I'm glad I didnt see the first video. Making up new, inappropriate definitions of words, just to give yourself an opportunity to have a BS philosophical, navel-contemplating jaw-flapping afternoon, is an utter waste of time. The continuance of that line of thinking, was a continuance of the waste of time. As an atheist, I dont give a monkey's toss what theists 'believe' nor how they re-interpret 'truth' to suit their own agenda. Your first quote was nothing more than a bunch of unsupportable assertions. Put 30 theists in a room and you get 30 different interpretations of the bible, 'the truth' - just shows that after 2000 yrs its still BS. A 'truth' devoid of facts is called a fictional story, which is exactly what the bible is. It is also scientifically illiterate and morally bankrupt.
@@Jasminehaydon Everything that exists has a starting point, but the exact details of that starting point may be unknown or not fully understood. To say that a god did it, is nothing more than a god of the gaps fallacy. Theists need to learn the "We dont know" answer as opposed to inventing one. We do know about the "Big Bang", a lot about cosmology, abiogenesis has some sketchy bits, but evolution is pretty much sorted. All of that is done by Natural Laws and has sod all to do with an invisible sky daddy.
@@philipnewey I come from the planet Earth. You might be from La La Land. If you don't understand my point, read it again and try harder. it's pretty bloody obvious.
In terms of History- the sources are absolutely unsatisfactory to conclude that in all probability the stories told in the Bible are accurate and true to what happened. We effectively have one source (other Roman historians mention Jesus... Not supernatural acts) which is non contemporaneous, inconsistent within its own re-telling of stories, self derivative and hugely intended politically (It's purpose is of course to proselytise). It's a very poor Historical Source which falls well, well below necessary credence to support evidence for SUPERNATURAL events. That is an absolutely extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to deem it likely to have occurred as told. But we're talking about knowledge, the religious person (Abrahamic at least) is interested in "Faith"- you cannot have faith as well as knowledge. I think most religious people would get to the point where they don't actually care about probability based, historical assessments- they believe what they do (which is not something you can choose, of course!) regardless of the truth in many cases. In SPITE OF evidence which makes Biblical (or those from the Torah or Qur'an) claims demonstrably untrue. Knowledge and faith are very different things and many of those invested in Faith are completely uninterested in knowledge. Epistemology is irrelevant to many who have faith. Which is fine... As long as they don't make claims or try to legislate because of it. People need to have the humility to remember: It's just a belief. It has no credibility or weight behind it, it's just an unreasoned personal belief. I would be careful with your wording though "Empirical truth" or "Theological Truth"- sometimes you get a little close to implying there can be multiple truths- that what someone believes makes it "Their truth"... No. It's just their belief.
@@philipnewey Well, history can only ever be a mosaic pieced together of the most likely options from the sources available. So in that sense, yes, we can't have a genuine "Truth". Belief however can never be a claim on truth as it's self evidently uninformed (you don't have belief or faith in something which can be established and demonstrated to be so). So I suppose it's always a spectrum. In terms of "Different" truths then I think that becomes more of a linguistic exercise than a Scientific Method (or even Socratic) led thing that you seek to establish.
Phil, I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on why theists and atheists might be talking past each other. In some ways, you may be right. However, the issue, as I think you also touched on, is that the theist believes their worldview best aligns with reality, and they often feel that everyone else is ignoring the truth. The idea that the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically-especially because its core teachings are unfalsifiable-is something that many theists simply can't accept.
I think that what you say at the end is true of the theism that most atheists see themselves combatting today. When I studied theology, the theologians that I paid most attention to were German theologians and bible scholars from the mid twentieth century and up into about the 1970s. These were theologians like Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jurgen Moltmann who would have found the literalism of many modern theists (particularly in the USA) incomprehensible or laughable.
