Unless one can demonstrate that one's worldview genuinely accounts for something, and unless one can demonstrate that no other worldview _can_ account for that thing, then alleging that you are "borrowing from my worldview" is not only an empty boast, it's also bearing false witness. Nicely explained, Matt. Cheers, - Ozy
it's pretty funny when I hear the "borrowing from my worldview" line used in debates because what they are essentially doing is just claiming their side/belief/assertion is correct and their opponent's is false without providing any evidence whatsoever. it's like participating in a debate and only saying "I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong."
"Accounting" for something is worthless. It doesn't prove a causal relationship. That needs to be independently established. The "you are borrowing from my worldview, therefore Christianity is true" apologetic can be summarized with this analogy: There are clouds. I "account" for clouds by invoking invisible, cloud-farting pixies. There! I proved that invisible, cloud-farting pixies are real. And, now I'm free to pile on more made up stuff, like claiming that these pixies like strawberry ice cream and they want you to worship them and to give me $10 on Sunday mornings.
I am so glad for this! I debated a presup this week but didn’t know he was a presup prior as it was just supposed to be a basic convo. It devolved into this nonsense and I wasn’t prepared so I got caught in the game. I’m prepared now.
Hey Matt, thanks for these. Having a chance to hear someone, especially someone as experienced in these conversations as you, break down their thoughts and present a cohesive case is precious to me. Happy Birthday and thanks for making such a valuable contribution to humanity.
Masako Beaton If you must resort to violence then you do not have an argument. Name calling is something that we tend to do when we have not yet grown up and become mature.
It is easy to be proactive when confronted with "only my worldview can account for..." tropes. Just say, "I think you're lying unless you can prove it, not just make guesses."
Saying it's God who did it is like saying a bank was robbed by some guy and not explaining how he robbed the bank. It's also like an atheistic theoretical physicist trying to hammer out an equation for everything and writes "God", stops writing, and texts his friends he's converted to Christianity.
Ancient Greeks not having an explanation for lightning wasn't evidence for Zeus; us having no explanation for why there's something rather than nothing isn't evidence for God.
It is my worldview that Matt's worldview is more open, honest, and reason-based than the bald, unsubstantiated assertions made by the many apologists Matt has debated.
I don't think Matt expanded on the more pernicious use of the argument which is: Without "borrowing from their worldview" you get stuck in hard solipsism, you get stuck trying to "justify your reasoning with your reasoning" and you get stuck in the conclusion that we have no free will (among some other things). They then either explicitly state only God gets you out of these or they tacitly imply that they only make one claim with faith while the atheist has to believe multiple things on faith and that implies the odds are on their side.
Come on, New York... time to roar! No fucker takes you for granted! Bernie bleeds Brooklyn! New York is the heart of America. Let's hear that heart beat for Bernie!
For a genuine example of borrowing from another's world view, I think of creationists who defend the historicity of Noah's ark. When challenged that it would be impossible for all the species in the world to be fit in Noah's ark, some reply that only a few "kinds" of animals needed to be on the boat, and the rest evolved from those kinds. This strikes me as a sort of violent wrenching of an idea from the world view of those who came up with it. It ignores the context of how and why we believe evolution occurs, what are its limitations, and applies it like a sort of magic band-aid to a problem they need to solve.
I usually hear the 'borrowing from my worldview' response when someone is attempting--correctly or not--a reductio ad absurdum. I don't think they know how a reductio ad absurdum works. If they do know how it works, then 'borrowing from my worldview' is just a tactic to draw attention from the absurd consequences of their arguments.
+Xander Patten I don't! Not unless you want a billion Christians working toward the reintroductions of capital punishment, slavery and theocracy according to biblical scripture... Not to mention the child abuse and treatment of women as property.
Firmus Piett But they're claiming the rationalist and humanist values that I'm already following are stolen from their worldview. I most Christians acted like I do in that regard, we wouldn't have a problem.
Are you planning to do any videos where you don't talk about Sye soon? Your debate with him was so silly that I almost forgot about it, but you keep bringing it up. :\
+Natasha Williamson It's probably because a solid way of teaching how to think well is by showing examples of thinking poorly, and Sye's position involves an awful lot of thinking poorly.
+TheZooCrew Sye was more about NOT thinking at all. Just follow the presup script and turn off brain. Eventually your opponent will give up in frustration while you are thinking about; enslaving non jews, taking away woments rights, discriminating against everyone else. How is that not win for them!!
In Germany an author just released a book on how Christianity is the most misunderstood religion. He claims in this book that the reason why the enlightment, democracy or feminism arose in europe is because of Christianity, claiming, that those supposedly Christian values of equality, loving your neighbour, social responsability and charity were what lifted europe's and with it america's society to it's modern humanism inspired state. If it weren't so scary, that people actually believe that and what might follow out of this, it would be laughable....
Using the god of the gaps is a major cop out! It is perfectly reasonable to accept that you may not have an explanation and showing that you are in a continual search for one is an intellectual maturity, I think. If these people would just step out of their indoctrination and perhaps advance the philosophy instead of constantly repeating the same old tired and ancient arguments would be refreshing! Then at least the conversation could progress and we'd MAYBE come up with an answer together!
