Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Atheist Debates - Debate Review: Am I too skeptical?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 бер 2019
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
During my recent debate with Braxton Hunter, it seemed I was being accused of being "too skeptical". That, and a few other debate related notes, are discussed here.
Hello Matt, Greetings from Veracruz, Mexico. I just want to say that I watch all your videos and I love them. As you know, Mexico is one of the most religious countries and its really hard to be atheist in a place like this. Im not a native english speaker, so I hope this message is legible to you. Keep doing the great vídeos! Adiós!
Here I'm A Fan From Guadalajara Jalisco Too, Same Thing Happens To Me :(
Same here brother
Whether it's a native speaker or someone that has English as a second or third language, it always seems to be the case that it's the one apologizing for their English that seems to be doing better than half the native speakers around them. 😅
Native speaker here...it's perfectly legible! I only know this language, so I bow to your superior intellect!
Methossoldier Good luck to all atheists in Mexico. 🇲🇽🏴
The corollary to "You're too skeptical!" is "You're not gullible enough!". How could anyone making the first argument NOT see how the second argument is buried within it?
How long do you think Xtians think before loading their shitcatapult? I mean if it looks good at first glance, they are going to use it as ammo, no matter how smelly or disgusting it is.
@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe ,
You do have a good point there...
I disagree. One can definitely be too skeptical without a lessening skepticism being akin to an increase in gullibility. For example, climate "skeptics" are too skeptical, but that doesn't mean that people who accept climate science are more gullible. Being too skeptical means too high a requirement for supporting evidence on a claim, most often brought on by arguments relying heavily on a wide-ranging conspiracy.
c0nc0rdance had a solid video about the tightrope one has to sometimes dance on regarding sitting in the right place between gullibility and extreme skepticism. It did a very good job expressing it. Sadly, I can't find it anymore. Perhaps it was someone else, I'm not sure.
@@Leafsdude ,
Respectfully, I have to disagree in return: there is no such thing as "too skeptical"; when credible evidence is provided to demonstrate a thing - ANY "THING" - then any and all skepticism will necessarily end, due to the providing of that credible evidence.
No it's not. A certain measure of trust is required in everyday life one and certainly can be too skeptical.
If their god existed she would not need apologists. I don’t see anyone apologizing for gravity.
@2consider Are you saying that God is a non-sentient force like gravity?
@2consider
Are you saying God is a natural force and is therefore impersonal? Or there is no Hell/eternal punishment and if so, you are clearly not talking about the Christian God then?
@2consider
Well then you clearly haven't read your Bible. Jesus says unforgivable sins, or unpardonable sins are sins which will not be forgiven by God. One eternal or unforgivable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) is specified in several passages of the Synoptic Gospels, including Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31-32, and Luke 12:10.
So yes, clearly there is punishment for disbelieving in the Christian God. Or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
@2consider
Oh, so according to you and your interpretation of the Bible, I can still go to Heaven while rejecting your God? Your God allows heathens into his heaven who don't believe in him lol. After all, you said rejecting your God isn't blasphemy and is not a sin.
@2consider
Beliefs are not choices by the way. Especially when you compare them to the law of Gravity. I have no choice but to accept the law of Gravity. I have no reason to believe in your God and therefore disbelief was not a choice. Did you choose to not believe in Zeus? Or do you just accept that Zeus doesn't exist and therefore disbelief in him is not a choice. You don't choose to not believe in things for which there is no evidence for.
Just like if I told you Red Bull gives me wings. You don't choose to not believe me, you just accept that there is no evidence for that claim and therefore reject it. It's not a choice.
You're either convinced or you are not convinced. Either way, it's not a choice. The problem is, you can be convinced of something for good reasons or bad reasons, but you won't know the difference between the two until you test it.
I tend to think people who think there is such a thing as too much skepticism are either confusing it with cynicism or else are afraid to admit that there are things they do not and perhaps can not know with any reasonable level of certainty. Most of skepticism is just having the humility to say “I don’t know yet” when you don’t actually have the evidence required for knowledge on a specific proposition.
Love the debates, Matt. Thanks for posting them. About a year ago, I was going through another period of reassessing my beliefs and was drifting towards agnostic theism. These debates and the rock-solid logic helped me clear my head and get to a much more sophisticated and informed position. It wasn't just your debates, but all of the high-profile ones out there. I must say, yours are definitely my favorite. You are usually very good at explaining your ideas and philosophy in a clear way. Anyways... Thank you for doing what you do.
Good recap Matt. Enjoyed the debate too. BTW, the audio and video quality on this video are excellent.
In terms of what proof can change my mind... I actually find I tend to be more sceptical with religious claims given the number of times I've found people to be dishonest in their claims intentionally or otherwise.
It really is paradoxal given that the best believers can give me is personal testimony, which I first have to assume that they are being honest.
Course, the whole purpose of evidence and proof is to defeat skeptisism, as no level of doubt can stand up to airtight proof.
The other level is that if God knew and loved me like the Christians like to say, he would know why I doubt, and exactly what he could do so that I'll believe in him right away and forever. But, that's why religious believers say you have to seek him to believe in him, confirmation bias and gullibility is the path to salvation.
It's just a plethora of "wolf crying". Lots of different "boys" crying about lots of different "wolves".
YOU SAID "The other level is that if God knew and loved me like the Christians like to say, he would know why I doubt, and exactly what he could do so that I'll believe in him right away and forever. "
HE DOES... but have you got the guts and the the sincerity to follow through and admit the truth when he gives you those answers? Go head . ASK! but be careful what you ask for, You might get it.
@2consider "If God proved his existance, that would remove our freewill." Bullshit. That is like saying that proving that the Earth revolves around the Sun was an attack on our God-given freedom to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Most of the time, the "does god exist" discussion actually has two layers to it, I've noticed. The first one is the theist claiming that there is a good reason to believe their god exists. But when you peel down that one and the conversation goes on, you'll see the second layer - the argument that their version of the world is *better*.
They will say something to the effect of "Well, I wouldn't want to live in a world where my god doesn't exist" or "How can you go on if you don't believe in the afterlife?"
