The agnostic case against atheism (with Joe Schmid)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2021
- In this episode Trent sits down with agnostic philosopher Joe Schmid (@MajestyofReason) to discuss the arguments against atheism as well as an argument for God that intrigues Joe.
Just a heads up for everyone, Joe didn't have a great Internet connection for the interview so I cut out parts where his camera froze, in case anyone was wondering. Also, I can't wait to have Joe on again in the future!
I'd love to see a debate between you two on Pints With Aquinas! Thanks for everything you do Trent. I'm a big fan 😁
Actually, thanks for that. We (I) trust you, and anyway, I could barely tell.
@@MrMatt-kj3rr pints? Will there be drinking?
Trent: tell me exactly what you are...
you're the spider -- ling? Crime-fighting spider? Spider-boy?
Thank you for the C.S. Lewis quote. It brought me to tears... Though, would it not be unconscionable if after that meeting with Aslan one did not pursue that relationship "further in and further up"?
This is the alternate Peter Parker that never becomes Spider-Man and sticks with his debate team.
He does favor Tom Holland! It's so crazy!
Oh my heavens, you’re right. He’s like a perfect mixture of Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire.
Oh my heavens, you’re right. He’s like a perfect mixture of Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire.
Trent looks like a Bruce Banner.
Joe Schmid : The Spiderman of The Philosophy / agnosticism
We’re just in a universe where Peter Parker never became Spiderman
Joe really does sound like someone on 1.5x speed. You can tell he is very enthusiastic about philosophy.
I wacthed this video on 1.5 speed.
I watch all videos on 2x speed so you can imagine what he sounds like.
Oh yeah. He has fantastic energy. I love it.
I thought he was for a while.
Intellectual Tom Holland isn’t real, he can’t hurt you.
Intellectual Tom Holland:
Are you talking about Spider-man or the historian who has renounced his secular humanism (author of "Dominion: The making of the western mind")?
@@hhstark8663 lol never heard of the second guy
@@TheOriginalTuhat what's the origin of this meme?
HAHAAHHAHAH! You noticed too! I can see him a combination of Tom Holland and Toby McGuire tho
Dont you think Joe gets tired of the spiderman comments? I wish people thought before typing. That meme is so important to you
I'm very simple. I see Joe Schmid discussing Catholicism, I like.
I can imagine Joe being bitten by spider, having problems with paying rent to an Eastern Europian landlord, and fighting a mechanical octopus
Here to comment and like for the algorithm. May God continue to bless your work Trent!
For the algorithm.
Wow. Joe’s answer to Divine Hiddenness is the best I’ve ever heard. I’ve been looking for that kind of answer for quite some time, but never expected to hear it from an agnostic.
Can you please give a time stamp
Sorry it’s been a year since I watched this video so I don’t remember. I will say that I no longer find Joe’s answer as convincing as I once did.
@@michaelx5070lol
@@michaelx5070 i mean he is saying that some of the premises needs further justification so that we could really exclude that it is impossible that god have a reason to allowing that. I don't know how it could be more convincing then that
@@jsep99 from the 30th minute or something close to that
Great interaction! I really enjoyed that you gave examples and explanations when it got a bit academic.
Glad to help!
Massive Crossover. Joe is my favorite agnostic and I think all types of theists, atheists, and agnostics should watch his stuff
He's the best agnostic in the whole MCU
I’m an atheist and I send Joes videos to my atheist friends to make them less cringe
Brilliant discussion! Really brilliant! Congrats to you both! Please do this more!
This is great! Love Joe and Trent!
The professors in Joe’s classes better be “on their toes”. This is one sharp dude ( a thinker) who isn’t going to just sit there, and who is very good at expressing himself in a completely engaging way. On the other hand those of us who operate at a slower speed can feel like we are drinking from a firehose.
Amazing! Love you both and God Bless
So glad to see you doing this Trent. Here is an excerpt from a comment we posted on another channel where we discussed some of the best arguments against Atheism/for Theism:
Some powerful considerations that can be taken as being supportive of Theism are the cumulative cases offered by individuals such as Richard Swinburne, Thomas Aquinas, Timothy O'Connor, and Josh Rasmussen (Swinburne's being the most powerful). New developments in analytic metaphysics that can support Modal Arguments from Contingency (see "Necessary Existence" by Josh Rasmussen and Allex Pruss). Recent arguments about Causal Finitism in relation to the Kalam (see the work by Rob Koons and Alex Pruss' book: "Infinity, Causation, and Paradox"). The emergence of Analytic Thomism (see work by Edward Feser, David Oderberg, Eleonore Stump, Gavin Kerr). Comparative Fine-Tuning Arguments (see "Fine-Tuning Fine-Tuning" by John Hawthorne and Yoaav Isaacs). Moral Agency and Consciousness (see Richard Swinburne, Ben Page, and Timothy O'Connor). Now, of course, I think these considerations can be defeated by/accounted for by Naturalists and Atheists, but not without real effort of thought as they well-informed, intellectually sophisited, and show they power of the theistic worldview as they do provide solid considerations in favor of Theism.
Which Swinburne's book(s) best lay out his case?
I'll take any book(s) about Swinburne's case written by someone else but make the case pretty good.
@@namapalsu2364 Existence of God
LMAO
nope, cant defeat what is true.
I enjoy listening to Joe. I am a Christian but I'm a big fan of his work.
Trent hit it at 13:20 both sides suffer from not acknowledging the evidence of either view.
The Peace of Christ Brother Horn. I'm Lucas Here from Brazil. his works are amazing. I hope one day I can meet you and the people at Catholic Awnsers in person.
Brasileiros em todo canto, graças a Deus. Aliás, hoje é dia do seu Santo onomástico, São Lucas. Parabéns.
@@gabrielcoutinho599 valeu irmão, pensei que só eu curtia os apologistas americanos.
@@LucasFerreira-uv7gc Brasileiros por todo lado, nada de novo. KKKKK.