Hi, Phil. Eric here. I think you are highlighting the problems that arise when people use the same term using different denotations, or worse yet, connotations. You give a good example of clarifying such confusion when you refer to "empirical truth" and "theological truth". Atheists, generally, are simply unconvinced by the claims & arguments of theists. Sorting out meaning of terms is essential for discussing such things. “Truth” is certainly a key term to sort out. “Meaning” is probably one of those under-defined terms. I don't see how “meaning” is relevant to whatever the observable facts are. For instance, I think we could agree that the Sun exists, and that it is integral to our existence, and most or all of life on Earth. I do not think the Sun brings “meaning” to any of that life. I strongly suspect that “meaning” is what we make of it in our brains, and subsequently our societies. The part about what God may or may not be, according to theologians, I think misses the point that atheists are trying to see or to make. All of it is speculating from an assumption with no way to confirm it (the assumption or the speculations). If a deity, such as is found in Christianity, exists in present day, I struggle to identify its influence, despite my willingness to listen as others try to show it to me. Biology & psychology go a long way toward accounting for many personal experiences. Add sociology and interpersonal & cultural dynamics, and the likelihood of ancient (or current) god claims seems less and less likely, to me. Geology, cosmology, physics, and other related sciences, are able to address many observations of the universe we live in. It's hard for me to see the need for any god to account for it. That religious beliefs may have utility for people or give them hope or guidance, sometimes in great numbers, does nothing to clarify or confirm the claims of existence of any god. I do appreciate your effort to sort things out. Be well.
Thank you, Eric. Just for the record, I personally understand all religious/spiritual talk to be mythology/stories about us and our relationship to the world, rather than stories about the world itself or divine beings 'out there' somewhere. They are projected 'out there'. This idea probably derives ultimately from the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach in the 19th C. I have made quite a few videos about the importance of mythology and story-telling. I think the stories we tell shape our thoughts, our society and our relationship to the world. I am highly critical of the particular 'stories' that the Christian faith tells. I think they lead to a distorted and unhealthy understanding of human nature and human beings' place in the world.
@@philipnewey Thanks, your position is not clear in the video. The two useful mysteries revealed in the Bible would seem to be : the cause of suffering in Genesis, and its solution as shown by Jesus.
You must have missed the Evangelicals who make the most UA-cam Christian content. Evangelicals believe in Biblical literalism. The fact that Jesus was born and then was raised from the dead they don't see as a philosophical position which allows for human redemption. They see it is a matter of fact. If you watch one of their videos from the Evangelical ministry of Truth they will make a number of points. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus. They saw him live die and rise again. So this is not a sort of means of getting to a understanding of the Christian message it is an objective fact. Other Christian sects see things differently. Those who have accepted what used to be described as modernism. But your point about different types of meaning is at the heart of it wrong
Of course I am aware of the evangelical Christians. That's the group against which my critique was mainly directed, i.e. the group that regard these theological claims as factually true.
missing the point is because is not about proving anything, you cannot prove non existance and that something made up exists. so neither can do anything with the starting point of proving. All that can be done is explain the reasoning in a physical manner or simply have no mechanistic physical explanation whatsoever and admit bravely that its just faith, not any sort of deductive reasoning. Thats it. Also other problems in those debates reduce to both parties not defining what existence is, what is an object, and what is a fact, etc. Simple things that must be defined to present a deductive theory of the existence of something you are proposing like a God that creates or simply exists somewhere and can do things, etc. existence: physical presence object: that which has shape, weight, mass any of those works. fact/truth: an event (a series of objects in motion) that is happening or has happened. A historical fact, a report on live news such as the Israel-Hamas war, whatever. Things we can confirm to be true, because those events have had/have physical presence.