First, that's irrelevant. Feelings have naught to do with what's actually true. Second, it's also wrong. I'm pretty sure most Christians would absolutely hate it if their religion was true. Do you remember those stories about the people who were so very surprised to find themselves deported from the USA by the decrees of the very guy they voted for? The guy whose campaign ran on openly advertising that he will do exactly that? Christians think that their god exists and their life is mostly ok, so they must be on His good side. I think many of them would be unpleasantly surprised, if their fables were actually true.
@2consider I was merely pointing out that Christians (those fables) are mostly talking from the point of view of someone who is both sure that the world works as their faith says it works AND that they're on the good side of their god. George Carlin had a great piece on this in his last stand-up special, describing how believers often comfort themselves after burying a loved one, saying that "They're in a better place now", "I think they're up there, smiling down at us" and so on, and nobody ever considers that the deceased could be in hell. As if they somehow knew every thing the deceased has done in their entire life.
Statistics show that most Christians don't know what their holy book actually says. In fact, at least in the USA, atheists are far more biblically literate than Christians are. It's not surprising, really, since one of the most common triggers for deconversion atheists cite is taking the bible and actually reading it. This means that if the bible were true, many, if not most Christians would find their god mad at them and sending them to hell, because they were doing forbidden things they didn't know were forbidden, because they never bothered to read the manual.
You're about to have a major milestone birthday soon, Matt. I hope that it's a happy one for you!
I like how someone pointed out on the other video that theists don’t think they’re “too skeptical” when it comes to their disbelief in other gods outside of their religion 😂
2consider thanks for the reply! I believe in so many things. Life, love, positivity, integrity, humanity etc. To me a proper skeptic should be skeptical of his/her own beliefs too meaning always laying things out in the “table” to reassess, always open to new info, not afraid to say “I don’t know” and disbelieving without discrediting.
@2considerKnowledge is defined as the small fraction of our beliefs that actually meet the scientific standard of evidence. As such, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are actually True. Therefore knowledge is by definition “True belief(s)”.
@2consider If I'm not aware of which worldview is correct, why would I commit to one? "I don't know" seems to be the biggest problem for believers.
@2consider You: Integrity means having strong moral principles, how can a person have strong moral principles without an objective moral standard?
Me: Easy…Same as anyone who believes in an objective moral standard. Have an overall standard (like say, honesty and respect) but have enough common sense to know that this means different things in different situations to different people… Assess each situation in order to apply the best action you can while trying to be honest, respectful and mindful of others in the process. We don’t live in a “cookie cutter” world. No matter how objective a morality someone else will disagree and from another angle someone will experience it as moral or immoral. From what I’ve observed the (sane) religious/spiritual and the (sane) non religious deal with these issues in the same way in everyday situations. One just also believes in an objective morality handed down by a supernatural lawgiver.
You: Are you skeptical that you know what life and love are? Are you skeptical of what you believe to be best for humanity? If there's a god, then the best thing for humanity is to worship god, but you don't know god doesn't exist.
Me: Lol. Of course I take my views with a “grain of salt” like any reasonable person would. I have my current thoughts and understandings and I work each day to study as much as I can to learn more about these topics in order to a.) see where I’m accurate b.) see where I’m inaccurate c.) see what we now know in light of new information. If there's a god, then the best thing for humanity is to worship god?…lol. Only if you believe that to be true. (Which I did for 28 of my 36 years). When you no longer do it sounds silly, infantile and has no value…..Being as good of a skeptic as I can I’m not saying I know that it isn’t true….It just no longer has real world value to me and I no longer have a reason to believe it. There are people who do believe this who I live alongside and happily in relationship with who’s lives don’t seem much different than my own (ups, downs, successes, failures etc.) even with this contrast in belief….Yeah I know some believe it will ultimately matter after death but again most times I find that this is what the person desperately needs in order to be happy, content and to feel like they’re living a productive, purposeful life. It just so happens that I don’t need this mechanism to experience those same benefits and don’t have a good reason to believe it’ll make a difference after death.
You: The conclusion has to be, you're not skeptical enough, because if you don't know a god doesn't exist, and you try to influence people away from god that is not love.
Me: This is only because you believe in a god. For someone who doesn’t it’s like saying I’m trying to influence people away from “Testerleffer” and “that is not compassion.” Your statement simply shows what you believe and accept. And this is what I was talking about with regards to morality and how each person sees it differently, god or no god. To you the most loving thing may be to help people to believe in god….to me (with regard to the christian god) this is immoral because I believe Christianity is ultimately immoral in totality although there are definitely some parts in isolation that aren’t. But I respect that you feel differently therefore I only engage in this kind of convo if someone else is interested (hence me even dialoging).
You: If Matt, and to some extent you were truly skeptical you'd keep your opinions to yourself. If you were skeptical of your own beliefs, you would be aware that could be totally destroying the lives of anyone you influence.
Me:……uummmm lol. I’m sorry but that’s the funniest shit I’ve ever heard in my life. That argument could be applied to saying ANYTHING to anyone about anything especially because it’s impossible to know with 100% accuracy how something (even an I love you) will affect someone… I think that’s just ridiculous lol. I have good intentions just like you do. Neither one of us know what the impact will be of what we say AND we both know anything we say or do could have an effect that’s undesired. That’s like saying don’t drive a car at all even if you’re donating your time to help everyone who doesn’t have transportation because you could possibly get into an accident and kill everybody who you pick up…….. Come on my friend again I repeat….. unless what you said applies to you too my intentions (possibly) echo your own… to do the best I can to help as many as I can with the least amount of damage in the process while knowing certain outcomes are out of my control.
You: I don't know who you are, if you're a celebrity atheist like Matt, but Matt makes his living expressing his ignorant views at possibly his determent and anyone else that he influences. The makes him an evil vile man, if there's a god.
Me: Man you have a pretty dark view of people. Ignorant views? Evil vile man? Seems to me like me, you and even Matt are trying to do similar things although from different perspectives…..To help (some) people to live a better life by possibly offering something beneficial for their perspective……. and I’d never see or call you an evil, vile man even if we believe totally contrasting things with regard to these topics….wow.