BR na veia, irmão! Somos muitos!
I didn't know the guy who plays spiderman is an Agnostic debater/thinker
That’s who I was reminded of! 😂 He even holds his mouth the same way as TH.
Trent, if possible, I'd love to hear about which books to start with in philosophy! It's so interesting and I really would love to think more intellectually about the world, but I'm not even sure where to start. Thank you for this conversation, it was wonderful!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 🤖 Trent introduces guest Joe Schmid and their common approach to engaging philosophical topics.
02:10 🤔 Joe describes being an "epistemic agnostic" and explains different types of agnosticism.
05:12 🤨 Trent and Joe discuss different forms of agnosticism and their distinctions.
08:01 😕 Trent and Joe clarify definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and the burden of justification.
12:13 🧐 The concept of "presumption of atheism" is discussed, considering whether atheism should be presumed without evidence.
16:38 🤯 Trent challenges the idea that atheism should be presumed due to lack of evidence.
19:01 🤯 Trent raises concerns about starting with a presumption against existence due to a risk of false beliefs.
20:13 🤔 Trent and Joe discuss the analogy of Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster in relation to atheism and theism.
20:29 🤖 Arguments against atheism involve assessing the relevance of similarities between God and other entities.
21:12 💡 The presumption of atheism requires proponents to present positive reasons for atheism over theism.
22:33 🪐 The argument about God's existence being logically impossible is based on incompatible properties.
25:07 🛠️ Defining omnipotence as "maximal power" helps avoid paradoxes like the stone paradox.
26:57 🧐 Distinguishing between logical impossibility and metaphysical impossibility clarifies omnipotence.
30:15 🕊️ The problem of divine hiddenness questions why rational non-resistant believers don't believe in God.
34:28 💔 The argument from divine hiddenness doesn't work if God has morally sufficient reasons for hiddenness.
35:52 🎭 Belief in God isn't necessary for a meaningful relationship; cognitive and moral freedom may explain non-belief.
38:38 🤝 Meaningful relationships don't always require cognitive belief; seeking virtues can connect individuals to God.
41:00 🌍 Moral intuitions may be biased; modern moral progress doesn't guarantee improved moral intuitions.
41:14 😟 Horrendous evils and suffering lead to doubts about God's existence, but some suffering individuals still believe in God.
42:10 🤔 Starving people in Africa may still believe inGod as a source of hope and support, despite their suffering.
43:08 🙏 Expectations about immediate divine intervention in prayer might be influenced by cultural and religious perspectives.
45:13 🤝 Loving and serving others can be seen as a way of being in a relationship with God, even without explicit belief.
46:21 🦁 C.S. Lewis' story highlights the idea that acts of goodness done for others are seen as done for God.
49:25 🔄 There are various versions of the problem of evil: human suffering, animal suffering, social evil, etc.
52:01 🤷♂️ Logical arguments against the existence of God often don't hold up due to metaphysical and logical considerations.
54:48 🎲 Assigning precise numerical values to probabilistic arguments for or against God can be challenging.
57:22 🕊️ Bayesian arguments involve comparing how likely certain data is on one hypothesis compared to another.
58:18 🤔 Consider holistic assessment of arguments, not just one probabilistic argument, when discussing the existence of God.
59:28 🎭 Fun and plausible arguments for theism: Modal Ontological Argument and the concept of a perfect being's necessary existence.
01:01:07 🤔 The modal ontological argument's first premise, "It is possible God exists," is controversial due to different types of possibility: epistemic (for all we know) and metaphysical (either exists or doesn't). There's skepticism about God's metaphysical possibility.
01:02:01 🎭 The main critique against the modal ontological argument is symmetry: it could argue for or against God's existence, rendering it ineffective without a symmetry breaker that differentiates the cases.
01:03:14 🛑 Symmetry breaker: Feasibility principle suggests that things generally possibly have explanations, favoring the possibility of a perfect being. Imperfect things indicate a need for an external explanation, which must come from a perfect being.
01:06:05 🧐 A presumption in favor of the possibility of explanation is extended to imperfect things. Imperfect things require an explanation, which can only be provided by a perfect being. This leads to the potential existence of a perfect being.
01:09:06 🙌 The conversation emphasizes the importance of raising the dialogue to a more sophisticated level and encourages in-depth engagement with philosophical literature for both Christians and atheists.
01:12:08 📚 The need for "middle brow" philosophical content, between academic and popular,to bridge the gap for lay audiences interested in advanced philosophical discussions.
01:15:36 🤝 Promoting meaningful dialogue between philosophers with differing views fosters a constructive approach to understanding and engaging with complex topics.
01:18:44 😅 Addressing age-related comments: While age may impact how arguments are perceived, it's crucial to focus on the substance of arguments rather than personal characteristics.
Wonderful discussion!
Really appreciate this discussion.
Might be wrong but Joe's symmetry breaker reminds me a little of Aquinas' 4th way? Excited to read the paper anyways!
With great beliefs come great responsibilities.
Ben shapiro talks in slow motion compared to Joe lol
Woooow. I've been waiting for this!
i really thought that Joe was going to give a lecture, about the agnostic case against Atheism but very interesting discussion! Loved it!
Props to Joe for seeking truth with honesty and openness. I'd love to hear his reaction to "Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality", by EMJ... To me, it is THE philosophy/ intellectual history book of our time.
Amazing discussion
I’m used seeing atheists, especially new atheism, misrepresented by theists and agnostics so I guess this conversation shouldn’t have come too much a surprise.
This came out early when Trent and Joe were discussing new atheism . New atheism was essentially about pushing back on the automatic deference that religion has received in public life. The idea that for some reason religious faith is supposed to be automatically deserving of respect not accorded to almost any other beliefs.
It was made clear many times that the main focus of New Atheism was religious beliefs, justified by appeal to the God of revealed religions like christianity.
It was a very valuable movement in that regard . Plenty of people, I know, refined their views about God and religion during that time.
