Why People Become Atheists w/ Fr. James Brent, OP | Episode
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2020
- Today on Pints with Aquinas, I'm joined by Fr. James Brent, O.P. Fr. James is professor of philosophy at the Dominican House of Studies, and one of the most brilliant, articulate, and convincing people I’ve ever met.
During this conversation, we dig into the philosophical soil in which atheism grows - particularly the materialist, mechanicist, nominalist, skeptic, and relativist worldviews so prevalent in our culture. We’ll tackle the BIG issues, like:
• Why saying there is a God or there is no God represent two radically different worldviews
• How atheism is, historically, a minority position, and what’s happened to change this minority position in modern times
• Why true science is actually neutral about the question of God’s existence
• Why it feels like you’re rejecting science when you reject materialism (HINT: You’re not!)
• The five negative positions that constitute “big tent” Platonism, and why this list is invaluable in discussions with atheists...
If you enjoy BIG conversations, then grab your notepad and pen because you’re really going to enjoy this episode!
Learn more about the Thomistic Institute here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Fr. James' talk, "Responding to Contemporary Atheism" can be found here: / responding-to-contempo...
SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
MY BOOKS
Does God Exist: www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist...
Marian Consecration With Aquinas: www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr...
The Porn Myth: www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt...
CONTACT
Book me to speak: www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequ...
--
Website - mattfradd.com
Facebook - mattfradd/
Twitter - mattfradd - Розваги
Matt Fradd, how dare you produce such a large volume of high quality content like this? How am I supposed to get anything done 😂😂😂
For real. I had midterms last week and couldn't stop listening even while studying.
Praise God for the Dominicans! Please keep making more of these great interviews with Fr. Gregory Pine OP and Fr. James Brent OP!
As a former atheist, I think you missed quite a few deeper reasons as to why people choose that path. And why the former Christians make for the strongest, most stubborn atheists. Great episode regardless.
I wish you could share more about these two ides.
Yea, you really need to elaborate. It would help a lot of ppl who are reading the comments. Can you please respond directly to me so I get your response. Thank you 😊
"And as a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred
people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have been reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?
"
C.S. Lewis
I certainly paid close attention while I was in the midst of it, for more than a thousand sermons in my formative years. I am curious: how many books by believers about belief would you guess that I have read? And, how many books by non-believers about non-belief have YOU read?
@@stephannaro2113
Thanks for the response.
You say, *"I certainly paid close attention"*. Do you think that that is the same thing as being *"reasoned out"* of faith?
In your first question to me, you indicate that you want me to play a guessing game. Fine, I'll guess. I don't imagine that you'd be asking if the answer were none or one. How about 15? And to the second question, 1 or 2. I have read Sam Harris's 'Letter to a Christian Nation' and Christopher Hitchens' memoir, 'Hitch-22'. The memoir however isn't much about unbelief.
@@samdg1234 Thanks to you, too. To be fair, I did not say that they were the same thing, but I hoped that my having paid attention, read books (pretty good guess - it's 24) , and for that matter watched a bunch of videos here on UA-cam and elsewhere, etc., etc., might satisfy you as to providing some considerable basis for doing MY OWN reasoning about these issues. (Admittedly I don't know if I'm going to bother watching this current video - I lost interest from watching a talk by Brent titled "Good, Evil, and Science" and listening to his talk on SoundCloud.)
Those 24 don't even include slugging my poor brain through Karen Armstrong's 550-page "A History of [the use of the word] God", in which she a) admits that Aquinas's "proofs" "don't hold water"; b) claims that clinging to the old theology "could involve a damaging loss of integrity"; c) thinks it "obvious that the imagination is the chief religious faculty"; d) sees "the idea of God as a symbol of a reality that [has] no existence in the usual sense of the word"; and e) "concludes" (early in the book) that "Since the Father is commonly presented as the End of the Christian quest, the Christian journey becomes a progress towards no place, no where and No One", ie, in my words, pointless. Of course, you may beg to differ with her - or with my use of her quotes. :-)
I have read neither of those two you have read, though Harris's Letter is supposed to be good. I do agree with Brent that atheism is dependent on a "worldview", but then so is theism. Our "worldviews" will form a Venn Diagram, eg both our "worldviews" include long-necked giraffes, so if I were to claim to have seen a short-necked giraffe, you would probably balk at my claim - based on the "prejudices" of your "worldview". Vice versa for any claim of bodiless minds, or Forms or whatever, made to me. My point being that I don't expect your mind to be changed by one book, any more than Brent, or Armstrong, expects my mind to be changed by a single argument. And my point about asking about books being that my experience is in the opposite direction of what Lewis's quote implies, ie religious people tend to be far more ignorant about religion than atheists are - polls apparently bear this out - and it is after all religious claims out of which atheism emerges. Nothing in my actual experience ever lead me to think about religion, only religious CLAIMS.
If I may suggest one book for my side of the debate, it would be David Eller's Natural Atheism. It's the best of not terribly many that I have read - probably between 5 and 10.
@Qwerty "formidable 24 book canon"
lol. I've encountered your type before. Even if I had read a total of 67200 in stead of 672 books, and 24000 books by believers on belief in stead of 24, you would still be capable of responding that way. That is, you'd still miss my point about knowing more than most believers - about both sides to the arguments.
As to contingency, I suggest that you go and ask Armstrong (or, from your perspective, go and persuade her) about the contingency argument. You'll be less hostile to her, so more open to learning from her, right?
@Qwerty :-) She doesn't provide an argument. :-)
G'day Everyone! Hope you are all doing well!
Here's the timestamps for specific conversation topics.
0:00 Introduction
4:10 Interview Starts
5:28 Deep Beliefs: Why so many are Atheist
9:20 Isn't it just because of Science?
11:45 Why Platonism is Important
.
14:22 The 5 Ideologies that Built Atheism
15:50 Anti-Materialism
16:48 Pervasiveness of Materialism
18:45 Anti-Mechanicism (and the Meaning of Life)
28:05 Anti-Nominalism
40:11 Helpful Example "Substantial Change"
45:22 Anti-Relativism
51:28 Dawkins and Relativist's Double-Standards
59:50 Matt's Anecdote about Relativism
1:00:47 Anti-Skepticism
1:04:00 Explaining the "Many" in terms of the "One
"
1:10:11 Modernist's Rebuttal
1:14:01 How to Raise Your Kids in an Atheistic Culture
1:18:43 One Simple Thing to Tell your Children
1:23:49 Resources to Learn more
1:28:10 Outro
Matt should do a video on the more ridiculous stories in The Bible. I say No sane adult can read the first 11 chapters of genesis and call TheBible "Credible". The Nile never turned into blood, that is a childish fairy tale. Real witches and wizards and spells DO NOT EXIST in the eyes of any healthy grown up. There was no magical moving star that could move and stop in place over a certain geographical point in Israel.
Matt, you are fantastic! I always thought that Saint Thomas Aquinas has a fantastic set of psychological teachings and his studies on the (nature of) conscience are very underrated but science is rediscovering it (thomistic psychology) nowadays.
It feels great that you invited Fr James Brent, who seems to be one of the Dominicans from Thomistic Institute more well versed or interested in psychological matters.
This would be really interesting, Matt.
Congratulations, from a friend in Brazil.
Hi all! Here's the link to Fr. James' talk "Responding to Contemporary Atheism": soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/responding-to-contemporary-atheism-fr-james-brent-op
I had a crush on Dr. James Brent when he was my professor at Saint Louis University. He's so smart and kind.
The purpose of this conversation with Matt Fradd was not to answer the evidentialist objection to theistic or Christian belief, but to outline and discuss a large-scale philosophical position called “big tent” Platonism and its bearing on atheism.
Regarding the phenomenon of people demanding evidence of Christian claims, a phenomenon which is already found in the life of Jesus and narrated in the Gospels, Thomas Aquinas says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, ch. 9: “When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil intention, to condemn it.” The act of requesting and investigating evidence, therefore, is morally ambiguous. It may signal a virtuous intention of the heart: the intention to find the truth. But it may also signal a vicious one: the intention to oppose the truth.
Now, since people are asking for evidence and reasons, here are a few things to consider.
Here is a talk in which I lay out one of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments for the existence of God: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/the-existence-of-god-fr-james-brent-op
Here is a talk in which I consider the evidentialist objection as such, and the role of evidence in the act of faith, according to Thomas Aquinas: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/fr-james-brent-op-uva-1-28
For a very different presentation of evidence for the existence of God, following a strategy rather different from Thomas Aquinas or my own, but which convinced the English philosopher and atheist Antony Flew, the book to read: The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese.
Could you provide a link to the talk on "big tent" Platonism promised in the discussion, please? I might have watched this today if I could find it. Thanks.
*“When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil intention, to condemn it."??* eh... no...
Sorry but, no; I think this idea sets a false dichotomy. First of all, this view already concludes that the *act of accepting the proposition* of Does God exists as to be true is the "Honest" with an open heart if you will, and *the act of not accepting or being convinced by it* as the one with "Evil Intentions". Example; IF someone were to propose that Donald Trump is the USA's Greatest President based on how much the economy improved during his firsts years in office, I would say "I'm sure that's enough evidence for you but, I am not convinced of the proposition or that I would attribute the better economy to President Trump". Do you really think then that the person making the proposition would be valid in replying to me _"Oh, you just don't want to believe because of your evil heart"?_ Would you accept such idea really?
Second, that's the same kind of arguments I have heard from Muslims as to why many people (which they include such as Christians, Atheists, and Jews) do not accept Islam, because of the evil in their hearts. I doubt you would agree with this Muslim sentiment.
Perhaps the level of evidence for the proposition of the existence of a "God" or the Christian God, in this case, is good enough for you to be convinced by it but, until the day theists, Christians or Muslims are willing to give evidence of the psychic powers into the "Evil Intentions" in the hearts of Atheists, frankly, I found your evidence lacking.
@Qwerty
care to prove it?
While I waited for that BTP talk, I watched your Good, Evil, and Science talk (ua-cam.com/video/7R2ch-FDPFg/v-deo.html), and left some comments over.