You: Wow, I allowed you to really take me off track.
Me: I think your deep investment and current view of these topics and possibly even being appalled by anything to the contrary is what got you so far “off track” but I think it’s fine though. These were the questions you really needed to find out…..
You: My original question was, if not god, what? The Christian god is described as the creator, source of all morality, the supreme being, if not god, what do you believe as alternatives, if all this isn't created, how did it come to be?
Me: Alternative to the Christian god? To me it’s like saying what’s the alternative to Thor. I believe these are beings thought up and created in our anthropomorphic “image and likeness” over long periods of time. We currently have some understandings of the latter aspect of how things evolved but I don’t believe any of us actually know about the origins although many of us claim to know via “divine revelation” or subscription to a holy book. I believe this is the case because its more comforting to have an answer to fill in the “void” than to not know about certain mysteries of life (after life, before life, rules etc.)
You: If God is not the source of morality, where does morality come from?
Me: We create and change morality over time based on what we deem as valuable, what culture and environment we grow up in and as we further understand the world around us (evolution). Some of us just believe there is a moral lawgiver judging us all by one standard in the midst of the gradient of all these differences world wide.
You: If God is not the supreme being, who is, you?
Me: It’s hard to answer this because your question makes 3 assumptions….A being, a hierarchy beyond what we can reasonably attest to…….. and a who……
@2consider I only made the one post. You seem to have me confused for someone else?
Why can't you say that you know a god exists? Why do you believe a god exists? What do you think the difference is between what you know and what you believe?
Thanks, Matt. Important conversation for people to have, and you presented it well.
Saw you in SF for magic & skepticism last year
Looking good! Keep up the good work
I just remembered a phrase from Shogun. 'Drinking tea from an empty cup'.
He tried to get around determinism by using "wouldn't" instead of "couldn't." Saying that you wouldn't do something means that you don't have libertarian free will. Why wouldn't you do it? For reasons? So if those reasons were different, does that mean you would behave differently? Might you say your choices are _determined_ by your reasons for choosing them?
Asking "am I TOO skeptical?" is like asking "is my immune system TOO strong?" Given the choice between believing
a) a possibly-true thing AND a possibly-false thing, or
b) neither,
I would go for b).
No, the goal is to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. Your "I would rather b) than a)" can easily be solved by believing absolutely nothing. Which is as much of a bad option as believing everything.
@@iogssothoth666 "Absolutely nothing" was not one of the options. I would rather reject a possibly-true thing than accept a possibly-false thing.
@@JMUDoc are there anything on which you have a 100% certainty ?
@@iogssothoth666 If 100% certainty is taken to mean "can't conceive of being mistaken", then yes.
@@JMUDoc really ? Absolutely no possibility of being wrong ? Could you give me an example
I agree with you Matt. I’m more of a fan of conversational debates. I think 20 min is too long of an opener. I prefer shorter back and forths especially when someone decides to touch on 20-30 different topics. It’s too many points to digest and rebut at one time.
Excellent video. Glad you did this.
This is a great video, one of my favorites from Matt
These videos are extremely educational as I learn different terms and their definitions - such as "Libertarian Free Will", which is a term I've never heard but (on hearing the definition) realise I have encountered and discussed in the past and fallen on the side of not believing we possess it on the grounds that if I rewound time, I would _still_ be making the choice based on the information and state of mind I had at the time. Would I make the same decision "if I knew then what I know now"? Maybe not, but the point is, I _didn't_ know then what I know now and turning back the clock is not going to confer upon me a different viewpoint of the situation - unless it was such a trivial choice as to be practically random in the first place or I quite literally tossed a coin.
And you've prompted me to look into Compatibilism to see what the arguments are on that - to the point that I stopped the video and went and watched some Daniel Dennett videos on Compatibilism and some on Determinism... all the better to understand the content of this video.
I was part of an online forum where we were debating all manner of Theist vs Atheist, Creationism vs Natural Processes etc and there was one guy whose main argument was the Watchmaker Argument and he was adamant that evolution by natural selection was bunk and seemed to think that if he disproved evolution, the _only possible alternative_ was creation. A lot of us argued for days/weeks/months with this guy and basically, short of getting a time machine and taking him on a lengthy journey in which we could demonstrate, generation by generation with no gaps at all, that the descendants of _this_ animal with no eyes managed to evolve eyes and _that_ animal's descendants eventually evolved into something that looked completely different, he wasn't going to accept that evidence supports evolution. His "evidence" for believing in god? The 1611 KJV _said_ god was real.
Evolution has met and exceeded my standards of evidence - it was good enough when we just had fossil records and the observations of ring species and moths that adapted to the soot of Industrial-Age England (and subsequently have adapted again as the soot has diminished) and now the study of genetics has provided even more-compelling evidence.
A collection of anecdotes and bold-faced assertions, contradictory stories, conflicting subsects, fallacious arguments that often don't even address the topic at hand (deistic arguments, even if not fallacious, don't support specific theistic views) and such do not remotely meet the standards of evidence for a fantastic tale of a supernatural uncreated universe-creating entity outside the bounds of what we can perceive or measure.
I'm not sure I believe it's possible for someone to be "too skeptical." I'm going to withhold judgment on that until further evidence is put forward
It is like being too logical or too honest imho.
@@o.b.9781 ???
Thank you for all you do.
Your channel is criminally under-subbed.
There's no such thing as being too skeptical, because never at any time is it reasonable or rational to conclude that you know the answer to something when you actually don't.
I enjoy your critical thinking approach to thesis’s claims. I also enjoy theramin trees approach using critical thinking with a psychological edge to theism. I like that you review your responses to debates to clarify and find a better approach to be the most effective.
How did I miss a Dillahunty debate!?!?
About to go look for it in the UA-cam then I'll be back.
It was a decent one... If you exclude the other guy.