That said , the main misrepresentation I saw and that discussion concerned atheism, especially the newer expressions of atheism being “ lacking a belief in a god.”
Joe and Trent claimed they were spotting obvious inconsistencies , but the inconsistencies came from ignoring nuance that most atheists give that position, and in Trent and Joe’s own sloppiness when talking about Theism and God in that regard.
At that point, they were not distinguishing between basic theism - the belief in a God - vs the various the SPECIFIC Gods worshipped by the main religions. And most atheists, I know, including during the new atheist time, made distinctions as to their attitudes towards the existence of God and general, versus their attitude towards the gods of specific religions.
There is no conflict at all, and stating that you are an atheist and the sense of “ holding no belief in a God” while also reasoning That some God claims are no more tenable than beliefs in fairies or Santa Claus. The atheist is not “reasoning FROM atheism - from the lack of belief.” The atheist is saying: I don’t believe in any God, but I can also use reason and evidence any evaluating claims for any specific gods, in which case I can scale some gods as far more implausible, or more obvious human creations than others.
So to draw an example used in the show about lacking a belief and aliens : we can be agnostic about the existence of aliens in general. But does that entail we must be similarly agnostic about every single claim made about aliens? Of course not. There are all sorts of specific claims made about aliens, alien contact etc that have all the features of human imagination and delusion and are rightly put in that category.
Same with being an atheist who lacks a belief in any God , but who can still reason that certain God claims our wildly implausible or have plenty of evidence against them and have plenty of evidence that they are the confections of human imagination.
I just wanna say Joe gave me the best answer to my struggles on divine hiddenness more so than any apologist in the past.
What??
I can appreciate a sincere agnosticism, based on our shared ignorance and limited faculties. Yet, this does not excuse willful ignorance of what is knowable.
Okay, what is knowable? Usually with supernatural claims, they thrive on being unfalsifiable -- unknowable. Phenomena that were attributed supernatural agency in the past, if they get brought into the realm of the knowable, become knowably false.
We have no access to anything but the natural. If a god-claim is knowable, then the "supernatural" can only be a provisional category. The gods have to come within the realm of the knowable, and until such time as that happens in a reliable, predictable way it's indistinguishable from them not existing. Take Carl Sagan's analogy of the dragon in my garage. I say there's an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire in my garage. What's the difference between that and no dragon at all? "If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
So again I ask: what is knowable? What are the criteria? What convinces you, should convince me.
Move over Marvel. THIS is the Spider Man v. Doc Oc we’ve been waiting for!
"Nothing" cannot say 'why is there nothing rather than something?' At least having something allows for the question of its existence.
My philosophy professors taught me that if someone disbelieves that God exists, he believes that theism is absurd or even meaningless.
They also distinguished between believing in God and believing that God exists. I can still believe that God exists, even when I don't care whether he does. If I believe in God, that implies that I've committed myself to him.
Your philosophy professors must be marxists
@@paradisecityX0 No, they weren't.
@@paradisecityX0 What tells you that? I distinguished between believing in God and believing God exists because practical atheists believe God exists and live as if he doesn't.
The thing about the Problem of Evil, and why Christian responses to it are always inadequate, is that you have to explain every evil. Explaining 99% of evils doesn't cut it. If there is even a single instance of truly gratuitous evil, then God is not all-loving and all-powerful. The same goes for hiddenness. If even a single non-resistant non-believer "slips through the cracks," so to speak, then God is not all-loving and all-powerful. And "God has a morally sufficient reason that is unknown to us," AKA "God works in mysterious ways," doesn't cut it. That is only convincing to someone who is already firmly convinced that God is all-loving and all-powerful.
Don't undersell your audience Trent, we want the deep stuff way more than the surface "interesting" things like you implied.
39.39 I have heard Joe Schmid make this point several times and I am always surprised that he never makes reference to Simone Weil's beautiful essay (well known to Continental philosophers of religion) "Forms of the Implicit Love of God" where she makes exactly this argument.
Regarding hidden-ness: All individuals have an innate ability to intuit the trajectory of a baseball and are surrounded by a material world which conforms to the principles of geometry. This does not imply an awareness or appreciation of those principles, nor a resistance to them. Education can overcome this type of ignorance for which no man is culpable, but education may be ineffectual against willful ignorance.
so I just realized that Taylor Marshall has 360k subscribers... what made him so popular? (I mean besides incessant advertising)
Not all assumptions are the same.
- Will extraterrestrial life exist?
Being a fairly intelligent person, I am able to assess whether in my experience I find factors that indicate such
a possibility. I know that life exists on one planet and I know that there are other planets.
I can doubt that extraterrestrial life exists but there are no logical reasons to suppose that it is impossible.
I know that in reality there are those two things.
Then I can make another assumption.
- Will there be a god?
Being at least as intelligent as in the previous example, I look in my experience if there is any trace of a
being of such nature. Nothing in my experience with reality points to the slightest indication that such a being
is possible. And when you look at the logical side of it, the possibility of that existence becomes completely
unlikely.
In the first case, it is sensible to use resources in the search for extraterrestrial life.
In the second case, it is not sensible to use resources to find out if a god exists.
It is sensible to recognize that one does not know if something possible exists (when one does not know it)
You are foolish if it seems necessary to point out that you do not know if something impossible exists (because
one does not know if it exists but one also knows that such an existence is impossible).
I think that there are plenty of Catholics that have great ways of explaining their philosophical views that should come on your show. Do you plan on having any?
Lit!
Tried to watch it - it’s an interest of mine… but all the dishonesty. Right out of the gate. Can’t do it.