Thank you Father
Thank you Matt, for asking what can the rest of us folks do, who aren't philosophers and theologians, to protect our children who are bombarded with this from every side. Shows like PWA and courses like Aquinas 101 are certainly helpful, but the only reason I'm able to sit down and take notes nowadays is because I don't commute.
Thank you Fr. Brent for your reply. Telling us that we have to pray and be an example may sound cliche but I'm convinced that it's the most important.
I can't wait for the longer 3-4 hour interview. I do hope you can talk to Fr. White and Fr. Legge too.
I hope you would be nice to your kids even if any of them turn out atheist
Matt Fradd with that OP hookup
Love Fr. Brent!
Yeeah, great to see Dominicans on the show again
Hello all. I know it sounds crazy but I had a dream last night, and I don't dream so I feel compelled to say this to all of you. PLEASE pray the rosary as a novena preceding the Assumption of Mary. I think its most important for us. God bless.
Hello Mary Jo...I agree, I pray the Rosary everyday, my favourite prayer.
sure.....
@@JesusmySalvation my dream was an urgency to pray the rosary
Mary Jo Papaleo Have you spoken to a priest about this?
@@bobsmith-ff8co thanks for the suggestion
Where is his speech referred to in the video? I can't see it
Wow, what an excellent discussion, I learnt so much. Am going to look up all the talks on the Thomistic institute. Thanks Matt you always pull in the BIG GUNS !!!
This was a great philosophical explanation of atheism. Also good at showing the philosophical weaknesses of atheism.
I like this guy a lot.
What happened to the debate featuring Fr. Gregory Pine? I don't see it as premereing anymore.
No worries, he's still around. 🙂 Sometimes the friars have periods of time when they get *really* busy. They also have to fit in annual retreats and such.
I hope this helps me. I was raised as an atheist and I'm struggling a lot with faith now.
Being raised as an atheist is essentially not having religious biase forced upon you. If you told your parents you find comfort in the Christian religion, I don't believe they would love you less.
@@sushi0085 Im not concerned about my parents love for me I'm concerned about being able to will myself into faith.
@@alexk7046 I was in your shoes 2 years ago. Conversion was mentally agonizing after 12 years of an atheistic worldview and all the biases that come with it. But I could not deny truth.
My main advice to you is to keep asking questions. Catholicism has answers in droves and they form a coherent worldview. Once you realize Faith and Reason go hand in hand you will be at ease.
I know what you are afraid of. I'm here to tell you that you will find peace. It is worth it.
God bless you.
@@briansardinas1359 Encouraging. Thanks my man. If you have some spare time maybe say a lil prayer for me.
@@alexk7046 You got it!
I WANT TO SEE JAMES BRENT PROTECTING THE HOSTIA AGAIN LIKE HE DID IN 2017 DURING MY BIRTHDAY MONTH 😍
CS Lewis wrote a book/paper called Miracles: a preliminary study, which delved into this exact thing and is more for the layman than Gerson
*1)* Prior to the philosophy of “positivism” (which could be said to be the ‘epitome’ of Illuminism) getting in the way to explain what we call social sciences, pretty much every scientist or philosopher was a believer. Sociological and anthropological sciences were those that spread atheism to a degree of “ideological thinking”, to use an expression american political scientist Russell Kirk would use.
*2)* Just think. It is not only that those people were Catholic faithful (I’m not saying philosophers, only scientist), but I’m saying most of the truly important scientist were Catholic ordained and religious consacrated: 39 of the craters of the Moon are named after the Jesuit astronomers and priests that discovered them. Copernicus himself was a Catholic deacon. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a Catholic priest. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer and professor of physics, was the responsible for the “Big Bang” theory.
*3)* So probably the new Internet atheist fell to this ideology called “militant atheism”. I would go on here, but I recommend you the book of Dr. Thomas Woods Jr called “How the Catholic Church built the Western Civilization”, for information maybe our socialist History teacher refused to give us (if so, the same happened with my teachers in school). Specially in the Anglophonic world, anticatholicism seems to be an everlasting prejudice, specially if we make “faith” to be depicted as a caricature seen through fundamentalist lenses and the “fideistic worldview” on many of the Protestant denominations. That’s not how Catholics think faith and reason relate.
*4)* Please consider that faith is “intelectual” in the sense that only RATIONAL creatures can have it (dogs may be obedient to you, but they cannot be faithful, which means they can’t give any conscious assent). Yet it is another set of discussion on faith, and sacred theology (opposed to natural theology) has 36 Doctors of the Church who would prove you it is not tied to what Joseph Ratzinger theological studies would call “rationalism” hubris (or ideological exaggeration) but is entirely “rational” in the nature of exercising the mental faculties to understand truth it to its full extent. The reading of the “Fides et Ratio” ecclesiastical document is so important on these matters of the relation between faith and reason.
*5)* One may be right to point that atheistic scientists are the majority among contemporary academicians, but rather for me the matter is “cosmovisionary”. I mean: the cosmovision (what the Germans call “Weltanschauung”) in academic environment is strongly anti-theistic, even if the one particular academic is not as strongly devoted to the cause. Not only “non-theistic”. Positivism tried to express that the only true knowledge is the one able to be expressed through “scientific method” as demonstrable as in natural science. There is a true leap of faith is this worldview, since the scientific method for itself cannot prove the validity of the positivist claim. The phrase is not scientific, rather it is philosophical (or epistemological), which proves that this claim is false on its face or, in other words, it is ideological ‘stricto sensu’ (or guided by a subjective preference that is arbitrary).
*6)* The lapsing from faith is not anything new, although it is a novelty if atheism is actually the secured port found by the lapsed. In hostile environment to its development, flourishing and specially its own preservation, one would know from the Old Testament that Israel had hard times protecting its piety from idolatrous behaviors that were tempting to destroy the integrity of the revealed faith. So the same comes with the “worldly temptations” (intellectually speaking) nowadays: contemporary idolatry is pretty much centered in a kind of humanism that put mankind in the sole condition of defining its own path, but also the destine and the boundaries of essence and existence.
*7)* For me that proves 1) that these atheists (with all due respect) are endorsing the anti-intellectualist tradition of arbitrary cutting knowledge as the act of power and silencing antagonist claims on the disputant worldview; 2) the atheists on the Internet are lacking formation in essencial philosophical and mathematical knowledge.
*8)* And from this recent cosmovision comes the anti-theistic view that - by definition - comes (in itself) with some sort of dishonesty. Well, if only naturally observable (and empirically demonstrable and explainable) events through scientific method can be taken seriously as knowledge, then by definition any order or metaphysical (specially when we see it in its supernatural consequences or “above” the limits of knowledgeable nature through nature conditioning itself) is in fact dead. We kill it before the game even starts. It is the argument of the Yeti or the “Big Foot”: if the unmoved mover intellect has to be proved as the Big Foot for North-Americans or the Loch Ness beast for Scottish people, then it is arbitrarily knocked off on epistemological assassination. Unless this unmoved mover decided to express himself... - and that’s what we call Revelation not against metaphysics, but to a complementary sort of communication of truths.
*9)* To its fullest sense, Christianity (even better, Catholicism) is more than ever couter-cultural; it just makes a case for its intrinsic truths, pardon to say, on moral reasoning, but I don’t feel many of the Internet militant atheist are interested in moral philosophy, moral theology or in studying political morality to its philosophical intricate problems. Most pose like “science groupies”, with all due respect, and that comes as an ideological mindset or worldview, even though some of them really come with intelligent arguments.
That's the thing, Christianity was the only game in the town as they say.
You know what they did to non Christians? That's why most scientists a long time ago were theists, now i would say the mojarity of scientists are agnostic/atheists. Because we are free now.
@@masterchief8179 Atheism is growing, but as the Doctor said it is rare historically and a minority today. The internet atheist have gained momentum largely from the Apologist who begin using not a philosophic approach to the existence of God, but begin to claim scientific truths of God.
@@baselbilleh8555 no, I don't know what they did. Care to elaborate? And don't include Galileo, because that's a terrible example.
@@renjithjoseph7135 force them to Christianity 'or rock them to death or kill them in other ways. So you were either Christian or dead.
This is well discussed in Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” - any other book recommendations that discuss this topic?
Nice having two apologists describe what atheist scientists think.
Right? Have they not heard of a straw man? Or arguing from ignorance?
Decided to go to the comments before the 3 minute mark. Suspicions confirmed. Who would have thought. I’ll skip the rest of the video
Is more of one theist philosopher describing historical philosophical positions and their opposites
It’s called *playing devil’s advocate*
Well, for most atheists, their worldviews are undeniably embedded into these positions whether they acknowledge it or not. Or maybe they aren’t that consistent about it.
I listen to these things to get an understanding of theism, because I understand that religions could be true, but there are so many assumptions made that I don't agree with.
For example, they are currently speaking about how to talk to children, and that you should say "there is more to life than meets the eye" "you have an immortal soul" etc.
My first thought is that me, as a child, would say "how do you know that" which I think is a fair question. Then I think of the many unsatisfactory answers I've been given, such as "the bible explains it" to which I say " how do you know it's accurate" and we get into the many unsatisfactory answers I've heard about that.
Personally, there's always another "how do you know that" as we answer these questions until I'm told "you just need to have faith" and that's where I say "i think I'd rather just accept that I don't know, rather than have faith, because faith has clearly lead much of the world to the wrong religion (they can't all be true).
And that's where I stand. I don't know what's true, but that's ok. If your religion says I'll be punished for this position, I can't change that, but I can't just believe by sheer will alone, I don't control what I am convinced of, and ultimately that's why a wholeheartedly disagree with many of the assumptions about "why I'm an atheist" made in this video.
I'm atheist because I'm not convinced there's a god. That doesn't mean I know the truth of the matter. It's just another bit of information I don't know, such as "are there intelligent lifeforms elsewhere in the universe?". I don't believe that intelligent aliens exist, but that's very different from saying "intelligent lifeforms don't exist anywhere else".