I seriously can't believe that fucktard's opening argument was that god exists because libertarian free will exists. You don't even have to get into the obvious non sequitur fallacy there, libertarian free will is just flat-out the most indefensible position, it's the philosophical equivalent of arguing for a flat Earth. It was just one painfully bad argument after another from the theist. If it wasn't for Matt to counterbalance the non-stop idiocy coming from the theists, those debates would be unwatchable.
@@mikean7074 that's a little unfair. Even if we can't demonstrate it, there's still a very tiny possibility that libertarian free will is actually true. There's no chance that flat Earth is true.
@@TheMonk72 There are quite a few UA-camrs who would disagree ;-)
@@corydorastube there are plenty that claim that libertarian free will is impossible, but I have yet to be presented with proof of that. Flat Earth however is easily disproved by anyone with a little understanding of physics. The only way you can argue for fE is by rejecting reality.
@@TheMonk72 The reason why they say libertarian free will is impossible is because it is logically incorrerent. The fact that you are not aware of that and your demand for "proof"...
On a similar topic, Julia Galef gave a good talk on the accusation of being too rational, talking about the concept of the straw vulcan.
Even though I mostly don’t agree with your position, I like how you are always respectful in debates.
Really hope you do your logical foundations thing! Looking forward to the nitty gritty
Hey Matt, thanks for taking the time to explain why your rebuttal seemed so rushed. It felt out of character compared to previous debates I've seen you do, as if you were under pressure.
On this issue, there's no such thing as being too skeptical. An all-knowing god would know exactly what it would take to make me a believer, and since that same god is also all-powerful, it would take no effort at all for him/her/it to make it happen.
Just like all platitudes, this one is wrong as well. If I say I have ice cream, beer, coffee and tea (trying to cover my bases here :p) and you can have some if you come over, would you really be skeptical.
Never mind... I'm just going to debunk myself... You could be and in your skepticism you can already have solutions for different outcomes. For instance, I could be mistaken and we could go out for ice cream. I could be trying to get you to take me out for ice cream and have you pay for it. You could choose to be fine with several outcomes or just leave and do some shopping while you're out so your trip wasn't completely wasted.
Maybe some platitudes are correct, but it's rare as fuck. Usually to every rule there are several exceptions.
Be careful though, not everyone assumes their god is all-powerful. It's better to ask directly if the required action is within the powers of their god. Matt's example is a good one where a theists would argue - or rather assume - that a god perhaps couldn't create a universe where Matt becomes a believer. For an all-powerful god it wouldn't matter if such a universe was possible, that god could just make it possible. It doesn't matter if Batman can beat Superman, it matters what the person you're talking to believes.
So what will be your effort and research on this subject?
Setekh wrong, Matt is applying his skepticism consistently.
He believes in aeroplanes, God would only need to present something roughly akin to this.
@THE PEOPLE SING I'm not convinced that it is up to me to find the "source of the universe", actually. What makes you think that it is?
@THE PEOPLE SING I've got no problem with a God that values people thinking for themselves; I only wish that more of those purporting to know and speak for God valued it as well. Instead, from many of them we hear dire warnings of what will befall us if we don't think just like them.
For the watch analogy; if we had autonomous robotic organisms on this planet other than toys, which could make variations of themselves at random, and parts thereof, would we assume a timepiece lying around was from humans?
Including the link to that Braxton video in this video's description would be nice.
I have been a long time fan of yours Matt, in fact you have aided in my journey into Atheism.
I am sure that you will be sufficiently convinced of a deity with sufficiently evidence, as would I.
Dont worry about it Matt. you make the conversation easy to listen to.
I really like the comparison of the standards of evidence. I am sure it must have been discussed before, but this take felt fresh to me. Addressing the theist standard of evidence for proposition "God" vs their standard of evidence for propositions "not God" should be done more often in way that they can hopefully see they are weighing one favorably over the other.
Glad I found your channel.
Hi Matt, I appreciate you posting the debate and you review of it. I've been thinking about it a fair bit and wanted to give a response to what you are discussing here.
First, I'm not sure if debating free will is a great tactic unless the lines of argument that free will doesn't exist becomes very strong. Even in the event that you are able to successfully raise this argument, convincing someone in the audience would be difficult. That said, there may be real value in raising any concerns with free will existing at all to some people. Either way, it will be good to know if you can get good traction with this argument.
Second, I've heard the response that you don't know what it would take to believe in god from multiple times (and I've heard multiple people say it). Its a solid and pithy response, but at least for myself I think I could postulate a situation in which I could believe in a god. I can't imagine any single event would ever convince me, but having many experiences over a longer time frame that I could only best explain through a god might be enough. Considering I can't think of a single experience that meets this criteria, I don't think it will happen, but I think it would take something like this.
Thanks for doing what you do!
melind82 I have a friend in a wheelchair who is a believer and goes to lots of “healing” meetings and conferences. He has a genetic disease that can’t be cured ATM. If God heals him, I would believe.
@@harrispinkham faulty thinking
@@jdsartre9520 why? Because god doesn’t want to or won’t or can’t?
So if Braxton is saying that there was no possible world in which Matt, at least dies a theist, then I guess a discussion about omnipotence would need to take place. I don't know what Braxton believes about omnipotence so I don't know how he would square this alleged metaphysical impossibility with it.
Matt, when braxton said "maybe there was no universe where you would have chosen to be a preacher" isnt that not only just an assertion, but isnt that also just in conflict with the idea of god because either: God knew he will create you in a way where you will reject him in every possible universe he created, OR God chose to not make a universe in which you would have become a preacher even though he should be able to according to his omnipotence.
Is there something im missing in my argument?
Anyone have a link to the previous video made about the debate? I saw the debate, and most of every episode of AXP since the debate, but this is the first commentary I have found. Thanks in advance.
m.ua-cam.com/video/ASpBVVhC9Kk/v-deo.html
Oops, thought you meant the debate itself, sorry.
My response to: “you don’t exactly know how life started therefore evolution is false.”
We don’t know how or why gravity began. Does that make gravity false?
If Atheists are too skeptical then so are Christians when it comes to all of the God's they aren't convinced about.
It really; for me, says something about the people proffering this argument.