Regarding the symmetry breaker that Joe Schmid defended around 1:06:00, the "fact" that "something that's imperfect possibly exists" would mean that it would have at least one contingent property that's imperfect, right? Why should we grant that the explanation for that contingent property MUST be "perfect", if we're defining "perfect" as "it doesn't have any imperfections", i.e. "it doesn't have any properties that are imperfect"? Couldn't we have a series of objects, all of them imperfect on different properties, whose perfect properties are sufficient to explain the imperfections on each other? Hope this isn't a stupid question, and if it is my excuse is that I don't really understand how anything could be "metaphysically imperfect" in the first place unless we explicitly define it as such (in which case the definition itself would be the perfectly sufficient explanation for that object?).
PS: I'll grant that it's hard to think of an example, but if we're talking about metaphysical possibility and we're looking at all possible worlds, perhaps we should also do the work to demonstrate that's impossible?
PS2: am I right to assume that the modal ontological argument falls flat on it's face for those who presuppose necessitarianism?
7:17 Isn't 'lack belief' most definitions of Atheism nowadays? So it shouldn't be a problem that most Atheists use it. I've always used Agnostic Atheist to describe myself because I don't know that a god exists nor believe in any. I'm sure there are Agnostic Theists, or even the more rare Gnostic Atheists. There are always going to be multiple definitions of the same word.
Spot on. 👍 I identify as an agnostic atheist, and I'd say my wife is an agnostic theist.
People who argue against this, tend to be intellectually dishonest types trying to shift burden of proof, and/or misalign atheists in general. In my experience.
@Quack Epistemologist Some cats are allergic to people
they're just confusing
I can't wait for the sequel where Trent Horn turns into a evil psychopath and attacks Joe Schmid by going after the people that he loves.
My issue with agnostics are the fact that SO many internet athiests while on public forums during debates will say they are agnostic towards God..... Simply to avoid the issues with that assertion... But in private, full on rage atheist's.
That's a mighty fine straw man you've constructed there. 👍
@@LastBastian MY friend, im not sure you understand how to use that term, strawman. Im not making an argument. This is an opinion, i suggest learning how and when to use that term so you dont look and sound silly. I would never use this in a debate, if i did, that wouldnt be very smart. Its a simple observation that you are free to disagree with. Nice try tho fam.
@@jonathansoko1085 straw man:
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
You didn't present it as an opinion. You stated it as if it's a fact, and seemingly did so to "intentionally misrepresented another's proposition"
But good that you *now* acknowledge it was just an opinion. So we can perhaps simply chalk it up to honest ignorance.
Though it still definitely reeks of: "because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
@@LastBastian don’t know about the other person, but I will IN FACT make the argument which he stated. Want evidence? Watch ANY ATHEIST debate, EVER. Hah.. while I won’t make that claim in particular, I will claim that it is often the case that the Atheist debaters flip their narrative mid-course from definitional atheist to definitional agnostic. This is I just a fact, and if you deny it wlell.. you’re denying reality.
@@clark8250 What are you trying to argue?
"Definitional atheist to definitional agnostic" ...that depends on how you are defining these labels. Most atheists *are* also agnostic going by common modern usage.
So there is no "flipping". Only addressing the two different issues of what one believes, and what one claims to know.
About at the one hour mark, Joe is talking about the necessity of perfection... The argument he relays starts by asserting that things generally have explanations. And explanations for a thing have to be in reference to something that isn't that thing. And so if imperfection exists then it's reasonable to expect an explanation in terms of something that isn't imperfect.
...........
Pushing back here.
"Perfection" is a negative concept. Perfection is best defined as being the absence of flaws. THEREFORE if perfection exists and has an explanation, that explanation would necessarily be stated in reference to those flaws. Now, if perfection's existence is explained by imperfection, then imperfection must be explained by something other than perfection - it seems obvious that if you can't have a thing be its own explanation then you also can't have two things both explain each other..
So the logical suggestion is that imperfection must be explained from the other extreme. That is the set of things that have no un-flawed attributes. I would tentatively suggest naming this group either "useless" or "broken".
The problem with Schmid's argument then would be that while we can establish that there is a possible world where a completely useless thing exists, that thing is not (almost by definition) a necessary thing. And so the argument fails at that point
I am halfway through the discussion and I agree with largely most of what is said here.
I just feel like something is not really explicited here: most of the arguments cited here are arguments against specific claims about possible deities and they are relevant in these cases.
For exemple the argument from divine hiddenness is powerful against a god who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and grants eternal damnation to anyone who doesn't believe in them.
This argument is in my sense powerful (even if there exists objection I am aware) only in this type of context and I don't think it makes very much sense to use it in another.
I feel this way about most of the arguments that I have heard in this video and I don't think it is made very clear so I hope this helps people who had the same feeling as me in this video.
Each of these arguments are to be used in different discussions depending on which view of god(s) your interlocuter has.
50:54 Along with the boat, a storm was created,In the meeting, there was separation.
1:00:10 i think S5 is very weak in arguments for god, because it relies on the existence of possible worlds. But we don't know if such worlds are in fact possible. For all we know, probably, the only possible world is the actual world.
New varient of Peter/Spiderman from this universe !!!!
Trent, I think you may be unintentionally confusing evil with work. "My Father works hitherto, and I work". Work involves effort and expense. The Good is a creative act which requires work, but it never requires evil. To give of ones' self, as God does continuously, always requires courage, mercy, and faith. These do not require evil.
I think Lewis’s Mere Christianity fits the ‘middle brow’ bill. Are you interested in reframing generic xtian theology in 21st c. American ‘analytical’ terms, or would it be more of a broad survey of contemporary apologetics?
Rearranging the deck chairs.
"Grand Design" appears to have co-opted this role of torch barer from Auguste Comte who viewed sociologists as priests in the new order of the scientific age.
Trent: tell me exactly what you are...
you're the spider -- ling? Crime-fighting spider? Spider-boy?
I had to check the playback speed
Thanks. I enjoyed this discussion. I never really thought the atheist's argument that his position is the default position is really very good. But, this kind of fleshes it out for me. If there was a default position it would probably be 'i don't know'. But I don't think that you can say that there is a default position, just different world views in question. 'I don't know' would be the starting position. But, if possible wouldn't you want to move onto 'I do know' or would you be happy to not improve one's knowledge on the subject?