I simply don't know, so I'm not going to subscribe to your entangled beleifs, such as this god is controlling everything. It's not because I think that all things have naturalistic or materialistic answers, it's because I won't attribute things thst happen in out natural world to something I'm not sure exists.
This is the best comment on this entire thread. Sums up my position exactly as well.
Atheism is not all these “isms” its just....I’m unconvinced that a god exists because the arguments lead to different conclusions so they are not reliable pathways to truth.
They can’t all be right.....but they could all be wrong haha
@@xaviervelascosuarez I don't agree. If I could choose to believe something, or someone, I would agree with you, but I just don't think that's possible. Perhaps I subconsciously choose, but I don't think I'm actually controlling the choice.
Can you choose your beliefs? Or can you choose to believe a source, like you suggested? These are serious questions, I'm honestly curious if your experience is different than mine.
For example- if I were to tell you "I own a pure bred wolf called Tina" when you read that sentence, do you actually make a choice in your belief? Because, personally, I either believe someone, or I don't. As they say more, perhaps they would show me a picture of the wolf, maybe I would believe, but I can't just choose to believe, or not to believe.
It's the same with life in the universe, I don't know your position on this, but attempt to choose otherwise. Can you do that?
Can you switch your beliefs by choice, because this has always fascinated me. Many people, atheist, theist, whatever, most people seem to think that they choose their beliefs, but I don't understand why people think that's true.
I'm not sure that justice is real naturalism seems to make it an illusion we like. Science cannot see it. I do not see justice by looking at this world I don't think it can be established that the world should conform to our desires. Our sense of justice could be useful biologically but not a reflection of reality. Or made by humans in it's 1st principles we are told to just accept them based on insight but there is no guarantee this is accurate. In fact in a naturalistic frame work it seems to be a thing that dosn't fit. We may like it but if it is an illusion would we not have to give it up? If the ideas contained in justice do not exist until human minds were formed then it appears that it could not be part of reality.
@@creatinechris That logic would seem to lead to saying there are many views on ethics and so because the arguments lead in many different directions they are not reliable pathways to truth. So one would then say I am unconvinced ethics/morality/justice exist (post-modernism) if they cannot be established by argument better than any for God or any type of god then unless reasoning should be different on different issues with a good reason why then then morality/ethics should be approached with the same skepticism. Also unless there is a moral authority in nature then morality would seem to have to be made up and there would be no objective rule to measure different systems by even if we have trouble grasping what exactly it is.
@@zacbrown2357 you are speaking as if abstract concepts don't exist just because they are in our minds. Taste didn't exist until there were minds, does that mean it's not part of reality? I guess that depends on how you define reality, but personally, I think taste exists, don't you?
I have no idea of the specific reasons you are going to lay out, but I'll put my cards on the table up front.
I am an atheist. I because an atheist because at about 8~ years old I asked my grandfather how living forever in heaven doesn't get boring, and he dismissed me. I then asked my sunday school teachers the same thing, and they dismissed me. After that I just didn't take church/sunday school seriously at all. When I was 12 I got forced to do bible study classes, and I basically just sat in the corner and went to sleep. The bible didn't interest me, the people there didn't interest me and the religion as a whole definitely didn't interest me. And at that point in my life, I thought everyone else was religious. Most the kids I talked to went to church, and because I've never really been one to bring up personal topics in conversation, the kids that didn't never mentioned that they didn't go to church.
For me, I just sort of fell into atheism. There was no deep philosophical study, no midnight revelations, it purely came about because at base I find the idea of a God to be a bit silly, not unlike how I find people who think they can do various forms of magic to be a bit silly. I'll throw an edit in if I feel like I need to address anything specific, but that about sums up why I became an atheist.
Boredom comes from not having reached our final end and results often from our flaws. All the things and beauty and truth you have grasped is a drop in the ocean. If drinking in that drop has provided many moments lacking in boredom. A multi universe full of oceans would sustain your for how long? Also if you are bored by a sunset that's partially a problem with you and your perspective. Sunsets are awe inspiringly beautiful and should never get boring.
@@zacbrown2357 It doesn't matter how long that ocean can hold your attention, the problem comes after that. Sunsets sure are beautiful, but how many do you think you could see before that beauty was unable to hold your full attention? Or potentially even worse, when everything is beautiful all the time and there is no ugliness or even mediocrity to break up the experience.
Loved the discussion, but the audio from Fr. Brent was nearly impossible to make out. Maybe this will propel you into your NEXT episode with Father -preceded by a sound check.
Matt, as an atheist I like and respect your content. Your the only online theist that actually tries not to strawman the atheist's position.
bbSeal Who are some others. I’d be curious to take a listen.
@@bbseal6174 True, I shouldn't speak on all online theists without seeing them all. I should have said the only one of the 30 or so theistic /apologetic channels I have seen that tries not to strawman.
As a (Metaphysical/Philosophical/Spiritual) Naturalist, I'd like to thank you for the very informative and interesting talk!
Being a former believer, I was almost directly (but not immediately) deconverted due to the "Problem of Evil" by Epicurus. It took a few years to deconvert, only after I had watched many Atheist vs. Theist debates, and found the Atheist arguments to be stronger. But the one that really got me, was that I realised that I was a Determinist. A Soft Determinist to be exact, as I believe in the "illusion" of Free Will. "free will only exists when defined as the capacity to act according to one's nature".
Great job! Really enjoyed it!
@Constance Constance, you are the umpteenth person to say this. if what you say is true, please PROVE that Athens, Rome, etc. did not have democracy or a republic before Christian missionaries arrived in Europe. I am still waiting.
I love the Aquinas 101 series, I think they are the best philosophy videos on the internet!
Really interesting but poor volume...
Fr. Brent is great. Ask him about "Sheriff John Brown and the Shake Wells"
Definitely recommend listening to Fr. Brent's talk "responding to contemporary atheism" from the thomistic institute
Idk who you hire to help with the PwA brand but they need to step it up. The audio for Fr Brent on this video and the audio-only podcast is horrible and easily fixed in Audacity or whatever video-editing software you're using.
Great content though
Agreed.
Matt, please have Fr. James on again. Maybe limit the scope to more specific topic, and perhaps a debate with a skeptic.
217 episodes and you couldn’t fix his audio
When arguing with an atheist us Christians also have the challenge as in not trying to make him or her feel stupid about atheism as trying to be the alpha of the debate, but to convince them of God and his goodness which has to come from a place of humility. Which is the most difficult part especially if the atheist is not being cordial themselves.
Hilarious comment :-)
I identify as a 9 year old. Because at 10 years old I would have to wear a mask
Thank you Father you have clarified the assertion I recently heard that there is no male or female since we all have various levels of hormones, causing each of us to be a unique gender.
As to the woman quote what would she be before puberty or after menopause?
God bless you and the Virgin protect you both
The claim isnt that there isnt male and female. Its that gender is different from biological sex. You can be male but be a woman because humans brains sexually differentiate seperately from your genitals.
That's old hat. I'm a new gender every day. Because no day is like the other and my hormones are different from one day to the next. And I feel different. It's like Heraclitus, who said you can't jump in the same river twice.
So, commenting before I watch the video here but to answer your question....ask an atheist. They will usually have no problem telling you why they believe what they do (or don't).
You say the soul can account for a bunch of things but can you account for the soul? Plus you said the soul accounts for free will but we know that animals such as dogs have free will but I think you would say a dog doesn't have a soul so how does that work?
They wouldn’t say a dog wouldn’t have a soul, they have sensitive souls, but not rational souls. But also, how do we know that dogs have free will?
One of the key reasons I became a patron is because you consistently push back on your guests and try to steelman the non-theistic or non-Catholic argument. I find that your pushback brings out a much more robust, profound answer from your guests, which is ultimately more interesting and helpful. So much of Christian or Catholic apologetics is dunking on the weakest form of an argument, and that gets us, and those who disagree with us, nowhere.
Eh, it's a pretty mild steelman at best. More like a paper-thin tinman. I'll admit Fradd does at least make an effort to understand the opponent's argument, but I think it is more a gentlemanly gesture or rhetorical tactic than it is a genuine attempt to consider the opponent's arguments.
I think it would be very interesting to see Matt flip for an episode and make the opponent's argument.
So good, shame audio is so bad
I liked that you pushed back on the justification for euthanasia. It's a shame that you accepted the counter argument that people might want it because of limited resources. As an atheist, I'd hate it if people felt forced to euthanize because of limited resources. That's not what I'd call a "good death". The same argument of autonomy is used for abortion. You are the boss of your own belly.
If a "right" to access euthanasia is truly about bodily choice, then, in principle, there should be no limitations or governmental restrictions on who can access such a procedure. Given this, it would mean that all who desire euthanasia should be allowed to access it in the name of bodily autonomy. That means heart-broken teenagers, young burn victims who will largely recover, those with dementia, the lonely, and people with minor (relative to the extreme cases of never-ending excruciating pain that are often used to wedge this issue open) physical maladies like an amputated limb or being deaf.
If one rejects such permissive access to euthanasia (and most do) then what is revealed is that advocates of euthanasia don't really believe in bodily autonomy but rather are making a judgement about the worthiness of the lives of others. On this view, some like the heart-broken teenager or burn victim are worthy of suicide prevention, while others like the person at end of life are not worthy and therefore get suicide assistance. Who do you push over the ledge and who do you pull back? How can any human make such a judgement of the value of others? This kind of thinking ultimately creates a two-tiered society with those who aren't offered suicide prevention occupying the bottom tier.
In my comment I'm not imputing motives to you in particular, just laying out the implications of your view and speaking about what I suspect are the views of many advocates, generally.
You should get Lloyd Gerson or some other Platonist on the show.
There's a very simple reason scientific study and faith worship can be harmonious, but not mixed: the scientific method is agnostic. It doesn't say anything about God as something that can be scrutinised. It also doesn't conclude exclusive materialistic factors as triggering the existence of the universe.
