Let's review some more Capturing Christianity Cringe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2023
- I review a recent video by Capturing Christianity respond to @rationalityrules about Christianity and the problem of evil. We also take a detour discussing epistemology and the status of philosophy more generally.
Link to original video:
• It's over guys. Theism... - Розваги
Any belief can be taken as "basic", that is to say "I refuse to offer you justification for it or to be susceptible to changing my mind about it in the face of disconfirming evidence" 🤣🤣🤣 It's like these guys think that by inventing a word they've entered an epistemic cheat code. People do the same thing with "seemings" also winds me up. Why is it that people who *should* be the most careful and critical in their thought endlessly fall for all this transparently moronic trite.
Cameron uses “axiology” as a get out of jail free card
"Strawman" allows you to ignore any arguments during the invincibility frames.
11:00 winds me up how these Christian apologists always make themselves feel secure by putting themselves on some intellectual pedestal that they gatekeep - "this is a popular level video (like a silly child would watch) and *I* the professional academic can barely see it from the lofty heights of the 'desperately trying to make theology relevant to the modern world' university programme Im an associate lecturer at". Yeah Im being pretty brutal, but the crappy attitude and lack of humility from people who genuinely are not that smart or special always winds me up.
Brutal, perhaps, but appropriately so.
To me it sounds like "this argument is poor and vague but it's the best one I can handle. Trust me better Christians can handle any better arguments in the same way."
It's especially hilarious coming from capturing Christianity considering how many videos they've done lately about demons and aliens
1:25:00 "Almost everyone working on faith now..." - I wonder how long it will be before the experts discover what was *really* meant by "faith" for all those thousands of years!
Wow. Can't believe you'd downplay the expertise of all these 'faith' scholars! Not cool, man. The people obsessed with offering maximally charitable and sophisticated conceptual revisions of folk terms are totally a representative sample of the experts on the ONE TRUE MEANING of those terms! As such we must defer to them!
😂
I think that "theism isn't irrational because maybe some people are grossly misinformed and for them it is rational" isn't a great life of argumentation for an apologist
9:00 When I think of rationality I tend to think that rationality is basically a set of culturally approved ways of reasoning about some topic. So IMO it's not that rationality essentially involves logic or whatever, but rationality is basically "what your colleagues will let you get away with" or something like that. Epistemic practices that we collectively (yeah this is a bit Weasley) decide are "best" for thinking about stuff. And therein lies the room for conflict and disagreement between different social groups about what is "rationally permissible" because sometimes if a group can smuggle in some particular way of thinking about topics they can make claims that are important to that group the upshot of "rationality" which is the "good" way of thinking about things. I think people reify the concept of rationality into some divine thing that was discovered by 2 people in the 1700's (OK this is a hyperbolic caricature) and saved us from superstitious thinking way too much and that this way of thinking about things is overly simplistic, unhelpful for trying to cultivate more true beliefs over time and obviously historically wrong.
This. And imho all these conversations about ‘is theism rational?’ end up looking a bit silly for this reason. There are all sorts of concepts of rationality. Theism is going to judged rational according to some and irrational according to others. But people go on to talk as if one of these concepts is ‘the correct one.’ Like wtf does that mean? It’s like how people talk about the definition of sports. Is cheerleading or BJJ a sport? Depends on which sport concept you’re using. Is there a correct sport concept? No, of course not. These are words we made up to navigate the world. We decide how our concepts carve up the world, we don’t discover it. Same for rationality. We drew the boundaries of the rational and we can redraw them however and whenever we want.
Dirty relativist
@@JamesFodor “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a [sensible epistemology]”
@@TalkwithLina This isn't my view of logic. My view is that logic is a particular sort of linguistic activity that humans engage in - from my point of view logic isn't "present in" anything except certain types of discourses people have including formal argumentation and university logic exams!