So basically the theists "truth" is - i want to believe this so I do and don't care if it's factually correct. If something is factually incorrect, how can it be "true"? Simple redefine "truth"
Nice video. I do have some thoughts 1. I think it can be possible to find meaning in a story that can be applied in the world even if the story isn’t true. However this is like in Family Guy when Peter Griffin starts a church to the Fonz and starts teaching people to follow his teachings. That could have great value to people but Fonzy isn’t god and was never supposed to be so meaning and good morals in a story doesn’t mean there is a god. 2. Is this a binary question? There is a god, there isn’t a god. If both sides agree on a definition that could be answered and quite possibly if you broaden the term god enough the atheist may even argue yes, and if you narrow it sufficiently the theist may argue no, but at some point to ask the question and give an answer the person asking and answering need to be able to explain their reasoning, if they don’t then they’ve missed the point but I don’t think this problem of agreed definition is impossible. 3. On different truths I saw this addressed in the debate between Alex O’Connor and Dinesh D’Souza where Alex (atheist) tackled the question of whether the Bible (not god in this case) was true and went through a number of types of truth, including historical, allegorical and moral. I found from this that while there are parts of the Bible like the virgin birth and the resurrection which Christians need to be true, there are other parts, like the slaughtering of the almalakites that they almost need to not be true or it destroys the moral truth of the whole Bible. Also scientific truths like the universe having a beginning being undermined by other facts like the sun being older than the earth despite the earth being created in genesis before the sun. Again this was critiquing the Bible, not god, but the same lines of argument could certainly be used. 4. The argument “a god is real” and “god is real” is actually quite different. A theist does need to provide some sort of argument that it is the god of their religion that is real and not just a generic god. Any moral teachings of the religion are irrelevant if another religion with opposing laws has equal claim to the title of god. Whereas the atheist can claim morals have come from humans and will vary across cultures so don’t need morals to be universal for their worldview to be consistent. Only that scientific truths are universal. I can’t remember if I had more points I thought of but the video certainly made me think. Thanks for making it.
Thank you for your comments. It's nice to see you thinking things through like this. I have many other videos that touch on topics like this (as well as a very diverse range of other topics.). One of the problems I have making videos like this is that it almost seems necessary every time to say everything all over again, which would be very tedious for me (and would also result in a very, very long video!). At the same time, I realise that most people won't have seen my other videos where I address other aspects of these questions, so they make ciriticms without the full picture. I don't see a way out of this dilemma at the moment. Sorry about the 'confessional' moment here. It's just much on my mind at the moment. Thanks again for your comments.
How wonderful. Its all just a misunderstanding. I agree with theists that their claim "a god exists" is "true" in the sense that its meaningful to them, its meaningful to me as well given the consequences of that claim! I mean sure, some theists take "true" to mean "conforming to reality" because they beat their children lest they anger a really real god, or they call gay people an abomination to show their attitudes match his on the matter, or they push forward faith healing because their scriptures say prayer is more powerful than medicine, but theyre nothing to worry about, its their own fault for not knowing which definition of "true" to use! Im not even sure why youre a part of this conversation, theologians can be atheists and its framed as if theyre at odds with each other. If you dont believe there are any gods, congratulations, you havent been indoctrinated to accept fiction as fact, im oh so very happy for you.
And which believers, there's over 3000 religions and even more gods all around the globe.. Who has the right "truth"... Every religions is still based on stories, campfire stories even. No any actual proof that would hold in court.
What is the point of God? I think you said it can give my life meaning, A kind of psychological aid? Regarding meaning and truth : Does God have to exist for metaphors to have meaning? No - I'm interested if Christianity reveals any useful mysteries at all.
I'm glad I didnt see the first video. Making up new, inappropriate definitions of words, just to give yourself an opportunity to have a BS philosophical, navel-contemplating jaw-flapping afternoon, is an utter waste of time. The continuance of that line of thinking, was a continuance of the waste of time. As an atheist, I dont give a monkey's toss what theists 'believe' nor how they re-interpret 'truth' to suit their own agenda. Your first quote was nothing more than a bunch of unsupportable assertions.
Put 30 theists in a room and you get 30 different interpretations of the bible, 'the truth' - just shows that after 2000 yrs its still BS. A 'truth' devoid of facts is called a fictional story, which is exactly what the bible is. It is also scientifically illiterate and morally bankrupt.