Both materialist and theist thinkers can, however, use science effectively and draw similar conclusions about what can be known within its limitations (the forensic study of history, the elements, engineering, geology, biology, chemistry etc). While one may suspect the universe and its natural laws come from a different form/dimension of natural law, another can say think it comes from the study of a great and orderly complex machine from a creative mind. It's those preconceived theories, beliefs, ideas about what caused the universe that stem into philosophies that are at loggerheads with one another, not science. That is the big questions such as where did we come from, what is the purpose to life, what is our ultimate fate etc. It's how we answer these types of questions that have us at odds with one another, not the basic fundamentals of scientific study.
So yes, you can believe in angels and demons, and still be one of the finest engineers, chemists or astronomers. If however you try to argue the world is flat and use bad science to convince others of the same fallacy, then that's a separate entity from working within science while worshiping the creating, personal God of scripture.
@Gengonglike Arbukle I'm not sure if you know what you mean here. Agnostic is not a belief in God, its the acknowledgement that we simply don't know. Science says nothing on the matter of God other than allowing us to determine whether there's evidence of a creator. Saying there is no God is like saying there no alien life. If you're talking about something that's metaphysical, then saying 'science is atheist' is in error of what science is. Science is simply a tool used to expand our knowledge about the universe and doesn't take opinions. It says nothing about metaphysics or whether nature making nature can be a thing.
Fradd's frequent interruptions of Fr. Brent become taxing.
Not an iota of evidence has crossed my path for a god, simple.
Take on Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience. Save the souls!
Ok, actual atheist here... Let me point out some things that are wrong here.
1) The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with how many people have beloved it. While it is true that atheism has been an extreme minority position, so is the germ theory of disease.
2) The assertion that atheism is feasible only when you subscribe to philosophical naturalism is simplistic. People believe what they do for a wide variety of reasons. If you asserted that all theists believe what they do because of platonism it would be equally absurd.
3) While not directly stated, there is a false dichotomy created here between naturalism and platonism.
4) Throughout this talk intellectual atheists are characterized incorrectly and strawmaned. Many atheists reject moral relativism for example, and few take a hard line on materialism, mechanisism or nominalism. Frankly these concepts don't matter at all to most atheists.
5) In philosophy as well a science an assertion is not evidence. Simply stating your rejection of certain concepts is not the same thing as making an argument. The few times an argument is presented to support the positions represented here the argument is laughably weak.
6) The reason why most atheists are atheists in my experience does have a philosophical root, but it's not in naturalism but in empiricism. In other words a claim must be supported by evidence and truth value is determined by the adherence of a proposition to sensory experience. The proposition "God exists" doesn't require me to have a philosophical common ground to accept provided there is evidence for the proposition. If the proposition has no evidence, then no amount of epistomalogical contortionism will make the statement more convincing.
All in all... If you want to know why atheists (or anyone) believes what they do... ASK THEM! These guys have the feel of someone who has never had an honest conversation with an atheist.
Thanks so much for this comment. As an atheist, I like listening to these videos because it’s a good window into the minds of theists to understand their impressions of atheism. I have definitely heard cringier discussions with even more strawmen, and this was fairly middle-of-the-road in that respect, but it’s always intriguing when theists focus on philosophical naturalism as if it’s the competing view against theism. As if it's some bedrock tenet of atheism. I don’t know of any atheists who are philosophical naturalists, probably because there is an equal lack of evidence for philosophical naturalism being true as their is for god being true; both seem to be untestable claims. Also, even if naturalism were disproven tomorrow, there would still be no positive evidence for a god.
Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is a non-metaphysical view that is simply based on empiricism and falliblism that has given us cars, computers, medicine, etc, and is the basis for everything people believe *except* their religious beliefs. Atheists just don't allow for that exception, and we want the same evidence for theist/supernatural claims before we'll believe, just like for everything else we believe. I consider it simply to be intellectual consistency.
Atheists just want evidence for theist claims. We tend not to have any particular position on metaphysics or ultimate reality, because basically none of those claims would have evidence, no matter the position. It really varies by person, but we all do want evidence and:
1. Conceptual arguments whose premises cannot be demonstrated to be sound are not evidence.
2. Arguments from incredulity and arguments from ignorance are not evidence. "We still can't explain how X works. I can imagine G, which if it exists would be sufficient to explain X, and so this is evidence that G exists." No, it's not evidence.
3. Emotional appeals about how unsatisfying an alternative position is, are not evidence.
4. Subjective interpretations of personal experiences are not evidence.
5. Faith is not evidence.
These have all been demonstrated to be unreliable paths to truth, and so atheists do not value them. We do not find such arguments compelling or useful.
The best form of evidence is novel future testable predictions, based on some claim or hypothesis, which are tested and borne out, and can be documented and demonstrated repeatedly by multiple people or groups to provide specific and positive evidence for one hypothesis to the exclusion of others. If you can give me anything like that for a god, then I'll believe. If you can provide evidence in some other way, that can be shown to be a reliable method to separate real from imaginary, then I'll believe.
Thank you for your points, and the chance to clarify. They deserve a reply.
1) The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with how many people have beloved it. While it is true that atheism has been an extreme minority position, so is the germ theory of disease.
I am not advancing the argument that atheism is false because it is or once was a minority position. Matt and I are staking out what big-tent Platonism is, and what bearing it has on the phenomenon of atheism.
2) The assertion that atheism is feasible only when you subscribe to philosophical naturalism is simplistic. People believe what they do for a wide variety of reasons. If you asserted that all theists believe what they do because of platonism it would be equally absurd.
I agree with your points, but I do not advance the claim that atheism is feasible to someone ONLY IF that person subscribes to philosophical naturalism (or materialism or physicalism), but rather IF increasingly larger numbers of people in society go in for naturalism and materialism, and especially IF such naturalism is widely claimed be justified in the name of science, then atheism seems increasingly more plausible to the minds of many people.
3) While not directly stated, there is a false dichotomy created here between naturalism and platonism.
I agree concerning specific forms of platonism, such as platonism about numbers or abstract objects, but big-tent Platonism as it was staked out in the interview was historically developed to be and, is intended to be, a comprehensive anti-naturalism.
4) Throughout this talk intellectual atheists are characterized incorrectly and strawmaned. Many atheists reject moral relativism for example, and few take a hard line on materialism, mechanisism or nominalism. Frankly these concepts don't matter at all to most atheists.
In the show, I acknowledge that non-theists propose various theories of objective morality, but whether any of them works is another question. Individual Preference Utilitarianism is one example we take up in the show. As for the other points, see reply to 6.
5) In philosophy as well as science an assertion is not evidence. Simply stating your rejection of certain concepts is not the same thing as making an argument. The few times an argument is presented to support the positions represented here the argument is laughably weak.
Obviously, assertion is not evidence, and stating rejection of a position is not argument. But in philosophy and science it is proper for there to be moments not only for supplying evidence and argumentation, but also moments simply for staking out positions and narrating points of view with a minimal amount of argumentation going on. The larger and more comprehensive a position is, the longer such moments of simple elaboration must be, with a minimal amount of argumentation on particular points, and that was the undertaking in this show. If you seek point by point argumentation for the five negative positions, then there are two things to say. First, lots of others have already done the work on each of the negative positions. Second, there are ways to justify a philosophical position otherwise than by attempting to justify individual propositions involved in it one by one. Philosophies, especially propositionally complex large-scale ones, can be justified AS A WHOLE by virtue of their total power to make sense of all things and other signs confirming it AS A WHOLE, and big-tent Platonism is such a large-scale philosophy. IMO, when it comes to such large-scale philosophies, epistemic holism is a better way to go. But Matt wanted to discuss them point by point just a little.
6) The reason why most atheists are atheists in my experience does have a philosophical root, but it's not in naturalism but in empiricism. In other words a claim must be supported by evidence and truth value is determined by the adherence of a proposition to sensory experience. The proposition "God exists" doesn't require me to have a philosophical common ground to accept provided there is evidence for the proposition. If the proposition has no evidence, then no amount of epistomalogical contortionism will make the statement more convincing.
Yes, I grant that holding a variant of empiricism (or rationalism for that matter) without naturalism, materialism, physicalism can set one up for many doubts about or denials of the existence of God. I know it quite well, since I was once there myself. And I have seen it I many of my students down through the years. We can call it merely skeptical agnosticism or merely skeptical atheism, and it hangs everything on evidentialism. (David Hume is the forerunner of it.) And I grant that merely skeptical agnosticism and atheism is widespread. But my experience has been different from yours in one respect. I have known many atheists and agnostics (especially professors) who were not merely skeptical or merely Humean. They not only deny or doubt the existence of God for empiricist reasons, but justify their claims as probable on physicalism, and physicalism as probable on the totality of contemporary science. You can see examples if you look at William Lane Craig debates with various professors. The prevalence of such metaphysically loaded atheism makes things much harder for all the merely skeptical agnostics and atheists out there to find the evidence they seek, for the metaphysically loaded atheism commonly lurks in the back of our minds, often undetected, coloring everything with its own interpretation of everything and working as a defeater for otherwise good evidence of the existence of God and divine revelation.
Historically and culturally, atheism and materialism commonly go together. As materialism has advanced so has atheism, e.g. Marx, Freud, and now the physicalist project that dominates universities and has been influencing our society for some time now.
Now, for all that has been said, if neither naturalism nor materialism nor physicalism nor theism are the truth about things, then what is? If one were to maintain that such a question either cannot be answered or is likely never to be answered, then we have arrived at the sort of skepticism that big-tent Platonism opposes and to which it offers an alternative. For the big-tent Platonist, beyond all particular truths, there is eternal Truth, the eternal Truth is accessible to us in some measure, and so there is good reason to hope for a happy glimpse of it. Seek God.
@@fr.jamesdominicbrento.p.735 This was a nice read, thanks for writing this. Again, though, I think it comes down to the point that claiming that a god exists involves making a claim about the physical world. Claims about the physical world require physical evidence in support, and to date there has been no good evidence. So, atheists who are empiricists don't believe.
You can claim that there are non-physical attributes of god, or of Platonic ideals, but we currently have no ability to observe, test, confirm or deny anything non-physical. In other words, I'm not aware of any *reliable tools* we have that can show these ideas correspond to reality in any way. Whether or not they actually exist, so far, they appear to be things that people have imagined. The tools that theists do proffer seem to be unreliable fallacies.