How on earth do they not manage to see that they themselves are atheists in regards to all the other deities. Do they think they are being too skeptical about these other deities? Do they actually think they are being even handed, consistent and using the same level of skepticism for those and the deity they DO believe in?
It is kind of strange that for whatever reason believers cannot grasp the fact that they are appealing for a special level of acceptance, low threshold of evidence and skepticism ONLY for the deity they already accept.
It surely must have something to do with the conditioning, indoctrination, and the intellectual hobbling and mental blinders that almost invariably are engendered with such ideologies.
I usually just say I need a single good reason to believe. People usually fail to provide that.
Brother you did well you were humble attentive and on point..
If you haven't you should do one on dishonesty because that seems to go hand in hand with theist that are very surtain that their specific religion is true.
Politics in the US seems to make a lot more sense when you consider that too.
Being sceptical should be the default, it is not a bad thing. It is like accusing someone of being too honest, or being too logical, it just does not make any sense when you think of it. Though it is hard to argue with people who were programmed to believe that a blind faith is a virtue.
The moderator's closing remarks lacked a simple thanks to both participants. That was just plain rude.
I would like to see a debate on the subject "Did humans create gods or the reverse?" It sure looks like the first part.
Thanks, Matt. That was an interesting way to look at it.
I was recently in a discussion on UA-cam with a Christian whose 'evidence' that his god exists consisted entirely of the feeling of the 'Holy Spirit' he had in his heart. I did point out to him that _other_ religious people - Muslims, for one - have told me pretty much the same thing, yet this guy rejected _their_ feelings as evidence.
But the funny thing is that he rejected evolution, too. I should have contrasted his standards of 'evidence' about _that,_ huh? If I just 'feel in my heart' that evolution is true, I have exactly as much 'evidence' as he has for his god. Heh, heh. Of course, biologists have a ton of _actual_ evidence, not just my feelings. But this just struck me as funny.
Thanks again for these videos!
Is there any way to address the Gish gallop? I don't see how.
Yeah: only debate in writing.
@@robertmiller9735 True, but text only debates have their own issues. Primarily the lack of non verbal communication.
As an Aspie, I don't like to rely on nonverbal cues anyway.
I should have added, anyone who uses the Gallop is dishonest, and should be publicly branded as such and not engaged with.
The concept of the Aristotelian mean has its limitations, but it can be a useful way of looking at virtues. Here we see skepticism as a balanced perspective, where competing claims are all subject to critical inquiry, rather than some being uncritically accepted so that others can be uncritically rejected (or vice versa).
A lot of what is seen as "excessive" skepticism is actually a form of gullability.
Climate science denial, for example, affects an air of skepticism but when pressed, these "skeptics" will often make claims like, "It's a conspiracy by (socialists, the Chinese, etc.) which careerist scientists are perpetuating"- claims which are quite extraordinary and which the "skeptics" have seemingly not seen fit to subject to critical scrutiny. And when you subject them to critical scrutiny they shake their heads and start using the word "sheeple."
I watched the debate with Hunter. He brought nothing new to the table and I didn't realise there were degrees of scepticism. Obviously Hunter thinks there is. Well, if so, I would like to see his calibrated scale.
I tend to remind religious folks that among the vast number of incompatible sects out there, none has a majority of the religious population as believers. That means that most believers have to be wrong about religion. I let that sink in for a moment and then ask people of faith, what makes them think that they have beat the odds and are correct while most are not? Why should a deity or deities (Christians, especially Catholics, are polytheists in denial) be worthy of worship if most people are wrong about how to do it?
My standards of evidence mirror that of science. The stronger the evidence, the stronger the conviction. And I am always open to change my mind. But in order to do so, the new proposition must have stronger evidence than the current one.
No
Regarding the point where there may not have been a possible universe where Matt becomes a preacher. Couldn’t God just change what’s possible?
But that would be interfering with Matt's free will.
Quantum Axe but the point about there not being a possible universe for god to choose from seems to undermine god’s power. In other words how can it be possible for an infinitely powerful all knowing god to be unable to create a universe with preacher matt? Everything innate about matt’s mind must have been chosen to be the way it is by god, and everything external that shaped matt’s mind must have also been designed by god, so matt not being a preacher must have been an outcome designed by god.
@@rayj745 exactly. There is no honest way out of this. The notion of free will is used to fool people who haven't given it much thought. If I am not wrong, I think many old Catholic theologians (st Augustine for example) already had given up the idea of free will. Though they had accepted the idea of grace to keep their belief in God intact. According to them, it was all the plan of God - he chooses who to save with his grace and condemn those who he doesn't.
I am almost sure, all those men would most certainly have been atheists themselves if they lived today. The only reason they were not, was probably because of the lack of understanding about the universe at that time.
Yes he is
Libertarian free will is like libertarian free weather. We are pretty sure it unfolds from physical principles that follow consistent rules but we still can tell what the weather will actually do before it does it. Do we presume that the weather chose its state freely or that it is just so complex it must surprise us, we can't know accurately what it will do any considerable time before it does it.
Similarly the output of our brain is too complex (by necessity) for a subset of our brain (conscious brain whatever that may be) to predict, therefore we are unaware of the causes of our choices.. we just know it happened and it feels partially unconstrained because we can't see all the constraints so it must feel somewhat free.
Hi Matt, a being shows up, and she is obviously stupidly far advanced technologically to us, is there a point they can get to that is technologically advanced enough that you would call them god? or what things can god do that technologically advanced beings can't?
I'm not convinced that the claim 'Matt is too skeptical' is true.
:)
You should start making t-shirts with your quotes on them.
Yay it finally comes
Matt, will you address the phrase, "Begins to exist" that is used in the Kalam? I hear this phrase all the time but I think there's a bit of weaseling going on with the definition. As far as I can tell, every single thing that an apologist could point to and say, "That began to exist" in our reality actually ALREADY existed, just in a different form, and the "cause" involved was simply some process that altered the form from the 1st state to the 2nd.