@csjrogerson2377 But how do you think all this came to be? Mustn't there be a God? I mean all this has to have a starting point.
Clearly you are coming from a different place from me. I'm not really sure what the point of your comment is, except to vent your spleen.
@@Jasminehaydon Everything that exists has a starting point, but the exact details of that starting point may be unknown or not fully understood. To say that a god did it, is nothing more than a god of the gaps fallacy. Theists need to learn the "We dont know" answer as opposed to inventing one.
We do know about the "Big Bang", a lot about cosmology, abiogenesis has some sketchy bits, but evolution is pretty much sorted. All of that is done by Natural Laws and has sod all to do with an invisible sky daddy.
@@csjrogerson2377 But how can you be so sure? They may be and there may not be an "invisible sky daddy".
@@philipnewey I come from the planet Earth. You might be from La La Land. If you don't understand my point, read it again and try harder. it's pretty bloody obvious.
In terms of History- the sources are absolutely unsatisfactory to conclude that in all probability the stories told in the Bible are accurate and true to what happened. We effectively have one source (other Roman historians mention Jesus... Not supernatural acts) which is non contemporaneous, inconsistent within its own re-telling of stories, self derivative and hugely intended politically (It's purpose is of course to proselytise).
It's a very poor Historical Source which falls well, well below necessary credence to support evidence for SUPERNATURAL events. That is an absolutely extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to deem it likely to have occurred as told.
But we're talking about knowledge, the religious person (Abrahamic at least) is interested in "Faith"- you cannot have faith as well as knowledge. I think most religious people would get to the point where they don't actually care about probability based, historical assessments- they believe what they do (which is not something you can choose, of course!) regardless of the truth in many cases. In SPITE OF evidence which makes Biblical (or those from the Torah or Qur'an) claims demonstrably untrue. Knowledge and faith are very different things and many of those invested in Faith are completely uninterested in knowledge. Epistemology is irrelevant to many who have faith. Which is fine... As long as they don't make claims or try to legislate because of it.
People need to have the humility to remember: It's just a belief. It has no credibility or weight behind it, it's just an unreasoned personal belief.
I would be careful with your wording though "Empirical truth" or "Theological Truth"- sometimes you get a little close to implying there can be multiple truths- that what someone believes makes it "Their truth"... No. It's just their belief.
All fair enough, except that I actually do think there are different kinds of truth claims. You may not agree with that, and that's fine.
@@philipnewey Well, history can only ever be a mosaic pieced together of the most likely options from the sources available. So in that sense, yes, we can't have a genuine "Truth".
Belief however can never be a claim on truth as it's self evidently uninformed (you don't have belief or faith in something which can be established and demonstrated to be so). So I suppose it's always a spectrum.
In terms of "Different" truths then I think that becomes more of a linguistic exercise than a Scientific Method (or even Socratic) led thing that you seek to establish.
Phil, I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on why theists and atheists might be talking past each other. In some ways, you may be right. However, the issue, as I think you also touched on, is that the theist believes their worldview best aligns with reality, and they often feel that everyone else is ignoring the truth. The idea that the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically-especially because its core teachings are unfalsifiable-is something that many theists simply can't accept.
I think that what you say at the end is true of the theism that most atheists see themselves combatting today. When I studied theology, the theologians that I paid most attention to were German theologians and bible scholars from the mid twentieth century and up into about the 1970s. These were theologians like Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jurgen Moltmann who would have found the literalism of many modern theists (particularly in the USA) incomprehensible or laughable.
This is what's wrong with the world today. Truth isn't truth because there are different kinds of truth. WTF!
Hi, Phil. Eric here. I think you are highlighting the problems that arise when people use the same term using different denotations, or worse yet, connotations. You give a good example of clarifying such confusion when you refer to "empirical truth" and "theological truth".