I agree that there is probably an eternal Truth, an ultimate necessary substrate of reality. Right now, we don't appear to be able to study or confirm such a thing. We can't say if it's one property, or seven, or infinite. We can't say if it has a mind or not. And so I will reserve belief (i.e. not believe in any gods) in the face of thousands of different contradictory claims that seem to be no more than products of our colorful imagination.
Again, thanks for your comment. It was a nice summary of the discussion in the video.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Thanks William. Glad you saw the reply to the six points because I was just about to let you know I posted it. Sorry to reply to multiple posts of yours in one, but when I look over the points in your philosophy and verification strategies, I notice that the whole domain of testimonial knowledge is missing. Now, it is impossible for humans to live functional lives in the world, or for scientists to practice their research and share their results with each other, without us all taking many things on testimony from other people whom we can call witnesses or experts. Where were you born? How do you know? How do you or anyone know anything about history? How does anyone learn a scientific discipline or a foreign language? If you scan your own beliefs and learning processes, you will realize just how much you (and all of us) take on the word of witnesses. If you are willing to expand your epistemology just a little bit to accommodate for the universal and quite reasonable practice of taking things on testimony, then many new possibilities open up for learning truth and forming reasonable beliefs. For you agree that there is eternal Truth. If so, then it is POSSIBLE that the eternal Truth has given us testimony about himself (including the claim that the eternal Truth is personal, not just something but Someone), and that we can take the testimony of the eternal Truth at his word. So, I think we agree that there is eternal Truth, and agree that an epistemology limited to scientific forms of verification alone won’t gain for us further knowledge of the eternal Truth or its secrets, but I disagree that we humans are limited to scientific forms of verification alone. Testimony is a huge part of leading a rational life, and the path of testimony offers a reasonable way to learn of the eternal Truth from the eternal Truth if the eternal Truth were to speak to us. The big question becomes whether and where and how the eternal Truth speaks to us.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Thanks for saying what I was thinking. I also felt that Fr. James was constructing a strawman in many regards and arguing against odd positions that most atheists do not hold.
Try inviting Katherine Devorak to your show!
Oh boy, only a few minutes in. I hope James isn't implying God belief is true because people throughout a majority of history has held one. We thought and still think to a certain extent, that the only way to deal with group/society/tribe conflict is to do physical battle with people. Should we continue this or should we keep going the route of figuring better ways of nonviolent diplomacy? We morph our beliefs as a whole by how the sphere of influence we have makes sense of reality. To me it makes sense that the more we are globally connected, the less religious we become (especially holding to one in particular) , the more we are learning about the cosmos, the less God becomes a gap filler.
I'll keep listening though, maybe I have misunderstood what he's trying to say. Oh and the theist isn't crazy for holding on, it makes sense and we get the reasons why religion "works". The non-believer just only capable of holding non-cognitivism for so long.
@Qwerty - me and a whole rising number of people. So in 7000 years, let's just say, really just try to imagine and not just knee jerk, Christianity is now a super minority of people, now is wrong?
@Qwerty - Though I don't like to use the label atheist, I do not believe in God, I have three kids, had a still born child at 22 weeks we chose to carry even though we knew it most likely wouldn't make it. Your demonstrably ignorant statement can be thrown out.
@Qwerty - and yet you replied to me initially with a statistic... weird.
Qwerty - ok then. Please provide reference to your claim that most all atheists are childless (and most because of aborting babies). Is like to see that paper/study/poll.
Qwerty - then there’s this. Interesting bit about religious affiliation & abortion. My hunch not a big of factor as income status, but hey.
www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014#
I don't think most people that are atheist became atheist, they just realized it.
Atheism is nihilism at its heart. If there is no god or gods, existence has no meaning. It’s just accident after accident after accident that some how made living breathing sentient being that are nothing more than biological meat machines that’ll fade away and died. That’s what an atheist world view is. Don’t need a spaghetti monster to tell you right from wrong? Well of course, because morality is subjective and valueless.
Thankful because of philosophers, theologians, advancement in science, and person revelation we know life has meaning and there is a plan.
@@mrm4sherman271 Nope! It's not inventing an explanation like you just did.
It would also be fruitful to look into speaking on this topic with actual atheists, like Dr. Paul Draper and Dr. Graham Oppy
Great point
+1. I'm an atheist and found this conversation lacking in a lot of necessary context.
@PuraguCryostato Of course not, but I am not sure the typical atheist leaves for the deeply philosophical reasons in the video, so might be useful to hear all sides of opinion
Reach out to Matt Dillahunty. Atheist experience in Austin texas. Very rational logic based argument for humanists morals and secular reasoning.
Matt Dillahunty.
As an atheist I don't agree with these conclusions about my atheism. I fully understand that the supernatural could exist, and I also fully understand that there are many things I don't know, such as "what is conciousness" or "is there a cause for the universe existing". My position is that there are many answers I can't conclude with my current understanding of the world, whether a god exists is just one such limitation of my understanding.
To hear these people just speculate about my thoughts, and think they have it all sorted out is insulting. I don't claim to know the mind of theists, please give me the same respect and ask questions rather than making assumptions
@Qwerty care to elaborate? Which positions am I unaware of holding?
@Qwerty well, that's the thing, you call it a rejection of god, but I would actually be very happy to accept god if I knew they existed, I'm just not convinced that they do, so I don't think it's fair to call it rejection.
Think of it this way, if it helps- let's say that the moon begins a strange wobble. I claim that there is a large structure of ice on the dark side of the moon that can't be detected with sensors causing this wobble, and that we should send a giant mirror up to melt the ice.
You say "hold on a second, we don't know if this alleged ice is the problem"
I reply "well, what do you think is causing the wobble"
You say "I don't know, but I'm not convinced it's ice, so maybe we should wait till we have more information before taking action"
I say "i don't know why you are rejecting the reality of this ice"
That's my position, I can't reject something that I'm not convinced exists.
We can talk about nominalism if you want, I don't think it accurately describes me at all, but I'm happy to answer any questions about my views of reality.
Basically, I live my life based on what I think is real, like just about everyone else. I try to only believe things which are evidently true, because I've believed plenty of false things throughout my life, and it only caused problems. That doesn't mean I've made up my mind, hence why I'm here watching a Christian youtibe channel.
@Qwerty my likes and dislikes? What debate? I think something has been lost in translation between the two of of us, because you're right, that makes no sense, I don't know why you brought it up.
This video speculates about why atheists become atheists. I'm an atheist, and I'm explaining that the assumptions made in this video about me are incorrect. It would be like me making a video about why theists become theists, speaking with another atheist and saying
"yeah, they just don't want to accept reality as it is, so they hold onto these fantasies" then my guest says
"yes, it's rooted in their deep desires to have complete understanding of the world, so when they face questions they don't know, they accept the first answer they are given"
"ah, yes, I never thought of it that way, thanks for coming on the show, I'm glad we really got to the bottom of this"
That's not what I think of theists, I'm just trying to communicate the problem I have with this video, how instead of asking an atheist "why did you become an atheist" they just assume they know, but completely miss the mark on so many points that it's insulting.
@Qwerty this is more like 2 doctors discussing the broken leg I don't have. Absolute fantasy. You clearly have no interest in hearing what I have to say, it sounds like you already think you know why I believe what I believe, even though I'm telling you specifically that's not why.
Just believe what you want to believe about me then, goodbye
@Qwerty you haven't even asked by beliefs, that's what makes this so illogical. What these people claim I believe, I don't, but don't trouble yourself searching for truth, just believe whatever makes you feel good I suppose
The valid and verified evidence for your ‘god’ thing is what exactly?
I ask as a atheist who used to be a Catholic until I realised how many absurd lies the Catholic Church had been telling me.
Non-material existence is incoherent. If angels and demons exist, they have a substrate for their thoughts, a way to hear the commands of God, or Satan, and a way to communicate with humans. They don’t have to be made of anything like the elementary particles we know, but they have to consist of something. That something, that ectoplasm, when discovered, will be a new sort of material.
EDUCATION
Her eon youtube you should all type in "The Case against the resurrection".
Atheism is not the position "god does not exist" it's "I'm not convinced that a god exists" why is this so hard for theists to understand.
@@bbseal6174 I'd hate to drag out this old analogy but it help in this issue. If you collect stamps and I don't, I am a non-stamp collector. It doesn't help if you start to claim that I am an anti stamp collector or I don't believe stamps exist. Not collecting stamps is the default position just as atheism is. Being an atheist is not a positive statement of any position.
On an aside agnosticism and atheism are not on the same spectrum, they describe two very different things.
@@bbseal6174 just to be really specific agnosticism deals which what you claim to know. So you could be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist and the same for athiesm.
This guy is claiming that the issue is "there is a god or there is no god". Which is not the issue at all. The issue is that the theist says "there is a god" and the atheist says "I don't believe you" which is an entirely different thing than saying "there is not god"
@Qwerty correct it is, which is entirely different from saying "god does not exist".
@Qwerty it is by definition not an assertion. If you are accused of a crime and the jury declares that you are found not guilty, does that mean you are innocent? No!
The jury is not asserting your innocence just that they are not convinced of your guilt. Atheists are not assurting there is no god, they are saying those who say it exists have not presented a convincing case.
@Qwerty it's an analogy to illustrate a point. A point that has obviously been lost on you. I'm sorry I tried to explain what athiesm actually is but if you want to continue to argue against a strawman of atheism then you will continue to be unconvincing to atheists.
I took Holy Communion with the Dominican Order in Italy pregnant.
WHEAT FROM ITALY IS FOOD TO THE ONE I LOVE
Wow
I would say one of my primary objections to Christianity (or almost any religion) is that believers seem to be making a category error. The Bible and the Quran (and many other books) are very clearly mythology. Mythology is useful and powerful in it's own way, but it's still a myth. I wouldn't live my life by mythology, no matter how modern it is.