In these cases, I think Tracie's statement of "Things that don't exist can't be the cause of things that do exist. If you want to claim that your god can explain morality/ the universe/ whatever, you'd need to first show that this god exists, before it could serve as an explanation for anything. So can you prove that this god exists?" Otherwise you could turn around and say to Sye "My explanation for morals is _Flerbgen!"_ Flerbgen is an invented, nonsensical thing that can have any properties you want it to have and can thus serve as an explanation for anything you want. Secondly, theists who think that god is an explanation often think that it's sufficient to state "God explains 'x,' because [reasons]" and they never realise that even if we too believed in god and even if we agreed that god is the causal foundation of 'x,' because [reasons], none of that explains the HOW behind 'x.' For example: A theist might ask "Do you have an explanation for why the strong nuclear force works the way it does? Because I can explain it! That's how god decided our universe should work!" In doing so, our imaginary theist is explaining what they think their god does, but they aren't explaining how this god does any of this and they aren't explaining how any of this works.
I recommend David Bentley Hart "The Experience of God" and Derek Parfit "On What Matters". It is annoying that Hart equates any form of non-naturalism with super-naturalism. Parfit argues that there are ethical facts, and that they are non-physical. But it takes a platonist to equate facts with entities.
Matt, do you ever re-watch your debates and occasionally think "F*ck, I worded that incorrectly" or "F*ck, that wasn't a sufficient rebuttal on my part." ?
Or, historically we are a tribal species. In that case, the fears of your fellow community are your fears. You're a team against nature. That is part of why we still survive. Albeit primitive, that sense of community is so engrained in us that it blindsides many of us on a day to day basis no matter where we are from. It's hard to imagine a black New Yorker as your teammate when you're living in rural Texas and it's hard for the New Yorker to imagine the same from a ruralite with less complex problems living in a district non gerrymandered for decades. As a side effect to society, this inherent blindness gives rise to megachurches in near urban areas and up, proliferates bipartisanship in politics, reinforces racism on both, gangs, segregation, family feuds, homophobia, and all of the other problems associated with living in a vacuum community(tribe) from the rest of the world. So, the short answer to "where does empathy come from"...You. You grant it or you don't for reasons that benefit you (scientifically speaking there are a surprising number of people who lack empathy at all. Even in situations where it should be existent. That's a psychological/sociological problem for everyone). Rant done :)
Oooh. I thought of a good example: Person A asks: Why do some things burn and other things don't? The theist answers with "God has decided what should burn and what shouldn't!" By doing so, he's just telling you WHAT he believes, but his answer doesn't allow you to understand the mechanism/ reaction of "burning," how this reaction works and why. His answer explains "what," but not "how" or "why." The chemist answers with "When something burns, it undergoes a combustion reaction. Combustion is when an organic molecule is rapidly oxidised, giving off light + heat..." He can write equations that show exactly what is happening during a combustion reaction and why it happens, he can teach you to recognise compounds that will burn and ones that won't and he can teach you why this happens by explaining the mechanisms behind the chemistry of the things you're trying to burn. Both the theist and the chemist have explained "what" they believe is happening, but only the chemist is able to explain "how" this happens and "why."
This is a good video on the mechanics of the argument, but there is a closely related argument that you will sometimes hear, that the enlightenment arose out of a Christian tradition and culture. Even Slavoj Zizek argues something like this. I'd like to see a video, maybe from a historian, that can refute the idea that the enlightenment was a Christian phenomenon.
The renaissance happened in Europe and, philosophically speaking, it is much more connected with Greek philosophy than Christian. When Christianity rose to power it basically destroyed everything of the Roman culture and Greek philosophy was forgotten. Most people, even most intellectuals, in the Christian world did not know Greek, so the philosophies of Aristoteles, Plato and company were actually translated in Latin by the Arabs (Ibn Sina and Averroe, for instance) and returned to Europe only a few centuries before the renaissance started. The shift in thought towards a more classical worldview and the newfound appreciation for Greco-Roman thought is very likely to have played a dramatic part in the renaissance. If you look closely, the values that were born back then were in direct opposition with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but most people didn't even know because the Church made it impossible for the masses to read the scriptures by keeping them in Latin.
The enlightenment is born from the values that arose during the renaissance: humanism and the love for reason are staples of classical thinking and go in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible. If you look at the history, the Church actually opposed each and every progress in scientific knowledge, but, with the Protestant schism, it was much weakened and was unable to stop it, even though it was very effective in slowing it down. I can only speculate on why the Arabs didn't go through the same cultural changes, but it is very evident that the enlightenment arose despite Christianity and not thanks to it.
+Broderick Siz Smashing. That was a great little expose. Beautifully concise. Indeed, to even attempt to argue the church is responsible flies clearly in the face of reality. They have been dragged kicking and screaming, every step of the way. With MUCH innocent blood and ashes to boot. It is yet another co option and twisting of the truth. One of the things they HAVE become past masters at. Dishonesty is cast through every aspect of religion.
+rationalmartian Thank you for the compliments: this is my field of study and I am very much in love with it. Before I became a full blown atheist I actually used to use the enlightenment argument, but I found out why I was wrong through my studies. Christianity has a way of presenting itself as gentle and meek, but, once the spell is broken, it's difficult to unsee the monster that lays quiet under its clever disguise; I only wish more people were capable of see it as well...
In order to make the above video Matt Dillahunty has to presuppose the validity of his epistemic tools. But he gives no proof that they work, or that it is even possible that they work. Therefore his whole video is self-defeating.