Atheists, generally, are simply unconvinced by the claims & arguments of theists. Sorting out meaning of terms is essential for discussing such things. “Truth” is certainly a key term to sort out.
“Meaning” is probably one of those under-defined terms. I don't see how “meaning” is relevant to whatever the observable facts are. For instance, I think we could agree that the Sun exists, and that it is integral to our existence, and most or all of life on Earth. I do not think the Sun brings “meaning” to any of that life. I strongly suspect that “meaning” is what we make of it in our brains, and subsequently our societies.
The part about what God may or may not be, according to theologians, I think misses the point that atheists are trying to see or to make. All of it is speculating from an assumption with no way to confirm it (the assumption or the speculations).
If a deity, such as is found in Christianity, exists in present day, I struggle to identify its influence, despite my willingness to listen as others try to show it to me. Biology & psychology go a long way toward accounting for many personal experiences. Add sociology and interpersonal & cultural dynamics, and the likelihood of ancient (or current) god claims seems less and less likely, to me. Geology, cosmology, physics, and other related sciences, are able to address many observations of the universe we live in. It's hard for me to see the need for any god to account for it.
That religious beliefs may have utility for people or give them hope or guidance, sometimes in great numbers, does nothing to clarify or confirm the claims of existence of any god.
I do appreciate your effort to sort things out. Be well.
Thank you, Eric. Just for the record, I personally understand all religious/spiritual talk to be mythology/stories about us and our relationship to the world, rather than stories about the world itself or divine beings 'out there' somewhere. They are projected 'out there'. This idea probably derives ultimately from the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach in the 19th C. I have made quite a few videos about the importance of mythology and story-telling. I think the stories we tell shape our thoughts, our society and our relationship to the world. I am highly critical of the particular 'stories' that the Christian faith tells. I think they lead to a distorted and unhealthy understanding of human nature and human beings' place in the world.
@@philipnewey Thanks, your position is not clear in the video. The two useful mysteries revealed in the Bible would seem to be : the cause of suffering in Genesis, and its solution as shown by Jesus.
by 2:09 My take is "Phil has been sniffing his own farts"
You must have missed the Evangelicals who make the most UA-cam Christian content. Evangelicals believe in Biblical literalism. The fact that Jesus was born and then was raised from the dead they don't see as a philosophical position which allows for human redemption. They see it is a matter of fact. If you watch one of their videos from the Evangelical ministry of Truth they will make a number of points. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus. They saw him live die and rise again. So this is not a sort of means of getting to a understanding of the Christian message it is an objective fact.
Other Christian sects see things differently. Those who have accepted what used to be described as modernism. But your point about different types of meaning is at the heart of it wrong
Of course I am aware of the evangelical Christians. That's the group against which my critique was mainly directed, i.e. the group that regard these theological claims as factually true.
Keep fighting the good fight Tom. This man to me is just sitting on the fence.
Why is it that theists, not atheists, continually redefine words?
Yrs, religious people believe truths that aren't true. We all do this, but we need to admit it. Then we can search for truths that ARE true.
missing the point is because is not about proving anything, you cannot prove non existance and that something made up exists. so neither can do anything with the starting point of proving. All that can be done is explain the reasoning in a physical manner or simply have no mechanistic physical explanation whatsoever and admit bravely that its just faith, not any sort of deductive reasoning. Thats it.
Also other problems in those debates reduce to both parties not defining what existence is, what is an object, and what is a fact, etc. Simple things that must be defined to present a deductive theory of the existence of something you are proposing like a God that creates or simply exists somewhere and can do things, etc.
existence: physical presence
object: that which has shape, weight, mass any of those works.
fact/truth: an event (a series of objects in motion) that is happening or has happened. A historical fact, a report on live news such as the Israel-Hamas war, whatever. Things we can confirm to be true, because those events have had/have physical presence.
Hmmmm...11 minutes of talking about 'god' and he never defined which god he was talking about.
Phil needs to do some more thinking.