Yeah I’m further in. I’m not sure this conversation is helpful other than to the already convinced why the non-believer is unconvinced. I am limited in my own experience, but when I lost my faith, I didn’t quickly turn, nor does this “platonic religion” that seems to be the necessary position of the atheist, what make sense or is the tent pole I have risen in the gap of no god. Sure you may see a trend, but for me this chat is mostly aggravating because, you probably guess the cliche, strawman.
Ok - around 13:00... what do you mean by accidental? So we as humans, have water it’s name for the liquid form of H2O. Is it an accident that it’s in gas or solid form elsewhere in the universe unless put into an atmosphere like condition. Seems like the argument is that things have a real true state and that we have the words to describe it. I don’t think this is how language works. Seem like the imaginary cart before the horse.
"Atheism had a very small minority position through history". Yes the threat of death was particularly good at making the heretics realise they actually do believe in God :)
I'm sorry to say this is a very short sighted comment. If you study the western tradition of philosophy belief in first causes was the norm. For example take a look at all the Pre-socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, ect.
OK but there were plenty of "heretics" that believed in other deities. The real issue is that atheism has no coherent cultural, moral, or philosophical position except in relation to the dominant norm. Atheism *requires* a pre-existing belief system which is subsequently rejected. There are exactly zero cultures, out of thousands, or possibly millions, in the vast history of mankind that were atheist from the start.
Theist leave athiest no alternative .
So many straw men. So little time. I’ll just take a whack at one, shall I?
Atheism isn’t born of materialism. There are many Buddhists, for example, that believe in no god, but believe in reincarnation, which presupposes something beyond the material to reincarnate. You could also, theoretically, believe in a material god, such as Zeus, and be a materialistic theist. So that entire argument falls apart.
The real issue is, as much as you want to tie atheism to a philosophical movement, you can’t. It’s a non-belief, and non-beliefs don’t require the non-believer to subscribe to any particular belief system.
I don’t have to be a logical positivist just because I don’t believe in Bigfoot.
@bv4n Why is it?
Thank you for your point. It is possible for someone to deny the existence of God and affirm there exists immaterial entities (and so not be a materialist). And I made that point in a section of the video that was cut, since it was not very clear. So, to clarify things here, someone might affirm the existence of numbers or possible worlds as immaterial actualities and deny the existence of God. Or someone might affirm that the human soul is an immaterial substance and deny the existence of God. There are other examples that could be given. But such positions, it seems to me, are rather exceptional in contemporary western societies. Materialism (in a specific variant called physicalism) is currently the dominant and most widely held position in western philosophy (and other disciplines), and so in our society disputes about atheism commonly come up against a commitment to materialism of one form or another in the background. Marx, Freud, and many other prominent and influential atheists are materialists.
Fr. James Dominic Brent, O.P. I really think you’re confusing methodological naturalism, which is the prevailing modern view, with philosophical naturalism, materialism, and physicalism, which who even espouses any more because it’s as unverifiable as theism. They are easy straw men to knock down, but I don’t know of any modern atheists who hold those positions.
Kinda disappointed that I haven't heard one word on the most prominent reason why an atheist says they are an atheist, the reason being
"There seems to be inssufficient evidence for God's existence."
@PuraguCryostato "not the scope of this research study"
It's literally in the title of the video lol.
I wouldn't fault them if they haven't mentioned some far-out abstract reason why people become atheists, but it is literally the number 1 reason if you were to poll atheists.
@Gabe Norman While I obviously disagree, whether that reason is factually correct or incorrect is irrelevant.
All that matters is that reason is cited by atheists as the reason why they are atheists and this whole issue was completely ignored in a discussion dedicated to R E A S O N S why people become atheists.
Both of these guys clearly don't know what being atheist means. This was absolutely painful to watch. Adding all these attributes to people that simply do not believe in a god or gods is ridiculous.
The theory of nothingness after death is "The Creed of the Atheist". I have faith that there is a great heavenly life after death. I will see JESUS, Mother Mary and the Saints, my late parents and some day my children, relatives and friends. Can the millions of moments of love and joy, and sometimes suffering and sadness, and prayer and worship, the enjoyment of music and sport, and the laughter and fun, all just come to a dead end? I cannot accept that having lived and loved such good people that they and I would someday just end up in just a heap of ash....when we pass on, our physical bodies return to the earth, but our souls live on.
There is no "creed of the atheist". In fact, many people are atheists but do believe in an afterlife, just not in a god or gods. This is something people need to understand, atheists do not believe in deities, that's it, that's the only qualification. You can believe in souls, ghosts, astrology, afterlife, fairies, oracles, and plenty of other supernatural concepts and still be an atheist.
Think of it like this, do theists (people who believe in god) believe in an afterlife? You can't really answer with a simple yes or no because many people and religious groups believe in god, but no afterlife.
Our physical bodies will be resurrected on the last day.
-"but our souls live on."
It's statements like these that really kick my atheistic brain into high gear. I fundamentally don't understand it. For starters, in what sense is a soul "alive?" A modern conception of life is one of biology. A soul, whatever that is, doesn't seem like a biological entity. Secondly, maybe there are souls and maybe they do "live on" after death. But that doesn't mean _you_ live on after death. What people actually care about is their identity: their memories, their bodies, their individuality. We all know those things can be altered or erased by way of physical damage. There is no _you_ that can survive death. The only thing Christians have to make sense of this is the claim God essentially clones us after death, giving us "new bodies" in heaven so that our identities live on. But this raises all sorts of philosophical conundrums. Does it matter if we have souls or not if that is really what happens? What moment or snapshot of the self will become my heavenly identity since I am a different person over the course of time? Will identity be altered in any sense to remove "sinful desires" from the picture?" Isn't this the teletransportation paradox in theological form? None of this makes sense. It's so much more straightforward to believe that there isn't an afterlife because the alternative is incoherent when you try to work out the details.
Science isn't neutral on the question. It says the same thing as it does about all of the supernatural. Give me something to investigate and there is nothing supernatural ever confirmed by it.
The advent of reason and logic. This is why there are more atheists today.
Edit: not advent but the spread and understanding
Reason is innate. Logic has existed for thousands of years. Please see Aristotle. Have a nice day.
@@joelkelly4154 hmmm, the spread and teaching of reason and logic is a better way to but it.
Reason is innate to an extent. But, not to the degree used and understood today. Same goes for logic.
@Qwerty define "fundamental truth."
@Qwerty rationalize what?
@Qwerty what fundamental truths?
I'm an atheist and I'm wondering if someone can refute my objections based on this video. So first of all atheists do accept a naturalistic and mechanistic view because we require evidence for our beliefs in reality. When you say there is a reality outside of nature, you need to provide evidence such that it can be demonstrated just like how it can be demonstrated that the earth revolves around the sun. If not, then it's extremely difficult to accept as it just becomes a matter of faith and unfortunately there are many faith systems and beliefs out there in the world so you're ultimately forced to use reason anyways so you don't want to get into circular reasoning. Also the mechanistic and naturalistic methods of explaining the universe is simple and observable and does not requiring a deity to explain. These processes have shed light on hypothesis and facts such as evolution through natural selection where we had a number of humanoid species like neanderthals and denosovians (who are now extinct) as well as DNA analysis which provides some evidence that we had a common ancestor and evolved from pre-existing monkey-like creatures that developed increasing cognitive complexity to where we are today. This destroys the idea of being created in the image of God (Adam and Eve) as well as demonstrates that morality co-evolved with our cognition and thus morality is subjective (the evidence for this today is that there are many societies of people with different moral beliefs as well as Christians themselves differing on moral questions such as divorce where Catholics may say it's immoral for a man to divorce his wife whereas Orthodox and other Protestant sects allow it. In addition animals today display rudimentary moral behaviours such as altrusim as well as a primitive sense of justice in some species of monkeys, suggesting a strong biological feature to morality). There is objective truth so I'm not a relativist in that sense but I certainly believe morality it is relative (though large swaths of people share similar moral beliefs on the basic questions but when you get into finer details the agreements begin to fall apart). Also I think you're mischaracterising individualistic morality by making it synonymous with utilitarianism whereas though I am an atheist I am still very deontological even though I understand that there is no objective source for my morals but rather they are a product of evolution, culture and the synthesizing of various moral theories (Christianity included).
Qwerty is right. your need for evidence in order to believe means that you will inherently distrust any dialectic, not believe in history, or cannot give a platonic response to the transcendentals: love, being, goodness, etc. Re-listen to the points made on the four causes: you are proving their point by only focusing on efficient and material cause at the expense of formal and final cause. they elaborate plain as day, but see Aristotle if you would prefer to go to the source.
@Qwerty Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me...sorry couldn't resist. So love is an evolved emotion based on altrusim and empathy where it makes you want to provide things for others or sacrifice oneself (time, effort, energy or even ones life) for others. It initially evolved for the purpose of benefiting kin but with increasing intelligence and cognitive complexity people began to universalise a principle to others (initially love was pretty much for your own family and tribe not for others as loving others could get you killed if they were attacking you)
@@andrewmarusic1975 Love, goodness, being can be explained to a large extent by the theory of evolution. There are some gaps in the knowledge we have such as consciousness but I don't see an issue here unless I'm missing something. Formal and final cause could be replicators evolving and the ones most suitable to adapt to it's environment gets selected and 'goodness' (subjective morality), being (consciousness) are products of this evolutionary process. As for the universe that's where it's tricky but I think there is a reliance on God of the gaps for that question.
Ok well in the natural or mechanistic view there is no moral design to reality. If reasoning is not sufficient and one needs evidence for beliefs like demonstrating that the earth goes around the sun. The all systems of ethics are like religions and there are many and so they must be rejected as unproven. "There is objective truth" can you demonstrate that like the earth rotating around the sun? "I am still very deontological even though I understand that there is no objective source for my morals but rather they are a product of evolution, culture and the synthesizing of various moral theories (Christianity included)." you seem to lack a basis for those moral being real and true and obligatory. Why would you impose things that are not real on yourself or others?