Yes, atheism is the default (beginning) position for every person. Theism & atheism are dichotomous positions taken on but _one and only one_ claim to truth. And that claim is that *_a god(s) exists._* So many people mistaken that these positions address _two_ separate claims. One claiming "God(s) exists." The other claiming "God(s) does _not_ exist.“ This is an error that can be manipulated purposely by those whom want both parties (claimant/recipient) to bear a burden of proof when only one party (claimant) is encumbered by this burden of proof.
There is only one claim made. And the only positions available for this claim is either to acknowledge the claim as true or to _not_ acknowledge the claim as true. There is no middle ground. The default position (the position one is in _before_ the proposal is presented), like with any claim, is always the 'null' position. That is an individual *_always_* starts with not acknowledging the truth of a claim because the claim has not been presented to them yet. That is why we can NEVER begin in the 'acknowledge' position without first hearing the claim.
Once the claim is stated, our position will either _remain_ (not acknowledge the truth of the claim) or _switch_ (by being conviced) to the opposite position (acknowledge the truth of the claim). Remember there are only two positions. Those that acknowledge the truth of the claim that god(s) exist are labeled 'theist' and those who don't acknowledge the claim are labeled 'atheist'. No exceptions. Every person in the world, no matter their mental capacity, is either a theist (having changed their default position) or an atheist (having not changed their default position).
Now I will address agnosticism. The first thing I will reiterate is that agnostic is not a third or middle position on the claim that a god(s) exists. It is a separate position about one's *_knowledge_* of the claim.
Also, I will point out that gnostic and agnostic are the only two positions on ANY AND ALL claims to truth, not just the claim that “a god exists.“
Gnostic and agnostic is a separate duo of positions on the statement "I have sufficient knowledge or information to _have an opportunity to change_ my default position from not acknowledging a claim to to a position of acknowledging the claim."
Again the default position is _always_ agnostic for one has no idea if they possess sufficient knowledge (to change their position) until they are first presented with a claim to truth.
If you acknowlege that you do have sufficient knowledge or information or can gain access to such information (regardless of your position on the claim itself) then you are labeled as 'gnostic'.
If you do NOT acknowledge that you have sufficient knowledge or information, then you are labeled 'agnostic'.
The *_moment_* one acknowledges the truth of the claim "God exists" is the *_same moment_* the person switches from a position of atheism to a position of theism. This is why the atheistic position is the default.
@@theoskeptomai2535 i don't agree with your claim that atheism is the default position unless you want to equate atheism with ignorance. Nor did I ask for your opinion on the matter. But since you gave it anyways. Saying that a reaction of disbelief to a claim is the default reaction is by no means a tautology. If someone claims to have witnessed a murder we consider them a reliable witness in a court of law unless proven otherwise. Similar if someone claims to have witnessed a miracle there is no reason to initially throw their testimony out the door unless you already have a philosophy or a prejudice against miracles. One might be agnostic toward the thing. But there is no reason to automatically dismiss the claim either if one is objective until it should be proven to be a hoax.
BTW... does anyone do a good impersonation of Joe Schmid?
Seems to me that an individual’s self label might refer to a specific, postulated god, or any god. So to stretch the example, if someone postulates that god is an orange cubic yard of concrete visible on any street, I would claim that that god is false. I could also not know, or that I can know and so can you. The Theo that is contained in the label needs to be identified.
Has anyone seen Joe and Spiderman in the same room? Hmmm...
Man, i thought i had the play back speed on 1.5, but nope joe just talks really fast lol
Have you considered doing a debunking on the TreyTheExplorer's video about changes in the bible? That went viral has tons of misinformation.
20 ads? 🤣
I am that classic agnostic. I am actually sitting on the fence. This is a personal choice.
I think the question of an existence of a god is a political problem.
If you don’t mind me asking, Why do you think the existence of God it’s a political problem, if you don’t mind me asking?
I feel God is more like fairies than extraterestial. I haven't finished watching but I wonder whether they tackled why they are not agnostics about fairies.
I have completely different views than Trent on prior probability
Since most people believe in a god, and thus most people are theists, using the term atheist (with the "lack of belief in any gods" definition) makes sense, as it draws attention to the relevant factor: not being a theist. I don't have a problem claiming the agnostic label as well, but calling myself an atheist makes more sense, as a response to the prevalence of theism.
But both definitions do that though..
What does Majesty of Reason actually believe tho?
Isn’t this just a superior presumption of a definition of atheism that must be a metaphysical claim about an ontological state because it’s more easy to talk about in a philosophical manner? As if those who are using this term are not psychological beings that entail beliefs and epistemic qualities in relation to that term. This seems unjustified an unrealistic in actually determining what is based on knowledge - how are you ever going to figure out what actually is by just inventing a definition, that is a meta-claim. Because you can just negate it with another meta claim that has the same philosophical or logical reality. Atheism arose out of a psychological state of someone’s mind, not because they were tapping into the metaphysical realm of ontological reality, but because they believed certain things, according to their knowledge. Does prejudicing the term atheism by acting as if the definition needs to be an ontological one and not an epiistemiic Actually get us anywhere, except for writing philosophical papers about it. People want to know what you believe and why you believe it they don’t wanna hear you make ontological meta claims. Thus, prejudicing your definition, over lack of belief in God, or gods, is Fine, but so is the other definition.
Where did Trent find this co-conspirator?
So spiderman is agnostic? Bummer! ☹️
This was an odd discussion. I listened for the first hour and didn't hear any actual disagreements or argument between the two participants and at one point the "agnostic" was quoting the bible which should perhaps be considered great literature but there is a whole lot being said in that great book so should we just pick and choose. Where did these folks disagree. I would like to have heard more of that between a theist and an agnostic.
I think they had discussion before during which they defend opposing claims. Joe (on his channel Majesty of Reason) has multiple videos criticising Trent's videos, too.
