I mean, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mama told you so! You're way out there, boss, taking a crap in the wind, and I for one am not going along on this ride!"
Great job Matt
Legit had this conversation last night.
excellent video. ...I'll have to share this with the secular society. cheers
Hey Matt,
Thank you for doing this, you are providing some really useful tools for respectful convincing discussion.
Not sure if you can edit this once it has been put up but your yellow text at 21:30 has a spelling mistake
Cheers
This is what every argument I've had with Christian friends has boiled down to. While they don't admit "defeat" per se, they'll admit their faith is not perfect because they don't have enough, as in the "grain of mustard seed" example of Matthew 17:20. So it becomes more of an appeal to the incomprehensibility of God rather than the evidence of God.
Matt I am Canadian and the 2010 winter Olympic team(and every Canadian Olympic team from then till now) proves you wrong! The new(since 2010)Canadian Olympic team moto is "We Believe". The "evidence" that Faith produces is the manifestation of the works that come from the attitude of believing with a high confidence before there is sufficient evidence to justify such a high confidence. The 2010 Canadian winter Olympic team won more Gold medels and just more medals over all then any of the previous Canadian Olympic teams. The great increase in success was largely due to the change in attitude.
Canada has had some of the best Olympic training facilities in the world for decades, yet right up untill 2010 our medal standings at the Olympics reflected and suggested otherwise. So the only thing that changed and improved with regards to how the Canadian Olympic athletes were trained was a psychological improvement, that they all train with the attitude and high confident hope that they are going to win. That they tell themselves everyday "I believe I am going to win the Gold for my event, I am going to push myself that extra bit more because I believe" You see Matt it is that belief(Faith) that pushes the person to go that extra bit more that makes the differnce. Without that belief that the person places a high confidence in(Faith) said person wouldnt have the extra drive and motivation to go that extra mile.
I agree with this videos content. I enjoy Matt's debates and caller show very much. He almost always crushes his theist opponents and it's a joy to watch him in action.(especially when dealing with 'crazy callers' with one finger on the hold button!!) haha! ...In this particular video above, I clearly understand that he is using the correct definition of the word "faith" as it is commonly used. (this is not an argument against the dictionary definition) That definition is obvious and correct. But in the greatest book I have ever read "The End Of All Evil" by Jeremy Locke, he defines the word faith as----- The Courage To Test Ideas For Truth----- and from that new definition I was able to begin my minds journey away from the fear of admitting 'out loud' that religion does not pass the test of 'faith' as Locke describes it. ......I am not saying that everyone should use this approach, but I was one of those catholic school raised altar boys who had religion classes every day of his young life, and I was indoctrinated for years, so now (decades later) every little reinforcing mantra that I can make myself repeat 1000 times has helped me grow my inner strength to break away from the false dogma that the priests & nuns and school teachers deeply planted there. When people talk to me in 2014 about god and how you just "have to have faith" I tell them that 'Faith' is--- The Courage To Test Ideas For Truth--- and that religions do not pass that test. So far, most of the people i have said that to, get this defeated look on their faces, (even if they don't admit it verbally) as opposed to, when i used to try to argue that 'faith' was the wrong thing to aspire to. Again- this works for me, and may be the wrong approach for others to use. But I have gained traction with it both in the opponents eyes AND in my own confidence.
This next comment does not address the video about faith, but while reading his book I found all of Locke's definitions to be worth my lifelong examination... he defines Freedom as "The Infinite Value Of The Human Being" and defines Evil as "The Destruction Of Freedom".
His book (if anyone has any interest in reading it) has a free pdf file here--- files.meetup.com/1332202/Natural%20Law%20And%20Sovereignty%20-%20End%20Of%20All%20Evil.pdf
Pretty good, even the most dense religious among us should be able to understand this.
I haven't met a Christian yet that can give a good reason to believe, even though the Bible says they are to. This includes me, when I was a Christian. The term "I know that I know" would be the ultimate answer, and now I understand the frustrated attitudes that I would get 😂. As Aron Ra likes to say, "If ya can't show it, ya don't know it".
Such a great video
I believe it was Archibald Bunker who said it best, "Faith is believing in something nobody in their right mind would believe in."
And he was defending faith! Lol
Appeal to faith is just another way of showing intolerance but in a benevolent manner.
Great ! I like your shows also !
I wish I had found this earlier. My mother is a deist. She believes in a "God" or "Gods" or a "Being" of some kind that she thinks influences her life. She thinks she can pray for help and get it (sometimes). She thinks that she can pray and that "God" will give her a sign. I have tried the Anthony Mangabosco Street epistemology questions, but at some point she just doubles down and says that it is her "belief". I think she just needs a crutch. She will even contradict herself, but she is somehow then able to bury her cognitive dissonance by the time we have our next talk or chat or phone call. It is very frustrating. She is not a true Christian, she was a teacher and agrees with the theory of evolution, but this one last cornerstone of her old belief system still remains.
She uses the equivocation fallacy with me a lot.
I want to get her to the point that she can throw the crutch away, but I do not want to kick it from under her either.
Her Brothers are Baptists and although she cannot stand how fanatic they have become, I think she still holds on to a little bit of her belief, because to not do so would in some way be forsaking the last piece of her brothers, who she can never admit have become total assholes.
“Things hoped for” is another way of saying “wish thinking”. So much of religions are hoping and wishing for something... but that doesn’t make it true!!! Religious people know this is correct outside of religious contexts. They are engaged is special pleading so often, and yet are not honest enough to see it.
In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ' you will keep on hearing , but will not understand ; you will keep on seeing , but will not perceive ; for the heart of this people has become dull , with their ears they scarcely hear , and they have closed their eyes , otherwise they would see with their eyes , hear with their ears , and understand with their heart and return , and I would heal them .'
Matthew 13:14-15 NASB