If God is the source of reason and is a person then why would how our body developed undermine that view of being made in the image? There is a big difference between a particular view of 2 original persons and being made in Gods image. Something that may destroy the former would not the later. Does acting in a way that may seem altruistic mean the actor understands altruism or that altruism is actually good. In any scientific theory people agree in the main but disagree about the particulars does that mean the theory is then not objective?
In a sense the naturalist view is too simple and to view our brain if it evolved as being sufficient to reasonably ground naturalism as being true is implausible. It would be good at things pertaining to survival but not certain there and would be no more than 50 50 about if naturalism is true. If one accepts naturalism in a fideism type way the way you misuse faith. One can hold it though it seems that one cannot rationally ground it as being true. One can assume it as a starting point but so can one with idealism.
In order to not argue in a circle you would have to establish naturalism from reason not from a method of study of nature that assumes naturalism to find explanations as are far as that goes.
If you lack a belief in gods that dosn't mean your experiments are not disturbed. You have not show that no being interferes. If ones mind was formed by this plane of reality then reason may not be applicable to the quantum level. If we cannot be sure that linearly ordered series are not infinite through all reality we cannot hold that the observations of this level or reality which formed our mind work thought all reality. Reason did not form the world but formed from our observations of this level of it so outside this area if they are accurate it becomes unreasonable to think reason formed this way.
Also the mechanistic and naturalistic methods of explaining the universe is simple and observable and does not requiring a deity to explain" They seem to be too simple and explain away the human mind. It seems implausible that certain trust in reason and our insight would be appropriate on those views. It would turn out to be fideism or faith in your distorted sense. Since evolution selected religion it would seem one cannot trust it to lead to correct thoughts. One would also need to establish naturalism as a view like idealism would not mean there is something outside nature that thinks but that we are within this mind. So there would not be something in addition to nature nature would jest turn out to not be mechanistic at it's base only in the small area we can see with science. The universe dosn't need to be in or made by a good mind to explain it but if our sense of good is to be held to be accurate it would seem that there would need to be a standard of good in reality and involved in our creation. If viewing the universe as a brute fact is rational then that should be extended to other things and we would not look into nature to find out what is making it work. Why do the planets move (brute fact.) In some cases brute fact seem to be a brute fact of the gaps. A form of naturalism of the gaps. Given the materialistic naturalistic theories of minds both mechanistic and panpsychist that I know. The success of science is unreasonable and so makes these theories implausible. These theories undermine common sense (reason.) So need to be rejected.
I reject naturalism in a mechanical or panpsychist view as insufficient to rationally explain the human mind. Idealism would work as a non dualistic view of reality. But also has a mind before matter though in that view matter is imagined into existence.
Anytime you hear a religious person misdefine what an atheist is, you know its going to be a singled sided argument. Would love to hear a real conversation one of these days void of strawmen.
You would think that there would be an atheist on the show to explain it from an atheistic point of view.
@@jasonbracewell6279 Then what good would the strawman arguments be, if there was someone there to correct them?
@@jeffp1289 I'd like to think that the folks behind the show don't have such negative intent. But you're right.
So according to Friar Bent you have to reject all modern philosophers the be religious, I agree with him.
Just to clarify, I do not hold that one must reject all modern philosophies to be religious. Personalism, for example, is a modern or contemporary philosopher that many Christians hold, e.g. Pope John Paul II. Also, analytic and phenomenological methods in philosophy are modern or contemporary, and many Christians use them in their search for the truth. The five positions that big-tent Platonism opposes are not the totality of modern or contemporary philosophy.
@@fr.jamesdominicbrento.p.735 Thank you for response
This Dominican is great and I wish Matt would have stopped interrupting him so much and getting him off point. And also the microphone levels should have been equalized. The Dominican sounds like he's talking into a pillow and then Matt is very loud. And Matt was too much talking over him with hmms and okays and various other grunts.
When your god reveals itself to all of us then I will listen to that god and what it has to say, but not to any other person.
@Order Of The Black Cross "to all of us" You missed that part. By a long shot. Assuming that everything the Bible says happened, God didn't reveal himself to all of us, but to the Middle East 2000 years ago. Conviniently ignoring most of Asia, Europe, Africa, and the *entirety* of America, as they didn't even heard anything about it for more over a thousand years. And revelation is evidence to the person, and hear say to everyone else.
@Order Of The Black Cross Is that so? That god has a lot of explaining to do, since that god SENDS people to hell for not believing.
Every religious person has to, in some way, be dishonest with themselves if they are going to maintain those beliefs.
@Order Of The Black Cross You can say anything you want about any god, since it is all made up.
@Order Of The Black Cross God is invisible snd does not interact with anyone or anything, that sounds like some imaginary to me, substitute a god for anything else mythical, it is just the same.
But if a god is real, thst god gives children cancer.
@Order Of The Black Cross Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
Audio was not the greatest.....sorry Father Brent sounded like a tunnel
Why ask a religious leader why athiest are atheists? Like asking someone who hates metal "why do others enjoy it".
You could also speak with atheists about atheism. I wouldn't speak with an atheist about why people believe in God.
@deadendjust consider those theists who say "i used to be an atheist, so I understand them better than they understand themselves"
That's just not productive thinking, imo. There is just so much speculation here that could easily be avoided by speaking with an atheist and actually asking what they think, rather then assuming to know the mind of others
Atheism is just not believing in something for which there is no evidence.
No
Atheism has a purpose and an end
A-theism
The theism part gives the outline of the ideology. So your definition is invalid.
@@Piranesi-gc8gn
_'So your definition is invalid'_
My definition is the definition used in most dictionaries and is held by the vast majority of atheists.
*Atheism:* meaning, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Now tell me where there is any purpose in that?
@@johnhammond6423 Well the points said in that statement contradicts that dictionary definition.
But I understand your point that it could be thought of that way. My point is that there is a difference.
It is not simply stating a belief for something that there is no evidence for, but belief that there is no transcendent power or creator/s.
You as an atheist of course would want to believe the following that there is no evidence for god/s, but it is not the proper way to define your ideology for atheism is an ideology and it has a purpose or an end, an outline so to speak, that ideologies communicate on that level. They aren't descriptive statements about something.
@@Piranesi-gc8gn
*Ideology* meaning, a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Atheism is simply none of that. Its just a stand on one thing, a disbelief in a God.
My friend, I have been debating atheism/theism for many years and this old red herring comes up all the time.
But if you want to hold to your view on this then that's fine with me.
Nice talking to you,
John.
@@johnhammond6423
You are probably right that atheists have in a way simple ideology and that there is no god/s transcendent power or being defines it.
Have a nice day John.
-Miika
Nominalism rocks!
I never "became" an atheist. I was born one.
@@fernandadasilva2894 everyone is born an atheist.
@@fernandadasilva2894 No-one was 'born' believing in gods. If the real question is 'How did the idea of gods come into existence', then that could happen in a number of ways, none of which require that a newborn believe in god(s).
Wrong, everyone is grown with a innate knowledge of God. You become an atheist.
@@Kehvo_exe Nope
ok, I've watched the whole video. Here's why I'm an atheist: I haven't seen any evidence for one ore more gods, let alone evidence for a specific god and a specific denomination. The moment you show me the evidence I will be convinced that there's God, but not one minute earlier. That's all it is.
I have never, ever heard any atheist say, as Fr. James proposes in his health care example, that we should, in a situation where health care is limited, leave the old people to die (or actively terminate them) while the younger humans are tended. That was just odd.
At that point in the conversation, I was not discussing atheism per se, but a specific position in ethics called Individual Preference Utilitarianism and some of its potential implications. I do not hold, and did not advance the claim, that all atheists would endorse terminating the elderly.
@@fr.jamesdominicbrento.p.735 Thanks for the reply.
You must not be paying attention, because I have heard this many times from leftists/atheists, especially as it pertains to COVID-19.
It seems atheism is misrepresented. For most, it is simply the lack of faith in personal god(s). The reason is a lack of sufficient evidence. I'd encourage you to try and come up with your best reason for belief in your god. Now ask yourself if followers of a different religion can use the same reasoning (e.g. refer to their holy book or personal experience with their god(s).) If so, there you have your answer for why people are atheist. The vast majority of religions are incompatible and so they cannot all be true.
@Qwerty I do have objections (see below). However, if I were to accept that proof of a god, I would classify myself as deist and still not theist.
Objection: I think the principle of the excluded middle is accurate. Something either exists or it doesn't. We have never observed things coming into being from nothing, but always from something else that was already there. If I eat more than I exercise, a bigger me will come from the previous me plus my food and I will gain weight for example. Is it possible that something came from nothing? Maybe, I do not know, since I have yet to experience it. Therefore, I cannot reasonably build on that.
@PuraguCryostato You are right that in those circles that definition is still used. However, this is not an academic forum and if you ask a random atheist they will probably ascribe to the colloquial definition above. If you doubt this you could try and ask this question to the atheists in the comment section right here as a poll for example.
"Whats producing atheists", well if you find yourself asking such a detached question, the mirror would be a great place to start
Hey I am an atheist - hello. Was a Christian for decades and wished I'd never wasted those years on such man made nonsense as Christianity.
@Ojibwe T Opening dialogue for anyone wishing to discuss
@Ojibwe T Don't see why not and Christians are super happy to inflict their beliefs without asking and then their "hell" punishment when you don't agree with them. Just take this video title, you possibly don't see a problem. Think of it this way, everyone is born an atheist and then becomes convinced to believe whatever culture they are born into. If you were born in a Muslim country chances are that is what you become. It's written by Bronze Age sexist men and there is no way you can tell me that the vile 'marry your rapist' comes from a loving god!!! In that "story" the dad is financed by money and the young virgin daughter has to spend her life married to that disgusting piece of S@@T. Putting slavery and the many killings to one side, you cannot say that BS is from a god. If it was I would want nothing to do with it. There are no morals there at all. Women treated like property, boys ripped to shreds by bear for calling a old bald git an old bald git. It's quite frankly so silly people should grow out of it if it wasn't for childhood indoctrination into the nonsense. Come on then - tell me where I'm wrong by your god goggles standards. I was a christian for many decades and know that book very well.