I would want to challenge the 1st premise of the Kalam by saying instead, "Everything that arrives at a different state has a cause for its alteration." And that wouldn't lead to the whole "must be transcendent, must be intelligent..." tripe that gets added on to the end of it to twist it to lead to God. I'm not sure how a theist would respond to that, because they always want to smuggle in "creation ex nihilo", which we have no reason to think has ever happened or could happen.
You're right, it is weaselly. But that is because it evades the real issues of causality and eternity in question in order to rig the game. If no thing exists that was not caused by some thing else, that rules out a first cause. If we say that generally things are caused by other things but there must be at least one exception, that allows for a first cause, but it also allows for other uncaused things. Likewise, if it is possible for something to have always existed, why only the one thing?
5:32 That's just the way debates work?
Come on, Matt. Debates are something that is orchestrated by people, human beings.
If people can orchestrate it, then the people can change it.
If something is unfair in a debate, exercise motions to equate such issues.
The whole idea of a debate, is to work through the arguments evenly on both sides.
I'm glad you're pushing for more conversational debates, but I think the debate system itself should be reformed, if it is becoming an issue of balance.
But that's just me, I could be completely wrong.
people will try anything. so many times when i correct someone with information that's in alignment with objective reality, they rarely say thank you for the information, nope, rather they say things like "you think too much"
as if it's supposed to be a derogatory statement. haha, prideful, ignorant people who do not want to be seen as incorrect.
bad epistemology gets exacerbated by pride and other psychological factors in connection to some real and some perceived sociological factors.
Also as Matt said, people will vehemently try to defend their ideologies, beliefs.... etc. I think this is also because it's a type of investment and embodiment of ideas/beliefs in question and this makes one uncomfortable to have them in question, which is in essence a strong part of their motivations and thus existence in question.
Could you do a debate with Lee Strobel 😃
I’m going with science, no plans on worshiping it.
like the debate review i think it should be waaaaaay longer and with 2 guests
Hmmm?
skep·ti·cal
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
There is nothing to be skeptical about when it comes to the existence of things, gods included. To physicists that understand actual existence, quantum fields of energy, there aren't any doubts or reservations what is present in these fields and an entity with the purported behaviors and properties of a god is not present.
Ive seen someone design a watch. Ive never seen anyone design existence.
Do the robots in space adventures, like Data or C3P0, have free will? Can they make choices about their future? Are they conscious?
In my opinion we are robots built by evolution. Our consciousness is what it is like to be a biological robot.
Why go as far to fictional robots? Do even animals have free will? If they do, then would they have souls too? If not, then when did humans get one- both or either soul or free will?
I suspect there is indeed such thing as being too skeptical in the sense that it can hinder open-mindedness. Someone too skeptical might perhaps brush off data that is more significant than what first meets the eye.
Disclaimer: this is a general statement and does not specifically refer to religious debate or whether I believe Matt is too skeptical
"Being too skeptical in the sense that it can hinder open-mindedness."
People tend to become closed-minded when they latch onto an idea and refuse to let go. Confirmation bias blinds people to anything that would suggest their belief might be false. In this way it is beliefs that hinder open-mindedness, and skepticism is opposed to such beliefs. So long as we're without beliefs, we're free to view all evidence objectively.
"Someone too skeptical might perhaps brush off data that is more significant than what first meets the eye."
Anyone might brush off important data, but a skeptic has less reason to do so than a believer. A believer naturally defends her precious beliefs and so will tend to brush off data that might threaten those beliefs. A skeptic thinks that knowledge is impossible and therefore beliefs are unjustified, so in principle a skeptic will strive to have no beliefs to defend and therefore is free to fully consider whatever data may be available. Of course a skeptic is also free to brush off any data, but at least the skeptic isn't being compelled to do so.
I watched this a few days ago and tried to think of "is it possible to be too skeptical?"
My answer: No. You can do skepticism wrong; such as refusing to accept something with a preponderance of scientific evidence. But if you are doing skepticism right, you can't do it "too much".
*My* will ain't free (I charge $3.99 a pound) Love You Matt! :)
Try to debate chris langan he is on Facebook he has a CTMU group and is active. Could be interesting
Matt have you ever read the works of Walter Russell? He has the answers you're looking for.
Yesterday I heard a new clip of the Joe Rogan Experience where he accused Michael Shermer of being too skeptical in a debate. ua-cam.com/video/AYCuw-T1A3Q/v-deo.html
A small nitpick regarding one comment you made. I don't think you actually do have different standards of evidence if someone claims to own a dog versus claiming to own a dragon. It's just that a lot of the evidence you would need for the dragon claim, we already have for the dog claim. The person making the dragon claim has a tougher evidential hill to climb, but it's still the same standard of evidence.
10:37 another unfounded assertion: No evidence for it, the assertion that it's absurd to think we don't have it (delighted ignorance), and that's the only way that it could ever be. Reason wins by TKO.
Your standard of evidence is an inspiration. It's a challenge to relate this to generational christians who've banked whole lives on Paley & Co.
I’m a Christian and have varying beliefs on what you said now and in the debate, but it makes sense that with pure Cartesian logic one cannot believe God, even if he revealed himself to you, because Cartesian logic operates in falsification, and it’s too difficult to rule out every other option. I’d simply suggest that God’s existence is more likely than other theories regarding the nature of reality (which, I know, requires much defense) and then it’s faith from there; not a sort of magical, willy-nilly faith but a practical one, like how we have faith that with the next step we take we won’t tumble into oblivion. But I think Cartesian logic isn’t all there is, and faith seems to be an everyday practice for pretty much everyone.
No. You're not.
I don't watch debates. They only increase my anxiety. It is my position that if you need to philosophize your head off and have no scientific evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God, then he/it is equal to or lees than the Lock Ness Monster or a Chupacabra.
Not sure you will ever run into that free will argument again, but try the Sam Harris route next time. Ask him to choose to stop thinking for a full minute and see how long it lasts. If you can't choose what and when you think how could you possibly have free will?