It's right in the title that they were going to agree. Neither is an atheist, so they were outlining why. Both Joe and Trent have plenty of debates on their channels that are worth looking up. Especially Trent:)
I am blown away by this kid's intelligence. Unless, he's an old man with some medical condition.
The best comment. LOL =D
Theism/atheism deals with what a person believes. Gnosticism/agnosticism deal with what a person knows. Really don't think they're using agnosticism right. Because asking the question 'does god exists' they link 'no' to theist, 'yes' to atheist and 'dont know' to agnostic. Dont think this is right. I think when it comes to god's existance, noone should or could claim to be gnostic about this, and while it does happen on both sides, i think theists are more likely to claim knowledge
Two years from now we'll be listening to Joe's conversion story to Catholicism on Trent's podcast. Once you find a Saint that you relate to, start recognizing the hints that God is laying out for you, and finding the philosophical and theological beauty in Scripture, it's a done deal...
I think we will see you becoming an atheist. I feel that. You seem like an honest person.
Christians are not very good at prophecies.
@@rodoespinosa4680atheism is sophistry
I think the formulation "God allows evil for a greater good" is problematic for many. It is too easily misconstrued as "let us do evil that good may come" and may appear as an apologetic for evil to some. I think it is more helpful to simply define evil. It is not entirely correct to assume courage, mercy, etc... are not achievable except through evil. The Good always requires effort or work, but work can be a joy or a torment. Our very existence "consumes" God, but He rejoices in this work. God is also consumed in torment upon the Cross by an irrationality termed evil, and so condemns the world. That God can turn torment into rejoicing is a creative act, but God never requires evil.
How would people have those traits without experiencing evil? I’ve seen a lot of recent movies that try to make that happen, but they’re never as good as the ones with a full hero’s journey. I’m pretty firm in the “face the dragon” camp, what’s your argument for “skip the dragon”?
@@whatsinaname691 Nothing skipped, per se, as evil is 'no thing'. God has always been. He is Courage, and Mercy, etc... Was their ever some point at which God did not posses these attributes? To take the position that these attributes require evil is to make evil co-equal to God--- this the central teaching of dualistic and heretical theologies.
40:41 Not here though. Unless Joe finds the ridiculously large number of comments about him being a crime fighting arachnihuman deeply offensive😂
Seriously? 10 ads in a half an hour? Ridiculous! 👎👎
There are more things true than you can prove.
So from the start I think Joe is wrong, though I respect his philosophical work. Agnosticism, if you look it up, specifically means "not knowable" and comes from the negation of "gnostic". So the person basically is claiming that the proposition God exists is not a knowable proposition. There are gnostic atheists, gnostic theists, as well as agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists. The agnostic theists in this case typically believe in God through sheer faith.
That is very different from the claim that agnostics don't know or are in neither camp with respect to belief or nonbelief. First of all, that doesn't really make sense. There are only two possibilities when someone offers a claim for belief - you either believe it, or you don't. But not believing does not mean you think it is false. It can easily mean you just don't know yet. So in this case, atheism perfectly applies to Joe's view. As for whether he is agnostic or gnostic, it is not clear, but probably he is a gnostic atheist. Atheists actually by and large take the position of being open to God's existence, but lacking the evidence to justify any belief. This definition is freely available on Google and has been repeated hundreds of times, so it is slightly irritating that theists still don't understand.
To reiterate: Atheism is not a denial of God, or a claim that God does not exist. It is a claim that there is insufficient evidence to justify a positive belief. And this encompasses statements like "I don't know if God exists or not" as well as stronger claims like "I think its likely God does not exist" or "I fully believe God does not exist". Most atheists however, lack a positive belief but merely take a psoition of not knowing. Agnosticism or gnosticism has NOTHING to do with atheism, and is a claim on whether a proposition can be knowable or not. Atheism is a statement of belief, distinct from that knowledge.
Ok but if we define god to the christian god then there is no excuse for a NRNB to exist. As Paul says, we are without excuse. Also if we dont accept Jesus we cant be saved, which means simply being a NRNB condemns you. An all loving god wouldnt condemn you like that.
Warning. Spoilers of the Chronicles of Narnia books at 46:00.
Joe is excellent. Everyone should watch more Joe. And, I appreciate a discussion between folks who disagree. But I only made it 16 minutes in and I don't think I can watch any more. The distinction between atheism and agnosticism just isn't interesting. I am not aware of a single popular atheist who given the distinction "do you KNOW a god doesn't exist?" would say "yes". Every one of them I am aware of will say that they can't know if any possible god exists and this includes Richard Dawkins. So this distinction wouldn't even matter to the most popular atheist punching bag. The first real topic of conversation after definitions is this talk about how atheists say the "default position should be atheism". Again, I have never seen an atheist say their position should be the default position who doesn't also describe their position as fundamentally agnostic. If the idea of a global default position makes any sense at all, then I don't see how it can be anything other than "I don't know".
Hope more collaborations are coming in the future where you discuss your own beliefs or perhaps collaborative reviews on debates, works of philosophy, or philosophical views of specific people.
Well in the hour and 5 minutes you didn't watch, they discussed their own beliefs, works of philosophy, and philosophical views of specific people.
If you get bored by a philosophical discussion because they move slowly and lay groundwork, then I don't know what to tell you. You can always skip the groundwork if you are knowledgeable in the topic.
One thing one should keep in mind with new atheists are that they have some worthwhile concerns. Many of them have been horifically treated by religious communities (ostracized, frozen out, mocked, been forced to leave their homes at 13 years old etc, seen their friends mocked or bullied into suicide over being gay, raped and having had that covered up by the church.
I can fully understand if that person doesn't take kindly to someone saying, let's sit down in our armchairs and discuss metaphysics.