@Ojibwe T My point is, as you well know, a baby born and growing up knows nothing of any claimed god(s). People become convinced largely due to childhood indoctrination. Family, friends, schools and communities are responsible for this 'brainwashing' it does not come from any god(s).
Children are taught at an early age, don't play with matches or you will get burnt, don't run onto the road and be good as god is watching you. It's ingrained in most cultures, Christians, Muslims or Hindus, it does not matter. It's one of the reasons why churches have Sunday baby services. Get them while they are young. The parents go and pay their 10%, have a little time off and the children become indoctrinated. All of this is usually with no good evidence for the claims.
@Ojibwe T
You said "Deuteronomy 22:28 does not refer to rape"
So I'll take this straight out of your book.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
International Standard Version
28 “However, if a man meets a girl who isn’t engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out, 29 then the man who raped her must give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father. Furthermore, he must marry her. Because he violated her, he is to not divorce her as long as he lives.
Either way this is vile and disgusting, you are not considering the virgin girl in this story. The dad's OK as he gets his cash for his property (basically women in the bible)
Just think for one moment, the girl is raped which is horrific and now has to marry the mad if her dad says so. She has to cook, clean, sleep with and have his children. Can you imagine that?
I would worry greatly if you think that some how an apologetic tap dance is the moral response here.
@Ojibwe T Hey I have been reading through these comments and just wonder were your Christian love, forgiveness and understanding is? I'm a Christian myself and out of the two of you two going at it here, clearly an atheist and a believer, I would hope that you took the moral high ground and turn the other cheek, offer the hand of friendship. This is what our Easter service has just been about during this pandemic. Remember WWJD and enjoy your blessed day.
Someone must have become an atheist after listening to that long and pointles talk about nominalism. XD
I stopped watching as soon as I heard him say atheism was borne out of materialism. What is the catholic church worth?
"Bad science follows bad philosophy".
What makes me an atheist as per label picking and indoctrinated prep talks is the lack of hard evidence to convince me that a god does exist. But it would not stop there. Even if god existed, what religion would be proven to be the best god following? Would this god tell us or let us pick and chose still? Otherwise i'm just a "non" as in not convinced. Label me what you want but do not try to strawman me with philosophical prep talks.
Isn't the humanity of the unborn more about our Word of God? I did a compare & contrast Shari'a versus Canon Law on abortion. Of course, Word of God is God. I was eating D.O.P. cheese in Naples during the early stages of my daughter. I had an espresso at Gambrinus yet Pope Francis did that. Oops!
still not convinced that there is a god to believe in. if you substitue theism every time you say atheism, then you experience our fustrations. Atheism is just a lack of belief, due to lack of credible evidence.
Order Of The Black Cross Sorry, premise 1 is unsound and so the rest falls apart.
@Order Of The Black Cross You might want to type more carefully? You're missing some punctuation, prepositions, and verbs in those few sentences. But I'll try to parse it.
The first premise states that "human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature" because nature doesn't seem to be able to reason. Well, nature can't run fast, but a cheetah can. Nature can't see in the dark, but a giant squid can. This premise is making the fallacy of composition, assuming that if something is made of something else, then both things must have identical properties.
We can track the process of evolution of "reason" even just looking at examples of animals alive today. An animal's nervous system needs to receive input, process the signal, and then enact a behavior in response. When the response is beneficial to the animal's survival, then the genes that provide that particular nervous system get passed on and becomes more prevalent in the population of that species. We can track this from simple organisms that move away from light, resulting in fewer predators seeing them, to insects able to follow chemical trails, to mammals able to make more sophisticated choices based on memories of past choices, to humans with our enlarged prefrontal cortex that allows us to consider possible future outcomes of our actions more than most other animals. The ability to accurately perceive the world around us and then make decisions in light of that reality is easily explained and demonstrated through natural processes, and requires nothing "outside of nature." The statement is simply ignorant of basic biology. You can get reason as an emergent property from forces that lack reason.
I'm not sure why rejecting the first premise would equate to proposing a supernatural source of creation. Can you elaborate?
@Order Of The Black Cross You really don't think a dog can act rationally? It can use its understanding of the world around it and how things in that world interact, and use its memories of past similar experiences, in order to make decisions that benefit it given the present circumstances it finds itself in. That is reasoning out a behavior choice in light of a problem or challenge. Isn't that rational behavior? According to at least one dictionary, being rational is defined "using reason or logic to think out a problem."
What more do humans have, other than language to describe these things in words, and a slightly better capacity for making beneficial decisions due to our larger prefrontal cortex? It's all just on a spectrum, and generally animal species are better at reason the larger the cortical areas of their brain are.
@Order Of The Black Cross Dogs and apes and dolphins can still do all of those things you mentioned, just without using explicit words or terminology. The core of your argument sounds like being able to semantically describe the elements of rationality is what makes us rational. I don't think that follows, especially in light of all the versions of rationality you mentioned; people describe it in many different ways depending on its application.
If you parse out all the variables and distinctions, rationality just a way of thinking through problems to arrive at an action that achieves a desirable outcome, based on knowledge of how the real world operates. Animals can do that, too, and as far as we can tell this is simply an evolved beneficial trait that manifests in sufficiently large brains. We can see how this trait becomes simpler and simpler, then eventually vanishes as you observe a series of animals with simpler and simpler nervous systems.
Again, no supernatural source of "reason" is indicated by any evidence, let alone required. Premise 1 is unsound. It fails. The argument fails.
@Philippe Sébastien I gave you evidence about how we can observe the sequential evolution of cognition from animals with smaller brains to larger brains, by the process of evolution by natural selection. Being able to observe something and draw conclusions about it does not require supernatural intervention. "Rationality" is just a term we invented to describe a certain kind of behavior. If you exhibit that behavior, then we call that being rational. There is no "credibility" involved. We can objectively demonstrate how rational or irrational someone is by measuring their perceptions against objective reality, and measuring the objective results of their actions against their stated goals. Rationality is just a word we use to label a certain behavior.
Again, it's like saying that a non-flying natural source can't make a flying bird because otherwise the bird would lose the unique supernatural essence that lets it fly. It seems like you've arbitrarily chosen "reason" to focus on because humans value that trait and feel special because we can do it better than other animals.
I'm smelling a Question Begging fallacy in here somewhere, but it's too early in the morning for me to parse it out.
I'm still looking for some god. There it is. It's the Zoroastrian god. Oh, no. I made a mistake. It's Hare Krishna. Nope, it's the Christian god. Phew! Thank goodness. Wait, what? It's invisible?
Well, in that case I'll just go ahead and force myself to believe.
Silly thinking
The theist said science looks for the one thing (ring, lol) to rule them all. Science is not materialism, it’s a method not a philosophy. Religion claims they have the answer that rules them all 😂, because of reasons 😂.
Qwerty 🤔 atheism is the lack of belief in god due to insufficient evidence, and has nothing to do with Darwinism, evolution, materialism, naturalism, a world view, rejecting a god, etc. It’s just the lack of evidence. Theism by nature is an argument from personal incredulity based on a priori knowledge aka reason that exists in thought form only.
Order Of The Black Cross 🤔 philosophy is nothing more than an argument from reason. 🤔 yes Catholic priest invented scientific method, but no, theism does not explain how the universe began, it asserts god did it as the why. 🤔 Moses is the biblical Hitler. And any book that claimed slavery, rape marriage, abortion, and keep the virgins for yourself as a rape reward has no footing in claiming its morality is greater than my 86 billions neurons of cognitive reasoning. 🤔 Theism is an argument from personal incredulity, hiding in the gaps of knowledge and making claims assertions stemming from a system of indoctrinated beliefs. After all, scriptural faith is belief in the unseen. Truth is that which correspond to reality. Confidence is the degree of trust in things you know.
Qwerty 🤔 atheism thrives due to insufficient proof and immoral things presented in the Bible as moral. That’s it. The foundation of atheism.
Qwerty 🤔 it’s a priori reasoning not a posteriori based reasoning
Order Of The Black Cross 🤔 if you don’t know, then haven’t studied your Bible; how about abortion in numbers 😮
Ask a theist about why people become atheist? Why don’t you ask an atheist? This would be like two atheist explaining why people become theist.
Christians strawman athiests for an hour and a half.
Well, it's nothing compared to whole culture (atheists included) strawman christians 24/7
@@stephenson19861 well thats nothing compared to how liberty prime is the saddest character in the fallout franchise.
Yeah, didnt think about THAT one dija?
Both groups are full of diverse people with diverse perspectives, but there's alot of strawmanning in this video, and whatever happens anywhere else, that's still a problem. Peace✌
@@chrisfrench2118 I honestly have no idea what you are writing about. Peace.
The straw man arguments that some atheists make is outstanding in this video. Instead of actually making convincing arguments this video only serves to try and convince theists that their beliefs are justified.
Qwerty the rebuttal is simple. They have not accurately stated the oppositions position. They merely made arguments based on strawmen positions. The claims made are therefore fallacious.
Qwerty the original video is an empty accusation. Why should I expend more energy than the original to refute the obvious fallacious argument.
Qwerty I would agree the original comment is not clear.
My original comment should have been that theists have strawmaned atheists positions. They attempt to argue positions that encompass many different secular beliefs systems and label them as atheists as an all encompassing term. What they fail to realize is that atheism is not a belief system. It is a singular position on one claim that theists make. Is there sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that a/any god exists. That’s it. There is nothing more to the topic. Atheism isn’t a claim to know anything. It is merely a position on the claim is their a/any god.
Put another way that is more easily understood.
Proposition:
God exists.
If you BELIEVE this you are a theist.
If you don’t BELIEVE this you are an atheist.
Qwerty again my above statement stands. The video misrepresents atheism as something more than a single position on a single claim. Even if atheism is wrong it doesn’t do anything to provide any evidence to a specific type of god. Claiming anything else would be a fallacious argument.
Qwerty “The autoepistemic logic is a formal logic for the representation and reasoning of knowledge about knowledge. While propositional logic can only express facts, autoepistemic logic can express knowledge and lack of knowledge about facts.”