I appreciated your example of not purporting to know the mind of your opponent better than they do. I'm vehemently pro-choice, but I seem to be out of the ordinary in that for me the relevant factor is the non-personhood/non-sentience of a fetus. I don't find the bodily autonomy argument very convincing. If we were to assume the personhood of a fetus for the sake of argument (as pro-life advocates believe it is), I don't think the bodily autonomy argument succeeds in justifying the murder of another person except perhaps in cases of rape. Given that, I find it exceedingly dishonest for pro-choice advocates to try and decry pro-lifers as merely wanting to control and punish women. It doesn't address their actual contentions and points of disagreement, but basically just engages in emotionally-fraught name calling.
+Keith Buesse *I don't think the bodily autonomy argument succeeds in justifying the murder of another person except perhaps in cases of rape* We don't compel organ donations, and thus we shouldn't compel pregnancy. *Given that, I find it exceedingly dishonest for pro-choice advocates to try and decry pro-lifers as merely wanting to control and punish women. It doesn't address their actual contentions and points of disagreement* They don't have any. That's why pro-life advocates are overwhelmingly religious, and not progressive religious people at that. They have talking points to distract from this, but it's almost entirely about the woman having sex. Furthermore, what I find dishonest is you making this bald-ass assertion with zero examples. The "decrying" you describe is typically a small part of the criticism, not the entire thing.
+TheZooCrew "We don't compel organ donations, and thus we shouldn't compel pregnancy." Possibly, but you haven't made any argument demonstrating that pregnancy is equivalent to organ donation. Frankly I'm not convinced it is, but that's largely beside the point. You're ignoring the other baggage that comes from assuming personhood and still aborting a fetus; in other circumstances when a person knowingly engages in behavior that results in the death of another person (especially when it was a foreseeable outcome), that's at a minimum a form of manslaughter. Given that a closer analogy would be more like poisoning someone (rendering the fetus into a dependent physical state without it's consent), and then refusing to give them the antidote (refusing to carry the pregnancy to term) that seems a lot closer to murder to me Of course, this is all moot posturing if you address the more fundamental and defensible proposition that an undifferentiated blob of cells that can't think or even feel pain can't rightly be called a person in the first place. "They don't have any... They have talking points to distract from this, but it's almost entirely about the woman having sex." Thank you for so unabashedly confirming Matt's point. You don't know that, you can't possibly know that. You're asserting it, and in the process calling every pro-lifer who believes a fetus is a person a liar, and claiming to know their minds better than they do which is flat out preposterous. You can argue the merits of their claims all you want (it's pretty easy), but the second you claim to be a mind reader and call your opponents liars, you've stopped engaging in honest discourse.
Keith Buesse *in other circumstances when a person knowingly engages in behavior that results in the death of another person (especially when it was a foreseeable outcome), that's at a minimum a form of manslaughter* No, it is not. If my body is hooked up to another person's for dialysis and they'll die if I detach myself, I can still detach myself with impunity. Same with organ donation. If my child needs an organ or marrow transplant and I'm a match, I can't be compelled to donate. *Of course, this is all moot posturing if you address the more fundamental and defensible proposition that an undifferentiated blob of cells that can't think or even feel pain can't rightly be called a person in the first place* I'll agree with that. *You don't know that, you can't possibly know that. You're asserting it, and in the process calling every pro-lifer who believes a fetus is a person a liar, and claiming to know their minds better than they do which is flat out preposterous* No, I know this from engaging with pro-lifers and digging until I get past all the talking points. Why do you assume I'm as ignorant as you? Why do you assume I haven't made an effort here? Whenever I dig, the discussion inevitably turns to "well, she shouldn't have had sex." This is actually utterly irrelevant to the abortion topic, as far as I'm concerned.
When Theists, religious believers etc say we are borrowing from their world view/belief system, they are right in a way but not in the way they think, it's more a case of carrying over the good parts of the old and using them in the new, I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who quite rightly said that religion in general, including the Bible, was basically ancient mans attempt at answering the big questions, finding a purpose and trying to understand life and the Universe around him, now, back at the time, God's, religion etc would have been the very best thing there was and for that time, it was actually very intelligent and seemingly sensible, after all, what other animals on Earth ever came up with such ideas?, you don't see monkeys getting on their knees and praying to Gods do you? Lol, ironically they are of course right not to pray to any Gods but the reason they don't pray to any Gods is not because they have actually thought about it like us and decided either there are Gods or insufficient justification for believing in any of them, the fact is that it is because monkeys or any of the other animals on Earth don't think about it at all, they don't ask questions like we do and try to make up or look for answers, they just exist and do what they do, although Dolphins and certain other creatures do show some signs of intelligence, it is not even anywhere near on the par of any humans. We, on the other hand, as human beings developed mentally to such an unprecedented high degree that we got to a point where we actually asked 'why?' and that was good and that was where the whole 'the Gods did it' thing started, we have moved on a long way since then of course, we have made discoveries which have kicked huge holes in those initial ideas about the existence of these Gods and how they all controlled different things, namely, the God of Thunder, the Rain God etc, nearly all of those Gods have been well and truly discredited, well almost, I'm sure there are people somewhere in the world who still believe in them and I'm not knocking them because in some ways, it is a sign of some degree of intelligence, no human being would believe in a God unless they felt the need for an explanation ('how did we get here?.....answer....a God must have made us and put us here') and having a need for an explanation about anything rather than going through without asking questions and trying to come up with answers is a sign that your brain is at least