I have been binge watching your videos! Your videos are so helpful. I am also an atheist who does not believe that there is absolutely no God or creator of the universe, but who is simply not convinced that any God or Deity the humankind has ever talked about or worshiped exists. I do like to entertain the idea that a creator started off the universe with evolution in mind or that we live in a simulation, but as I have no evidence of this and since it does not affect my life in any way, me considering such things every now is completely harmless. I do not know what would convince me, either, but I expect such a God to be able to know it and convince me. I sometimes think that God showing himself would be enough, but I am sure I would be able to find an explanation for it. God showing himself every time we asked him to would still be better evidence than what we have today, but I still cannot rule out that it is something we have still not understood or that we are being tricked somehow. Yes. There are many things I cannot answer, but that does not mean that any answer is better than no answer.
I am also aware that I had no choice but to write this comment, reread it, rewrite it or correct it as there is no libertarian free will. Oddly enough, this actually gave me more freedom because I know that not everyone is aware of their thoughts and that we merely are just consciousness that perceives thoughts and associates with these thoughts. What is really fascinating is that no matter how often I am reminded of the lack of free will and a self who makes decisions, I still manage to forget it just like any other optical illusion. I think at this point there is no going back since most religions require you to have a libertarian free will.
Dear Matt, I have been watching and reviewing this debate for various reasons. I agree the debate format and all the inherent flaws you mention place rebuttals in an abridged state.
There is this one point he mentions from another debate between you and Mike Lycona in 2017. Quote: "What if a comet collided with the moon and suddenly anyone could look up in the night sky and could see in multiple languages, Hebrew and Greek, written, 'God exists.' What would you think about that was basically the question." Braxton points out your response is this wouldn't be good enough evidence for the existence of God or even the Christian God. Now, bear with me on this...Braxton furthers his commentary by saying he "argues" God exists but actually just makes assertions based on, well those assertions. The Resurrection is mentioned in passing, that's about it.
Matt in his opening makes this salient point that only seems to resonate with people like myself, intellectuals, as Braxton brands us: Quote: "What is preventing Jesus from showing up right here, right now, conclusively...he has to do something better than presenting a story that has been altered, passed on, in languages that die out..." And, as per usual, no one ever gets the point you make about God knowing what constitutes sufficient evidence to convince anyone of God's existence. Which, to me, is like the biggest, "No duh!" moment ever in the history of these debates.
To which Braxton responds: "I don't find God to be all that hidden." "...why doesn't God just show up bodily every two years on television and announce it for everyone to see..?" Then Braxton proceeds to put words in God's mouth: "That would mean that what God is looking for is mere intellectual belief." What follows is more conjecture and "contextualizing" who, what, why God's nature is such that it is.
Which brings me to my own form of skepticism. If God met me on an intellectual plateau, much to Braxton Hunter's chagrin, I would probably come to believe in God. The problem, of course, is that it wouldn't be the God(s) of Christianity, Islam or Judaism. How could this ever be the case? If and only if you could rewrite the Bible or eliminate it altogether (along with the Koran and the Tanakh or Torah) how else do you eliminate the God therein?
You see, I watch these debates for answers to questions that plague me as a black male in America. What about slavery, racism, sexism, genocide, homophobia, the Gentile versus Jew debate, eternal damnation, personal responsibility and even moral objectivity? More and more the answers I keep hearing are people putting words in their God's mouth, while somehow the Bible and the God of the Bible seems to be fading more and more to the background. (Go to any debate with Dinesh D'Souza and he'll do his best to not even bring up Biblical passages as a disclaimer--before the debate even starts.)
Respond to Braxton responding to this video!!
Personally I don't see how someone who hasn't exercised any scepticism themselves can challenge someone else for doing so.
Can we take a moment to comment about how different the definition of "Free Will" is from the philosophers of the turn of the 20th century? Free will used to be the opposition to destiny. The ability to control your own life, or that the path you take has already been pre-determined. Where and why do we have all these other definitions of free will? Almost every debate I hear from people arguing some form of free will seems to be semantical and superfluous. And with this debate, we go from we are destined because god exists, to god exists because we have free will. It sounds like a dance to me. A meaningless dance at that.
If the Q entity from Star Trek appeared in your living room and claimed to be omnipotent how would you test that claim?
Boy, do I got the video for you. It even got Q in it ua-cam.com/video/gNQkSJXUzjo/v-deo.html
I'd do what Sisko did. And punch the asshole across the room.
I've actually had people tell me that I'm "too closed-minded" when I say I'm a skeptic who doesn't believe in God or the supernatural, and I require evidence to justify my beliefs. The fucking audacity and irony.
7:45
The idea of free will Matt seems to dismiss seems, conveniently for him, to be an impossible, almost incoherent one: to have free will, a person must have a god-like inner chooser inside who makes decisions independent of the laws of nature and the person's character and experiences.
When we speak of people being free in other areas such as freedom of action or freedom of speech, in contrast to freedom of will, there is broad consensus and little philosophical handwringing. In the area of free action, for example, our actions are considered free to the extent that we can do what we want to do. Our speech is free if we can say or publish what we want to say or write. Whether what one wants to do or say arises naturally from her character and experience, in other words whether what she wants to do or say is predictable and deterministic, is not considered relevant. For some reason never made clear by the free-will-deniers, that criterion of freedom is not sufficient when it comes to free will: for our will to be free, supposedly an inner deity would need to be able to violate the laws of nature.
Neuroscientists or 'neurophilosophers' often state the criterion of free will this way: "At the moment of decision, could he have decided otherwise?" That question is the beginning of wisdom, but the question is incomplete. What needs to be added is, "...if he had wanted to?" Not an easy question to answer in any particular case, and neuroscience at present can't provide an answer, but it is the only sensible question to ask if one wants to ascertain whether a person's will is free at that moment.
"If he wanted to"
To that we should the question: "Could he have wanted to?" Or, "Could he have wanted to sufficiently for him to have decided differently?"
These are also not easy to answer.
@@amtlpaul
"There was a dog, he had two bones, he choose the other, freedom of choice. " Devo
You have the patience of Job for doing these. ;)
If there were some sort of being doing things in the world today, that the god of the bible was described as regularly doing -- parting seas, making the sun stop in the sky for a day, flooding the entire planet, etc, etc, etc. I'd believe that there was some super powerful being that was messing with us here on earth. I might even pretend to worship it, if it kept it from torturing me.