I think that they would be more open if it was clear you weren't on the side of those who oppressed them in the past. If you were on their side on these issues and then said, "hey btw, I happen to believe I'm the same God as they do but I think they got it twisted, would you do me a huge favour and consider theism a new, take your time"
There is a lot of hurt people out there and throwing arguments at them is not a good strategy.
Ah the victim proze that has affected a minority, and an 3xtreme minority at that, thst is often used to justify violence against political enemies, especially the church. Does it happen sure. Does it actually mean its normal, not at all.
@@boguslav9502 If any atheists have harmed you or your kin physically in any way, I am of course against that.
It's intellectually dishonest to disregard the atheist self-definition and then use another definition of Atheism to discredit that position.
Atheism is only a response to a single question, so why should it be "interesting" and answer all these other questions?
Around 45:00 when he read the Matthew 25 passage and especially the CS Lewis quote, I unexplainably broke down into tears. I can’t explain what came over me but I can only describe it as one of the most unrestrained experiences of God’s presence I’ve ever felt.
I was trembling and my nose and eyes were both dripping uncontrollably, but I didn’t want the feeling to go away, I was in the most unbearable form of ecstasy I’ve ever felt.
The subject matter that was being discussed resonated with me in a very needed way. Since discovering Joe I have sensed incredible similarity between him and myself. Our beliefs, personalities, mannerisms, and approaches to discussion, thought and debate are all eerily similar. We were even born on the exact same month.
I have never hoped so deeply in my life that there is a God and his name is Yahweh. Joe, it is breathtakingly true what Trent said. You have done more here for those who struggle with belief than any theist I have ever known. Cheers to you
If there were nothing, we could ask why is there nothing rather than something? To ask that question, maybe you need to distinguish between someone and something. Maybe there's a possible world where only God exists and says, "There's nothing because I'm not creating anything." I bring this up because, in Aristotelian sentential logic, an A-proposition such as all unicorns are hay eaters has no existential import. It doesn't imply that there are any unicorns. So it seems you can quantify over merely possible objects. But then you can quantify over mere possibilities, and an A-proposition seems to have existential import after all.
I think the point:
its contradictory to think belief in god is delusion, while yourself having no belief either way, (rather than actively believing the contrary)
is not actually a contradiction at all.
Taking your time of day example. If we lived in a cave our whole lives, only ever hearing stories about the sun, but never even seeing it, and you told me you where nearly 100% confident the sun was up, and it was 2pm. because an ancient scroll said so, I would, without having a belief on what time it is myself, call you delusional. Because to be so confident in something you cant see and don't have evidence for, is!
Its like bruh, how can you claim to have knowledge on stuff you just made up. I see the guy that wrote the scroll over there, hes in this cave too, how does he know where the sun is? Thats not how it works.
Bear in mind these new atheists are not usually discussing this generic god def you made up (which tbh doesn't even sound like a god to me), rather they are fighting against the large Christian or Muslim beliefs.
These beliefs really are delusional, as they are entirely circular, revolving around trusting a book to be telling the truth because it says it is. (either that or being so egotistical that you think your personal experience gives you absolute divine truth, that just so happens to contradict 99% of the rest of the people claiming the same thing)
I have a hard time taking Trent seriously. It's not that things don't exist until there's evidence but that claims are made up of they don't point to evidence. In the case of Theism, after that, there's a mountain of reasons given by Theists that further snowball the already imaginary initial assertion. You're always talking against a strawman. It's hard to think you're not aware of this
On one hand you claim there is no evidence that points to theism, then on the other hand you refer to the mountain of reasons given by theists. There is truth in the mountain of reasons, with Jesus Christ at the heart and soul of the mountain.
This is a weird way to view things. If we ask everyone "is there a God?" Everyone should respond, I don't know. If we ask "do you believe in God?" Then, yes, no, maybe, sorta, kinda, not really but... All fit. These guys think the answer the question of "is there a God?" has 3 valid answers--yes, no, don't know. If there is a god we shouldn't be able to argue over her existence, unless we don't know if there is one. This is all very much a silly way to try and express that which is obvious. And this has nothing to do with figuring out a way to live here. It's a silly way to try and demean those who simply can't find a way to believe in God--the very god of western religions.
Trent, you're better than this. Yes, atheists disagree on things but that's not like Theism in which case the thing disagreed about has hundreds of disagreements and is essential in the basic operation of your life and ugh your eternal well-being. Something that important has to have good evidence. Freewill discussion is just academic chess. Not important
Yes, atheism is the default (beginning) position for every person. Theism & atheism are dichotomous positions taken on but _one and only one_ claim to truth. And that claim is that *_a god(s) exists._* So many people mistaken that these positions address _two_ separate claims. One claiming "God(s) exists." The other claiming "God(s) does _not_ exist.“ This is an error that can be manipulated purposely by those whom want both parties (claimant/recipient) to bear a burden of proof when only one party (claimant) is encumbered by this burden of proof.
There is only one claim made. And the only positions available for this claim is either to acknowledge the claim as true or to _not_ acknowledge the claim as true. There is no middle ground. The default position (the position one is in _before_ the proposal is presented), like with any claim, is always the 'null' position. That is an individual *_always_* starts with not acknowledging the truth of a claim because the claim has not been presented to them yet. That is why we can NEVER begin in the 'acknowledge' position without first hearing the claim.
Once the claim is stated, our position will either _remain_ (not acknowledge the truth of the claim) or _switch_ (by being conviced) to the opposite position (acknowledge the truth of the claim). Remember there are only two positions. Those that acknowledge the truth of the claim that god(s) exist are labeled 'theist' and those who don't acknowledge the claim are labeled 'atheist'. No exceptions. Every person in the world, no matter their mental capacity, is either a theist (having changed their default position) or an atheist (having not changed their default position).
Now I will address agnosticism. The first thing I will reiterate is that agnostic is not a third or middle position on the claim that a god(s) exists. It is a separate position about one's *_knowledge_* of the claim.