working on a basic intellectual level, you might be coming up with the completely wrong answers but you are definitely asking the right questions. The problem is that some have become, if you like, mentally jammed or emotionally attached to the old level, you know when you bought your very first mobile phone say and then another model came out, you then thought 'shall I buy this new one or keep the old one?' and there is this battle inside of you, you know that the new one is better than the one you have got but at the same time you had the old one for such a long time, it was your first one and the sentiment made it hard for you to buy another one and get rid of that old one, if not a mobile, it might be your first car, or your first house, to be honest, it can be ANYTHING, the principle is the same, you sometimes have to be dragged kicking and screaming into getting a new one and replacing the one you have. That in many ways is part of the reason why the concept of God and religion has survived, it's not the only reason but it is definitely one of the reasons, we've had these books that have been around for 1000's of years, they have been passed down from generation to generation and have or at least used to serve a big purpose in the world we live in, there is now something much better and so people can get rid of those books, they should....but they don't want to, just like some people can't bear to get rid of their old car. Some might try to keep the old one whilst at the same time buying the new one so they have both, problem is the old one is just not able to compete with the new one and is becoming more and more useless as time goes on, I guess you get the analogy here? Lol, the best you can say about your first mobile, your first home, your first...whatever, is that without it, you wouldn't have had your second one, religion was man's 'first one' and without it we wouldn't have this new and better one and it should be celebrated for that reason, just like Christopher Hitchens said but like with an old phone or an old anything, there comes a time when you need to put it away, it's served it's purpose now let it retire and let the new better one have it's time and this is really all we as Atheists are trying to advise people to do, namely, chuck out the old....unless someone can come up with a very good reason for keeping the old which we will be happy to hear.
Well that is fun. Religious position: I have no idea what I am talking about, there is no discernible pattern, but lets give credit where credit is due: The god of my religion is the one that did it!
The argument is that everything comes from God, and without god you can't have a world view. So in order to use logic you have to borrow from the world view that god exist, same with Morality, and anything else you wish to talk about. To use Logic you have to borrow from their world view that there is a god, and we can only know things threw him. Sye thinks you already know god exist, he thinks you know that because you use logic.
Ok, so I never really had this discussion. I think that's because most of the theists I know aren't stupid. Yes, they believe, but they also understand that that is their right, and don't push it on others. Now, as far as responding, I have to disagree with MD. To respond at all gives credence to their stupidity and propaganda. Just like "all news is good news", "all replies from atheists are good replies" since they can claim validation by the simple fact that you replied. the only reply is "Unless you can prove to me that what I think has never been thought prior to you, you are stealing someone's idea and making it yours. Stealing is a sin, but it's also typical of a hypocritical theist." Let them go and prove that their 2000 year old story was the "first". Beyond that, stop validating these idiots.
A few observations after just 4 minutes in to the video: (1) a careful study of church history and the history of theology reveal a consistent, collective doctrinal standard, clearly articulating historic, biblical Christianity, dating all the way back to the apostles. The idea that there are 1,000 different denominations (a statistic which may or may not be accurate) that disagree on every "single point of doctrine", and that therefore obscure one from discerning biblical, historic Christianity is either myth or poor research. Either way, it's poisoning-the-well and a straw-man. Biblical, historic Christianity is highly discernible; thus, the Christian world view is highly discernible as well (2) The issue or problem with an atheist borrowing from the Christian world view is this: it has been correctly said that one cannot determine or define truth, regarding anything, without observing and discussing categories of consistency. Therefore, it is highly inconsistent when an atheist "borrows" from the Christian world view, given that they espouse a Darwinian perspective on origins; because, It is impossible to justify the validity for promoting any moral or ethical standard from a purely Darwinian perspective -- impossible. Thus, once an atheist borrows from the Christian world view they automatically fall prey to inconsistency and therefore lose any logical ground of truth for their Darwinian claim on origins.
You are just cherry-picking from the worldview that they have the copyright to. Everyone knows that religion invented morality for instance, and that morality started 2016 years ago. What part of that don't you get? (sarcasm off) As you have pointed out as well, the religious confuse opinion for "explanation"!
Unless one can demonstrate that one's worldview genuinely accounts for something, and unless one can demonstrate that no other worldview _can_ account for that thing, then alleging that you are "borrowing from my worldview" is not only an empty boast, it's also bearing false witness.
Nicely explained, Matt.
Cheers,
- Ozy
isn't "borrowing from my worldview" just an external critique, anyway?
KEvron
it's pretty funny when I hear the "borrowing from my worldview" line used in debates because what they are essentially doing is just claiming their side/belief/assertion is correct and their opponent's is false without providing any evidence whatsoever. it's like participating in a debate and only saying "I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong."
"Accounting" for something is worthless. It doesn't prove a causal relationship. That needs to be independently established.
The "you are borrowing from my worldview, therefore Christianity is true" apologetic can be summarized with this analogy: There are clouds. I "account" for clouds by invoking invisible, cloud-farting pixies. There! I proved that invisible, cloud-farting pixies are real. And, now I'm free to pile on more made up stuff, like claiming that these pixies like strawberry ice cream and they want you to worship them and to give me $10 on Sunday mornings.
I am so glad for this! I debated a presup this week but didn’t know he was a presup prior as it was just supposed to be a basic convo. It devolved into this nonsense and I wasn’t prepared so I got caught in the game. I’m prepared now.