Uh-oh
Uh, oh
he my best friend in the whole world
On the mood board, he's the inspo
And he dressed in really cute clothes
Kawaii, like we're in Tokyo
Devon Lee smile, teeth a white row
Got a classic, real deep, Van Gogh
he got loyalty, he says, "I love you, girl"
I love him more
Ah-ah, digital gnosis, you're so fine, you're so fine, you blow my mind
Jump into the driver's seat and put it into speed drive
(Hot) riding through the streets, on a different frequency
Know you know just what I mean, we're runnin' through the red lights
Ah, digital gnosis, you're so fine, you're so fine, you blow my mind
Jump into the driver's seat and put it into speed drive
(Hot) riding through the streets, on a different frequency
Know you know just what (what) I mean, we're runnin' through the red lights
Lights
(Red lights, red lights, red lights, red lights, yeah)
Oh, got the top down, tires on fire (on fire)
Who are you? I'm livin' my life (uh)
See you lookin' with that side eye
Wow, you're so jealous 'cause I'm one of a kind (uh)
What you think about me, I don't care (I don't care)
I'm a classic, real deep, Voltaire
The girls who need to know, well, they already know
They're over there
Ah-ah, digital gnosis, you're so fine, you're so fine, you blow my mind
Jump into the driver's seat and put it into speed drive
(Hot) riding through the streets, on a different frequency
Know you know just what (what) I mean, we're runnin' through the red lights
Ah, digital gnosis, you're so fine, you're so fine, you blow my mind
Jump into the driver's seat and put it into speed drive
(Hot) riding through the streets, on a different frequency
Know you know just what I mean, we're runnin' through the red lights
Lights
(Red lights, red lights, red lights, red lights, yeah)
Lights
(Red lights, red lights, red lights, red lights, yeah)
Red lights, red lights, red lights, red lights, yeah
*Edit:* As soon as I took the video off pause, you pretty well covered the same points as I have here: 😮😂
It was interesting,when it came to the part about irrationality being defined by somebody indiscriminately, regardless of the individuals accessibility or apprehension of information. I couldn't help being reminded of the biblical "unbelievers are without excuse" shtick. That principle applies much better to the science denying theist, with the advent of the enlightenment, scientific method, electronic communications and the internet. Almost nothing is inaccesable today, compared to a time when scrolls 📜 or books 📚 were the best technology for media and direct unaided observation was the only empirical evidence. It seems a bit like special pleading for theist to hand waive away irrationality on the grounds of an individuals potential unawareness, when willful ignorance is more probable in any particular event.
Apart from this, i'd suggest something akin to the null hypothesis might apply to rationality. They might like to claim their beliefs are rational by default and deffend them as such on the I didn't know any better ticket but if we're contemplating whether the belief itself is rational rather than the person who believes it, aren't we appealing to objecive evidence and sound epistemology of the idea itself as the criteria, rather than the subjective state of mind of the believer? Otherwise a child who thinks there's a monster under the bed might be considered rational because he doesn't know any better. But the idea that there is a monster under the bed itself, is by all reasonable accounts, objectively false and irrational. Just because a naieve party might feel they have a priori justification for rationaliy doesnt mean the belief is rational. Likewise, just because the court is out and an idea hasn't been tested does make it irrational either. Just as saying 'I don’t believe it' isnt saying it isn't the same as saying 'it isn't true'. Saying it isn't rational on objective terms, isn't the same as saying 'its irrational' on subjective terms, if that makes sense.
35:00 "A lot of them will say" - I can feel Lance getting triggered all the way from here whenever philosophers make reference to what people think without any reference to actual empirical survey data etc.
There is plenty of research about how nonphilosophers respond to trolley problems. A significant majority favor pulling in the switch case and reject pushing in the footbridge case.
About 63% of professional philosophers in the PhilPapers survey favored pulling the switch. However, they weren't given a forced choice between pull/don't pull, and many (~25%) favored a variety of options other than "don't pull the switch." 22% favor pushing in the footbridge case and 56% favor not pushing.
I remember Trent Horn saying something along the lines of “because he doesn’t know the ultimate purpose for certain evils, he would act as if there wasn’t a purpose for that evil”. For example, if there was a child with a flesh eating worm inside of their body, Trent would help the child even if that child dying from that worm would result in a greater good since he doesn’t know all of the factors.
So I'm not sure, but I think "I protected purdue" is something to do with keeping Purdue University open during Covid?
50:00 "Im using a lot of language here" is like "an awful lot of weather we have been having latelyc
The trouble with the bottom of the barrel of Christian apologetics is it's ALL bad.
When listening to Christian defenders the air gets more and more oxygen-deficient the longer they speak. These people have definitely decided to die on Silly Hill for some reason.
24:47
This responds to a very specific cause for transition into "was rational" to "is no longer rational".
So that's how I'm going to interpret what he means there.
As such, what I hear him saying is:
He is confessing that it's possible to *know enough'* that theism can no longer be justified.
But someone else might not know any better (they might not have enough information) and so in that case theism can be regarded as rational.
I agree.
So would Stephen.
And that's actually the point.
Theists simply don't know any better.
They may not understand enough about their own mental machinery, to understand how that complex, viral memetic was uploaded, adapted, and integrated into their mind.
There are many other things they may simply not realize; like the true history of the planet's geology, or religious history, etc..
BUT a great many of those theists are avoiding learning enough.