So basically the theists "truth" is - i want to believe this so I do and don't care if it's factually correct. If something is factually incorrect, how can it be "true"? Simple redefine "truth"
Nice video. I do have some thoughts
1. I think it can be possible to find meaning in a story that can be applied in the world even if the story isn’t true. However this is like in Family Guy when Peter Griffin starts a church to the Fonz and starts teaching people to follow his teachings. That could have great value to people but Fonzy isn’t god and was never supposed to be so meaning and good morals in a story doesn’t mean there is a god.
2. Is this a binary question? There is a god, there isn’t a god. If both sides agree on a definition that could be answered and quite possibly if you broaden the term god enough the atheist may even argue yes, and if you narrow it sufficiently the theist may argue no, but at some point to ask the question and give an answer the person asking and answering need to be able to explain their reasoning, if they don’t then they’ve missed the point but I don’t think this problem of agreed definition is impossible.
3. On different truths I saw this addressed in the debate between Alex O’Connor and Dinesh D’Souza where Alex (atheist) tackled the question of whether the Bible (not god in this case) was true and went through a number of types of truth, including historical, allegorical and moral. I found from this that while there are parts of the Bible like the virgin birth and the resurrection which Christians need to be true, there are other parts, like the slaughtering of the almalakites that they almost need to not be true or it destroys the moral truth of the whole Bible. Also scientific truths like the universe having a beginning being undermined by other facts like the sun being older than the earth despite the earth being created in genesis before the sun. Again this was critiquing the Bible, not god, but the same lines of argument could certainly be used.
4. The argument “a god is real” and “god is real” is actually quite different. A theist does need to provide some sort of argument that it is the god of their religion that is real and not just a generic god. Any moral teachings of the religion are irrelevant if another religion with opposing laws has equal claim to the title of god. Whereas the atheist can claim morals have come from humans and will vary across cultures so don’t need morals to be universal for their worldview to be consistent. Only that scientific truths are universal.
I can’t remember if I had more points I thought of but the video certainly made me think. Thanks for making it.
Thank you for your comments. It's nice to see you thinking things through like this. I have many other videos that touch on topics like this (as well as a very diverse range of other topics.). One of the problems I have making videos like this is that it almost seems necessary every time to say everything all over again, which would be very tedious for me (and would also result in a very, very long video!). At the same time, I realise that most people won't have seen my other videos where I address other aspects of these questions, so they make ciriticms without the full picture. I don't see a way out of this dilemma at the moment. Sorry about the 'confessional' moment here. It's just much on my mind at the moment. Thanks again for your comments.
That's sound like alternative "truth" gospel not supported by the holy Books of various cultures, religions, and many denominations
How wonderful. Its all just a misunderstanding. I agree with theists that their claim "a god exists" is "true" in the sense that its meaningful to them, its meaningful to me as well given the consequences of that claim! I mean sure, some theists take "true" to mean "conforming to reality" because they beat their children lest they anger a really real god, or they call gay people an abomination to show their attitudes match his on the matter, or they push forward faith healing because their scriptures say prayer is more powerful than medicine, but theyre nothing to worry about, its their own fault for not knowing which definition of "true" to use!
Im not even sure why youre a part of this conversation, theologians can be atheists and its framed as if theyre at odds with each other. If you dont believe there are any gods, congratulations, you havent been indoctrinated to accept fiction as fact, im oh so very happy for you.
And which believers, there's over 3000 religions and even more gods all around the globe.. Who has the right "truth"... Every religions is still based on stories, campfire stories even.
No any actual proof that would hold in court.
religion is mans worst invention and by a long way.........
This was funny.
What is the point of God? I think you said it can give my life meaning, A kind of psychological aid? Regarding meaning and truth : Does God have to exist for metaphors to have meaning? No - I'm interested if Christianity reveals any useful mysteries at all.
Religion keeps you in line and in return gives you a placebo balm for the horrors of life.
@@nitsujism we get the religion we deserve - our selfishness creates evil religions