Matt,
Thank You for shutting Sye down and identifying his dishonest flip flopping of the word knowledge.
JS
Hey Matt, thanks for these. Having a chance to hear someone, especially someone as experienced in these conversations as you, break down their thoughts and present a cohesive case is precious to me. Happy Birthday and thanks for making such a valuable contribution to humanity.
Its sort of like "appropriating culture" - "borrowing worldview" is the goto when they have run out of any arguments.
Matthew Hughes nope.
Masako Beaton If you must resort to violence then you do not have an argument.
Name calling is something that we tend to do when we have not yet grown up and become mature.
Well said Matt. Happy Birthday!
Happy birthday Matt. Good video.
Matt your basically my hero. Seems its your birthday Happy Birthday guy hope you have a good one
happy birthday matt you've been a real source of entertainment and knowledge thank you your an inspiration
Thanks for your intelligent and civilised contribution. I am now supporting you on Patreon.
It is easy to be proactive when confronted with "only my worldview can account for..." tropes. Just say, "I think you're lying unless you can prove it, not just make guesses."
Saying it's God who did it is like saying a bank was robbed by some guy and not explaining how he robbed the bank. It's also like an atheistic theoretical physicist trying to hammer out an equation for everything and writes "God", stops writing, and texts his friends he's converted to Christianity.
Happy birthday to you. May the force be with you. Thanks for your videos.
Ancient Greeks not having an explanation for lightning wasn't evidence for Zeus; us having no explanation for why there's something rather than nothing isn't evidence for God.
I think a more fitting phrasing would be: "You are cherry-picking from my world view." It is very similar to the "argument from Christmas".
Time for a Dillahunty Marathon!
+M1 Punk "I just hung up on your ass!" LOL!
Happy Birthday!
It is my worldview that Matt's worldview is more open, honest, and reason-based than the bald, unsubstantiated assertions made by the many apologists Matt has debated.
An excellent, well thought out video. But That end!
BOOOOM!!!
And I never say Boom. But fuck me, BOOM! Mike drop.
OHH. Happy Birthday too.
I don't think Matt expanded on the more pernicious use of the argument which is:
Without "borrowing from their worldview" you get stuck in hard solipsism, you get stuck trying to "justify your reasoning with your reasoning" and you get stuck in the conclusion that we have no free will (among some other things). They then either explicitly state only God gets you out of these or they tacitly imply that they only make one claim with faith while the atheist has to believe multiple things on faith and that implies the odds are on their side.
Come on, New York... time to roar! No fucker takes you for granted! Bernie bleeds Brooklyn! New York is the heart of America. Let's hear that heart beat for Bernie!
hey Matt you should debate DAVID WOOD!
For a genuine example of borrowing from another's world view, I think of creationists who defend the historicity of Noah's ark. When challenged that it would be impossible for all the species in the world to be fit in Noah's ark, some reply that only a few "kinds" of animals needed to be on the boat, and the rest evolved from those kinds.
This strikes me as a sort of violent wrenching of an idea from the world view of those who came up with it. It ignores the context of how and why we believe evolution occurs, what are its limitations, and applies it like a sort of magic band-aid to a problem they need to solve.
I usually hear the 'borrowing from my worldview' response when someone is attempting--correctly or not--a reductio ad absurdum. I don't think they know how a reductio ad absurdum works. If they do know how it works, then 'borrowing from my worldview' is just a tactic to draw attention from the absurd consequences of their arguments.
If rationality and general humanist values are from you[the Christian] worldview, I just wish you'd stop ignoring your worldview.
+Xander Patten I don't!
Not unless you want a billion Christians working toward the reintroductions of capital punishment, slavery and theocracy according to biblical scripture...
Not to mention the child abuse and treatment of women as property.
Firmus Piett But they're claiming the rationalist and humanist values that I'm already following are stolen from their worldview. I most Christians acted like I do in that regard, we wouldn't have a problem.
***** Ah yes, I see your point.
My question is how do you understand something without an explanation. This is insane.
Are you planning to do any videos where you don't talk about Sye soon? Your debate with him was so silly that I almost forgot about it, but you keep bringing it up. :\
+Natasha Williamson
It's probably because a solid way of teaching how to think well is by showing examples of thinking poorly, and Sye's position involves an awful lot of thinking poorly.
+TheZooCrew Sye was more about NOT thinking at all. Just follow the presup script and turn off brain. Eventually your opponent will give up in frustration while you are thinking about; enslaving non jews, taking away woments rights, discriminating against everyone else. How is that not win for them!!
In Germany an author just released a book on how Christianity is the most misunderstood religion. He claims in this book that the reason why the enlightment, democracy or feminism arose in europe is because of Christianity, claiming, that those supposedly Christian values of equality, loving your neighbour, social responsability and charity were what lifted europe's and with it america's society to it's modern humanism inspired state. If it weren't so scary, that people actually believe that and what might follow out of this, it would be laughable....
Using the god of the gaps is a major cop out! It is perfectly reasonable to accept that you may not have an explanation and showing that you are in a continual search for one is an intellectual maturity, I think. If these people would just step out of their indoctrination and perhaps advance the philosophy instead of constantly repeating the same old tired and ancient arguments would be refreshing! Then at least the conversation could progress and we'd MAYBE come up with an answer together!