Not enough debate review for my liking. But thank you for the video.
Accusations of being too skeptical often come when we ourselves do not adequately present goal posts or decision points in which we would seriously entertain the belief in a proposition. The common response to these accusations are "I'll know evidence for God when I see it" or "God knows what it would take, so the burden is on him to provide a case for his existence" but both of these responses strike me as being unreflective and unwilling to engage in a little introspection. If the expectation for God is to be "obvious to all, so that no argument is required" then how does on go about justifying that expectation? Further, if the only beliefs you're willing to entertain are those which are obviously true, then who decides what is obvious? Many things in life are not obvious, such as the spherical shape of the Earth, but if you were standing on the Moon, it would be totally obvious. So, in some sense, I think the "too skeptical" criticism is fair *in situations* when somebody is obscuring their goal posts or decision points, and is appealing to their own incredulity as their personal epistemic standard/reason why they disbelieve.
It rather depends on the claim being made. It would be a fairly simple matter for a being to show up and claim to be a "God", but how would we prove that this being created the universe, is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.? I honestly don't know how such things could be proved.
@@amtlpaul Well you can reason from effect to cause, but (to use some philosopher jargon) this only gets you to sufficiency, not necessity. For instance, even if it can be shown that the Universe had some First Cause, then the most we could say about that First Cause is that it has "sufficient power to create the Universe" it doesn't get you to "necessarily all-powerful," and so forth. If "sufficiently powerful" is as good as it can get for our purposes of defining God, then we'll have to take it. We know what powerful looks like, and we know what intelligence looks like, and so some degree and combination of those properties has to fit and be coherent in order for God to exist. What other option is there? Walk away because we're unwilling to entertain non-classical definitions of God? That to me also comes across as being unreflective.
@@gordontubbs We can entertain all kinds of notions; it is quite a different matter to be convinced that they correspond to reality.
Skepticism and atheism (like saying TOO atheist) are basically negative words they are the closest thing to saying NO as you can get (without saying or meaning no). Maybe you could counteract that by saying: I'm openly skeptical. Or I'm reasonably atheist, or even a free-thinker. The fact remains that a 'believer' or a YES person, is seen as positive words so we place descriptive words on them, such as a gullible believer, or unreasonable person with their eyes closed to reality.
How does this all come about? Its because of science.
Consistently we hear that theists argue two definitions of say faith at the same time. Oh its easy to show faith is not a pathway to the truth just pick any other religious faith group. But actually having faith in your children or your life will get better, are actually good things. So too do I see atheists who argue science and logic arguments, fall into the single sided of its not believable until its confirmed true style of argument. When they merely need to come down to the theist's level and inform them, as a parent would, about reality.
Adults put away childish things, including the fears of childishness and the desires to be all grown up.
Theists are living in a fairy-tale world where witches and angels are still about, they are afraid to grow up.
Stargate is science fiction? Ok, I'll give you that. But Battlestar Galactica totally happened.
Stargate is BASED on actual events. Some of the names and events have been modified to protect the victims.
6:50 - "libertarian free will is the notion that if you were to rewind time, you could have done something different".
I don't think that definition is sufficient.
Because it doesn't differentiate itself from the notion of will based on physicalism with randomness inherent to the physics.
I dont deem it sufficient either. So far we may not have encountered any brain processes where quantum coherence is preserved and random effects play a role, but suppose we find some evidence one day... That would make libertarian free will a reality, even though it is utter rubbish to argue that emergent minds could somehow consciously control the outcome of random quantum events, let alone the constituent processes underlying the emergent mind itself. (that entire logic is nonsensical to begin with )
When you go to the wikipedia page of libertarian free will, you'll see different versions like agent-causal, event-causal etc...
I'm an atheist but I really don't like the arguments against religion about how you'd expect things to be. I'd much prefer not making claims but instead taking apart the theists claims since they hold the burden of proof. Maybe it plays better with the crowd but I find the arguments unconvincing. Maybe I'll call in to discuss it with you
The bible makes some pretty solid declarations about the nature of reality which are demonstrably false as well as declarations about the nature of this god. I don't see it as being unreasonable to conclude that certain things about reality just wouldn't be the way they are if what the bible said was actually true.
Same. Though to be fair, arguing about how you'd expect things to be is taking apart a theist claim, because their claims imply things would be other than they are.
But, agreed it's a bit flimsy, it doesn't really mean anything to a theist who already thinks the other variations are wrong and is okay with that, but also, there's too much wiggle room in simply not being able to comprehend the plans and motivations of a God.
I quite like those arguments. Sure, they're not definitive but they are a change from merely picking apart the theistic arguments - and they are pragmatic. No word games, nor logical trickery or theological theory. You may not get those who believe that it's enough to just "look at the trees" or who claim personal revelation but to everyone else you point out that an interactive, powerful god should not require apologists to define them into being or millennia old myths, in a universe ruled by one or more such gods their existence and actions should be obvious, their messages and rules should not be open to interpretation.
I happen to also find the "if I were God" line of arguments utterly unconvincing. Anyone can play the imagination game. We could all imagine our lives being far worse than they are, and human civilization being far more corrupt and evil than it is, and so forth. But hypothetical scenarios, even realistic ones, cannot count as evidence - either for or against - a proposition. It is far better to take the Universe *as it is* and argue why God does not exist, rather than how you think the Universe *ought to be.* If you disagree, then read some Kant. He showed us that pure reason cannot silver bullet your way out of everything, because what one thinks is reasonable may in fact be unreasonable, or vice versa.
I have presented all kinds of differing perspectives and ideas, but have been dismissed as if I had nothing to say, so I haven't even offered to explain or present anything anymore. I have given many ideas and both Christians and Atheists ignore it all. It is too bad, because I believe I have things to offer. I don't expect anyone to respond anymore, so I don't even start. There is too much yak yak, argumentative thinking and trying to find falsity in everything. Oh well!
Too skeptical must be synonymous with honest.