Also, I will point out that gnostic and agnostic are the only two positions on ANY AND ALL claims to truth, not just the claim that “a god exists.“
Gnostic and agnostic is a separate duo of positions on the statement "I have sufficient knowledge or information to _have an opportunity to change_ my default position from not acknowledging a claim to to a position of acknowledging the claim."
Again the default position is _always_ agnostic for one has no idea if they possess sufficient knowledge (to change their position) until they are first presented with a claim to truth.
If you acknowlege that you do have sufficient knowledge or information or can gain access to such information (regardless of your position on the claim itself) then you are labeled as 'gnostic'.
If you do NOT acknowledge that you have sufficient knowledge or information, then you are labeled 'agnostic'.
The *_moment_* one acknowledges the truth of the claim "God exists" is the *_same moment_* the person switches from a position of atheism to a position of theism. This is why the atheistic position is the default.
Completely agree, I've always used Agnostic Atheist to describe myself. I guess the problem with these labels is people see them as a worldview - when they should be considered the default until Theists have sufficient evidence for their case. Btw, you're everywhere lmao.
George H. Smith uses an analogy in his book “The Case Against God” to illustrate the unintelligibility of the concept of “god”.
He writes:
Suppose I tell you that I believe in the existence of a “blark”. You ask me to explain what a blark is, and I reply that I do not know; I simply believe that a blark exists. You would probably think that I am either joking or mentally disturbed, for how can I believe in something if I have no idea of what it is?
Smith then goes on to argue that theists are in a similar position when they claim to believe in the existence of “god” without providing a clear and coherent definition of what “god” is. He claims that the word “god” is a meaningless sound until it is given a specific meaning, and that most attempts to define “god” result in contradictions or absurdities.
That's just burden tennis.
Can anyone provide a clear and coherent definition of what a clear and coherent definition is?
This is the standard rhetorical gambit of appointing yourself the judge of some quality (e.g clarity and coherence). Trick your interlocutor into providing definitions so you appraise them in accord with criteria you yourself can't define; or make explicit.
It's a discourse control tactic. Is it intellectually dishonest? You decide.
@@tgenov The analogy of the “blark” isn’t a rhetorical gambit or a tactic to control the discourse. Rather, it’s a logical exercise to highlight the importance of defining terms in meaningful ways. If a concept cannot be coherently defined, then asserting its existence becomes problematic. The challenge here isn’t about shifting the burden of proof or setting arbitrary standards; it’s about ensuring that the terms used in philosophical and theological discussions are clear and intelligible.
In discussions about the existence of “god,” it’s essential to provide a coherent and consistent definition to avoid contradictions and absurdities. Without such a definition, the conversation risks becoming meaningless. This isn’t about appointing oneself as a judge of quality, but about seeking clarity and mutual understanding.
As for providing a clear and coherent definition of a “clear and coherent definition”, this involves ensuring that the terms and concepts used are easily understandable, logically consistent, and free from contradictions.
1. Clear: A definition is clear if it uses simple, unambiguous language that can be easily understood by others. For example, if I define “water” as “a transparent, tasteless liquid that forms seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is essential for most forms of life,” the definition is clear because it uses straightforward terms that most people can understand.
2. Coherent: A definition is coherent if it is logically consistent and all its parts fit together without contradiction. For example, defining a “triangle” as “a three-sided polygon” is coherent because all parts of the definition are logically consistent with the concept of a triangle.
Combining these, a clear and coherent definition should:
🔅 Use language that is simple and unambiguous.
🔆 Be logically consistent and free from internal contradictions.
🔆 Adequately capture the essence of the concept being defined.
For instance, if we define “justice” as “the fair treatment of individuals in accordance with the law,” this definition is clear because it uses understandable terms, and it is coherent because it logically describes the concept of justice without contradiction.
@@davidmireles9774 Nothing of what you said coheres.
If the term "justice" is not clear and understandable why are the terms you are using to define "justice" with clear and understandable?
@@tgenov there’s a misunderstanding.
You’re saying:
1. The term “justice” is not clear and understandable.
2. You question why the terms used to define “justice” are clear and understandable if “justice” itself is not.
The goal is to clarify the meaning of ‘justice’ using terms that are universally recognized and understood.
Defining complex concepts with simpler, clear terms helps enhance understanding. It’s important to note that my task here isn’t to determine the correct definition of ‘justice’-that’s a separate conversation I’m happy to have.
We’re currently having a meta conversation about the clarity and coherence of definitions.
Different people might have various definitions of ‘justice,’ and the aim is to present a few of these definitions to establish clarity and coherence, not to pinpoint a single ‘correct’ definition.
@@tgenov For instance, consider the term ‘freedom.’ To one person, freedom might mean the ability to make choices without external constraints, while to another, it might mean the absence of oppressive government. Just like ‘justice,’ ‘freedom’ can be ambiguous and have several definitions. Imagine we’re trying to define ‘freedom’ for a group of people. One approach would be to break it down into universally recognizable terms like ‘independence’ or ‘autonomy’ to clarify the concept. However, this isn’t about choosing the ‘right’ definition of freedom but ensuring that the term is understood clearly and coherently within our discussion. Think of it like explaining the rules of a game: you need to ensure everyone understands the basic terms and concepts, even if different players have slightly different interpretations of what makes the game enjoyable.
My problem is with Joe's definition of god. Just some generic thing that caused the universe is not what Trent believes. There's a boatload of claims that come with beliefs like Christian beliefs like humans are important to God and get an afterlife. When you leave those features out of your definition, you're just talking about some random existence that looks nothing like what atheists reject. Once you add those into your definition, I know Theists believe in the imaginary so whatever they mean by god, that doesn't exist.
In fact, even if some hidden creator that cares about humans actually exists, even that still doesn't mean Theists are correct in what they believe which for one are numerous and secondly, specific. You can't know a specific existence without physical encounter.
It's hard listening to hours long arguments when it went off rail in the first minute
Who won
This is a discssion not a debate 💀
ok@@Wartenss