In these cases, I think Tracie's statement of "Things that don't exist can't be the cause of things that do exist. If you want to claim that your god can explain morality/ the universe/ whatever, you'd need to first show that this god exists, before it could serve as an explanation for anything. So can you prove that this god exists?"
Otherwise you could turn around and say to Sye "My explanation for morals is _Flerbgen!"_ Flerbgen is an invented, nonsensical thing that can have any properties you want it to have and can thus serve as an explanation for anything you want.
Secondly, theists who think that god is an explanation often think that it's sufficient to state "God explains 'x,' because [reasons]" and they never realise that even if we too believed in god and even if we agreed that god is the causal foundation of 'x,' because [reasons], none of that explains the HOW behind 'x.' For example:
A theist might ask "Do you have an explanation for why the strong nuclear force works the way it does? Because I can explain it! That's how god decided our universe should work!" In doing so, our imaginary theist is explaining what they think their god does, but they aren't explaining how this god does any of this and they aren't explaining how any of this works.
I recommend David Bentley Hart "The Experience of God" and Derek Parfit "On What Matters". It is annoying that Hart equates any form of non-naturalism with super-naturalism. Parfit argues that there are ethical facts, and that they are non-physical. But it takes a platonist to equate facts with entities.
Matt, do you ever re-watch your debates and occasionally think "F*ck, I worded that incorrectly" or "F*ck, that wasn't a sufficient rebuttal on my part." ?
So the next time a believer tries to stump me by asking, "Where does empathy come from?"
I''m just going to answer, "So what?"
Or, historically we are a tribal species. In that case, the fears of your fellow community are your fears. You're a team against nature. That is part of why we still survive. Albeit primitive, that sense of community is so engrained in us that it blindsides many of us on a day to day basis no matter where we are from. It's hard to imagine a black New Yorker as your teammate when you're living in rural Texas and it's hard for the New Yorker to imagine the same from a ruralite with less complex problems living in a district non gerrymandered for decades. As a side effect to society, this inherent blindness gives rise to megachurches in near urban areas and up, proliferates bipartisanship in politics, reinforces racism on both, gangs, segregation, family feuds, homophobia, and all of the other problems associated with living in a vacuum community(tribe) from the rest of the world.
So, the short answer to "where does empathy come from"...You. You grant it or you don't for reasons that benefit you (scientifically speaking there are a surprising number of people who lack empathy at all. Even in situations where it should be existent. That's a psychological/sociological problem for everyone). Rant done :)
Oooh. I thought of a good example:
Person A asks: Why do some things burn and other things don't?
The theist answers with "God has decided what should burn and what shouldn't!" By doing so, he's just telling you WHAT he believes, but his answer doesn't allow you to understand the mechanism/ reaction of "burning," how this reaction works and why. His answer explains "what," but not "how" or "why."
The chemist answers with "When something burns, it undergoes a combustion reaction. Combustion is when an organic molecule is rapidly oxidised, giving off light + heat..." He can write equations that show exactly what is happening during a combustion reaction and why it happens, he can teach you to recognise compounds that will burn and ones that won't and he can teach you why this happens by explaining the mechanisms behind the chemistry of the things you're trying to burn.
Both the theist and the chemist have explained "what" they believe is happening, but only the chemist is able to explain "how" this happens and "why."
I have often wondered when listening to Sye Ten, what his argument actually is, or if he even has one. I would like to see a logical argument.
Freeze it @07:01 and we can turn Matt into a "overly attached theist" meme
An explaination which cannot (potentially) be falsified isn't an explaination at all.
Well... her character said she's a cannibal. the LG said prison or death...
This is a good video on the mechanics of the argument, but there is a closely related argument that you will sometimes hear, that the enlightenment arose out of a Christian tradition and culture. Even Slavoj Zizek argues something like this. I'd like to see a video, maybe from a historian, that can refute the idea that the enlightenment was a Christian phenomenon.
The renaissance happened in Europe and, philosophically speaking, it is much more connected with Greek philosophy than Christian. When Christianity rose to power it basically destroyed everything of the Roman culture and Greek philosophy was forgotten. Most people, even most intellectuals, in the Christian world did not know Greek, so the philosophies of Aristoteles, Plato and company were actually translated in Latin by the Arabs (Ibn Sina and Averroe, for instance) and returned to Europe only a few centuries before the renaissance started. The shift in thought towards a more classical worldview and the newfound appreciation for Greco-Roman thought is very likely to have played a dramatic part in the renaissance. If you look closely, the values that were born back then were in direct opposition with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but most people didn't even know because the Church made it impossible for the masses to read the scriptures by keeping them in Latin.
The enlightenment is born from the values that arose during the renaissance: humanism and the love for reason are staples of classical thinking and go in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible. If you look at the history, the Church actually opposed each and every progress in scientific knowledge, but, with the Protestant schism, it was much weakened and was unable to stop it, even though it was very effective in slowing it down. I can only speculate on why the Arabs didn't go through the same cultural changes, but it is very evident that the enlightenment arose despite Christianity and not thanks to it.
+Broderick Siz
Smashing. That was a great little expose. Beautifully concise.
Indeed, to even attempt to argue the church is responsible flies clearly in the face of reality. They have been dragged kicking and screaming, every step of the way. With MUCH innocent blood and ashes to boot.
It is yet another co option and twisting of the truth. One of the things they HAVE become past masters at. Dishonesty is cast through every aspect of religion.
+rationalmartian Thank you for the compliments: this is my field of study and I am very much in love with it. Before I became a full blown atheist I actually used to use the enlightenment argument, but I found out why I was wrong through my studies. Christianity has a way of presenting itself as gentle and meek, but, once the spell is broken, it's difficult to unsee the monster that lays quiet under its clever disguise; I only wish more people were capable of see it as well...
In order to make the above video Matt Dillahunty has to presuppose the validity of his epistemic tools. But he gives no proof that they work, or that it is even possible that they work. Therefore his whole video is self-defeating.
Why is presupposing things we use and show efficacy of wrong?
I appreciated your example of not purporting to know the mind of your opponent better than they do. I'm vehemently pro-choice, but I seem to be out of the ordinary in that for me the relevant factor is the non-personhood/non-sentience of a fetus. I don't find the bodily autonomy argument very convincing. If we were to assume the personhood of a fetus for the sake of argument (as pro-life advocates believe it is), I don't think the bodily autonomy argument succeeds in justifying the murder of another person except perhaps in cases of rape. Given that, I find it exceedingly dishonest for pro-choice advocates to try and decry pro-lifers as merely wanting to control and punish women. It doesn't address their actual contentions and points of disagreement, but basically just engages in emotionally-fraught name calling.
+Keith Buesse
*I don't think the bodily autonomy argument succeeds in justifying the murder of another person except perhaps in cases of rape*
We don't compel organ donations, and thus we shouldn't compel pregnancy.
*Given that, I find it exceedingly dishonest for pro-choice advocates to try and decry pro-lifers as merely wanting to control and punish women. It doesn't address their actual contentions and points of disagreement*
They don't have any. That's why pro-life advocates are overwhelmingly religious, and not progressive religious people at that. They have talking points to distract from this, but it's almost entirely about the woman having sex.
Furthermore, what I find dishonest is you making this bald-ass assertion with zero examples. The "decrying" you describe is typically a small part of the criticism, not the entire thing.
+TheZooCrew "We don't compel organ donations, and thus we shouldn't compel pregnancy."
Possibly, but you haven't made any argument demonstrating that pregnancy is equivalent to organ donation. Frankly I'm not convinced it is, but that's largely beside the point. You're ignoring the other baggage that comes from assuming personhood and still aborting a fetus; in other circumstances when a person knowingly engages in behavior that results in the death of another person (especially when it was a foreseeable outcome), that's at a minimum a form of manslaughter. Given that a closer analogy would be more like poisoning someone (rendering the fetus into a dependent physical state without it's consent), and then refusing to give them the antidote (refusing to carry the pregnancy to term) that seems a lot closer to murder to me
Of course, this is all moot posturing if you address the more fundamental and defensible proposition that an undifferentiated blob of cells that can't think or even feel pain can't rightly be called a person in the first place.
"They don't have any... They have talking points to distract from this, but it's almost entirely about the woman having sex."
Thank you for so unabashedly confirming Matt's point. You don't know that, you can't possibly know that. You're asserting it, and in the process calling every pro-lifer who believes a fetus is a person a liar, and claiming to know their minds better than they do which is flat out preposterous. You can argue the merits of their claims all you want (it's pretty easy), but the second you claim to be a mind reader and call your opponents liars, you've stopped engaging in honest discourse.
Keith Buesse
*in other circumstances when a person knowingly engages in behavior that results in the death of another person (especially when it was a foreseeable outcome), that's at a minimum a form of manslaughter*
No, it is not. If my body is hooked up to another person's for dialysis and they'll die if I detach myself, I can still detach myself with impunity. Same with organ donation. If my child needs an organ or marrow transplant and I'm a match, I can't be compelled to donate.
*Of course, this is all moot posturing if you address the more fundamental and defensible proposition that an undifferentiated blob of cells that can't think or even feel pain can't rightly be called a person in the first place*
I'll agree with that.
*You don't know that, you can't possibly know that. You're asserting it, and in the process calling every pro-lifer who believes a fetus is a person a liar, and claiming to know their minds better than they do which is flat out preposterous*
No, I know this from engaging with pro-lifers and digging until I get past all the talking points. Why do you assume I'm as ignorant as you? Why do you assume I haven't made an effort here? Whenever I dig, the discussion inevitably turns to "well, she shouldn't have had sex." This is actually utterly irrelevant to the abortion topic, as far as I'm concerned.
When Theists, religious believers etc say we are borrowing from their world view/belief system, they are right in a way but not in the way they think, it's more a case of carrying over the good parts of the old and using them in the new, I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who quite rightly said that religion in general, including the Bible, was basically ancient mans attempt at answering the big questions, finding a purpose and trying to understand life and the Universe around him, now, back at the time, God's, religion etc would have been the very best thing there was and for that time, it was actually very intelligent and seemingly sensible, after all, what other animals on Earth ever came up with such ideas?, you don't see monkeys getting on their knees and praying to Gods do you? Lol, ironically they are of course right not to pray to any Gods but the reason they don't pray to any Gods is not because they have actually thought about it like us and decided either there are Gods or insufficient justification for believing in any of them, the fact is that it is because monkeys or any of the other animals on Earth don't think about it at all, they don't ask questions like we do and try to make up or look for answers, they just exist and do what they do, although Dolphins and certain other creatures do show some signs of intelligence, it is not even anywhere near on the par of any humans.
We, on the other hand, as human beings developed mentally to such an unprecedented high degree that we got to a point where we actually asked 'why?' and that was good and that was where the whole 'the Gods did it' thing started, we have moved on a long way since then of course, we have made discoveries which have kicked huge holes in those initial ideas about the existence of these Gods and how they all controlled different things, namely, the God of Thunder, the Rain God etc, nearly all of those Gods have been well and truly discredited, well almost, I'm sure there are people somewhere in the world who still believe in them and I'm not knocking them because in some ways, it is a sign of some degree of intelligence, no human being would believe in a God unless they felt the need for an explanation ('how did we get here?.....answer....a God must have made us and put us here') and having a need for an explanation about anything rather than going through without asking questions and trying to come up with answers is a sign that your brain is at least working on a basic intellectual level, you might be coming up with the completely wrong answers but you are definitely asking the right questions.
The problem is that some have become, if you like, mentally jammed or emotionally attached to the old level, you know when you bought your very first mobile phone say and then another model came out, you then thought 'shall I buy this new one or keep the old one?' and there is this battle inside of you, you know that the new one is better than the one you have got but at the same time you had the old one for such a long time, it was your first one and the sentiment made it hard for you to buy another one and get rid of that old one, if not a mobile, it might be your first car, or your first house, to be honest, it can be ANYTHING, the principle is the same, you sometimes have to be dragged kicking and screaming into getting a new one and replacing the one you have.
That in many ways is part of the reason why the concept of God and religion has survived, it's not the only reason but it is definitely one of the reasons, we've had these books that have been around for 1000's of years, they have been passed down from generation to generation and have or at least used to serve a big purpose in the world we live in, there is now something much better and so people can get rid of those books, they should....but they don't want to, just like some people can't bear to get rid of their old car.
Some might try to keep the old one whilst at the same time buying the new one so they have both, problem is the old one is just not able to compete with the new one and is becoming more and more useless as time goes on, I guess you get the analogy here? Lol, the best you can say about your first mobile, your first home, your first...whatever, is that without it, you wouldn't have had your second one, religion was man's 'first one' and without it we wouldn't have this new and better one and it should be celebrated for that reason, just like Christopher Hitchens said but like with an old phone or an old anything, there comes a time when you need to put it away, it's served it's purpose now let it retire and let the new better one have it's time and this is really all we as Atheists are trying to advise people to do, namely, chuck out the old....unless someone can come up with a very good reason for keeping the old which we will be happy to hear.
Well that is fun. Religious position: I have no idea what I am talking about, there is no discernible pattern, but lets give credit where credit is due: The god of my religion is the one that did it!
Are there any atheist who were once an Pentecostal Oneness Apostolic
Acts 2:38?
The argument is that everything comes from God, and without god you can't have a world view. So in order to use logic you have to borrow from the world view that god exist, same with Morality, and anything else you wish to talk about. To use Logic you have to borrow from their world view that there is a god, and we can only know things threw him. Sye thinks you already know god exist, he thinks you know that because you use logic.
Ok, so I never really had this discussion. I think that's because most of the theists I know aren't stupid. Yes, they believe, but they also understand that that is their right, and don't push it on others. Now, as far as responding, I have to disagree with MD. To respond at all gives credence to their stupidity and propaganda. Just like "all news is good news", "all replies from atheists are good replies" since they can claim validation by the simple fact that you replied. the only reply is "Unless you can prove to me that what I think has never been thought prior to you, you are stealing someone's idea and making it yours. Stealing is a sin, but it's also typical of a hypocritical theist." Let them go and prove that their 2000 year old story was the "first". Beyond that, stop validating these idiots.
A few observations after just 4 minutes in to the video: (1) a careful study of church history and the history of theology reveal a consistent, collective doctrinal standard, clearly articulating historic, biblical Christianity, dating all the way back to the apostles. The idea that there are 1,000 different denominations (a statistic which may or may not be accurate) that disagree on every "single point of doctrine", and that therefore obscure one from discerning biblical, historic Christianity is either myth or poor research. Either way, it's poisoning-the-well and a straw-man. Biblical, historic Christianity is highly discernible; thus, the Christian world view is highly discernible as well (2) The issue or problem with an atheist borrowing from the Christian world view is this: it has been correctly said that one cannot determine or define truth, regarding anything, without observing and discussing categories of consistency. Therefore, it is highly inconsistent when an atheist "borrows" from the Christian world view, given that they espouse a Darwinian perspective on origins; because, It is impossible to justify the validity for promoting any moral or ethical standard from a purely Darwinian perspective -- impossible. Thus, once an atheist borrows from the Christian world view they automatically fall prey to inconsistency and therefore lose any logical ground of truth for their Darwinian claim on origins.
+Louis Unger
Got anything besides word salad and blatant lies?
Didn't think so. Fuck the fuck off.
Got anything besides immaturity?
All I know is if God’s don’t exist, I won’t have no other human being tell me what is good and evil.
That’s insane, so I suggest you keep believing. Why do you need to be told? Can’t you figure it out yourself?
So, the term Christian world view is an equivocation fallacy?
You are just cherry-picking from the worldview that they have the copyright to. Everyone knows that religion invented morality for instance, and that morality started 2016 years ago. What part of that don't you get? (sarcasm off) As you have pointed out as well, the religious confuse opinion for "explanation"!
+David Straub Religion has not invented morality unless you consider murder, rape and slavery are moral
Sheppard You are talking to the choir my friend. Did you not see the words (sarcasm off) just for people with a short attention span!