Christians, for example, are "being obedient" and not eating of the trees (books; as dead trees which still bear fruit) of 'dangerous knowledge'.
Christians don't want to learn anything that could disrupt their paradigm and cost them their lives (or worse).
But is that fear (or their response to that fear) rational or irrational?
I'm not aware of any defense for that ... except for various justifications that would equally apply to other similar religions.
I'd be willing to humor those justifications ... except that Christians disallow every such defense for people in other religions.
I wouldn't want to be an enabler of hypocrisy;
unless hypocrisy can be justified as rational?
I think any belief system is rational in the sense that it can work for the individual in an evolutionary sense. You may hold views that are dumb and wrong, but achieve social status, support and mating.
It is irrational in the sense that logic or empirics is faulty.
Two and a half hours of Capturing Christianity, for those with the strongest of stomachs.
56:22 I think you get to some form of foundation. Personally, I am pro weak foundationalism myself. The problem with coherentism is that it seems to me there are more fundamental principles than others.
Weak foundationalism is really indistinguishable from coherentism or infinitism in terms of justification, but I'd also argue foundationalism is superfluous. It's not necessary for anything.
"Fundamental principles" actually seem to break down at "foundations". Take the cosmological principle "things have causes" where the foundation is claimed to be a thing without a cause.
Ha, I was feeling the exact feelings scrolling through his videos…like damn cam you’ve really gone off the wagon lately.
36 mins in.. is he really arguing for the validity of "evidence" from visions and dreams? cos that's the door he seems to be opening.
great job breaking things down!
Cameron's subscriber numbers get artificially inflated because he makes you subscribe to the channel before you can live chat.
good catch.
Cameron is clearly in tune with UA-cam algorithms.
Ah, that makes sense. That might be why I'm subbed to him. I'm checking right now.
What's wrong with this definition...
*Rational:* That which is epistemically and empirically justified?
People's actions define their character ...not their religion, ethnicity or belief system.
God must have Munchausens By Proxy syndrome.
Any definition of intuition needs to explain the difference, if any, between intuition and System 1 thinking in the "Thinking Fast and Slow" sense.
Yes!!!!! Philosophers get away with vague notions of "seemings", say it isn’t gut instinct, but fail to show that it isn’t sometimes gut instinct.
I’m going to stop this video and go watch capturing Christianity.
Good points!
"Presupposing God makes God belief illogical." Apologist.
Also apologists "God belief is logical!!!!!!!!!"
I used to really enjoy Cameron's content but ever sense he started with the Catholic stuff his channel's content has fallen off a cliff.
Always enjoy your stuff.
43:40 I think the best way to put it is that a belief is always irrational if it is incorrect, however the people who hold the belief are not themselves irrational until they are presented with, and deny, the evidence which supposedly renders their belief incorrect.
Forgive me for being dense, but I don’t understand.
As I parse the sentence I can’t get to a belief is always irrational if it is incorrect. Without the context of the evidence someone has, their understanding of what can be known from some evidence, or without knowledge of the reasoning used in justifying some belief, I do not know how the belief could be deemed irrational.
A belief in a flat earth, based on the rantings of conspiracy theorists, despite evidence both against a flat earth and the conspiracies, coupled with the myriad evidence demonstrating the spherical earth, is entirely irrational.
Ancient belief of a spherical earth, based on calculations, observations and inference was rational. The belief that all people existed on the ‘top’ of this vast, curved area of the sphere, at that time, was rational.
With available understanding it would have been wholly irrational to leap to the belief that because it’s spherical, that the earth isn’t held up by something, that it is suspended in space ‘by itself’, and that someone could theoretically travel in one direction to the ‘underneath’ part of the sphere, and not only not fall off on the way, but keep going back to where they began.
I don’t see how one can remove the subject holding the belief and not render the concept of the belief being irrational, completely nonsensical.
The intellectual side of Christianity:
1. Aliens!
2. Demons
3. More aliens!
4. Joe Rogan
5. EVEN MORE ALIENS!
Might just be me, but I feel like the last year or two has been an interesting decline in serious content coming from Cameron... at least, by my standards. He's gone into things that I take even less seriously than Christianity as of late... sort of a shame.
👏🙂
1:05:00 It's called Phenomenal Conservatism
Atheists do have a saviour, his name is pinecreek
More like the anti Christ.
Pinecreek isnt too bad, but he is a bit of an old fuddie duddie.
Nonsense
I missed it…
The comments on this one are great!
Cameron Bertuzzi - aka capturing Christianity was a professional photographer before he turning in his tripod and lenses for a holey babble. Clearly he thought he could make more dosh ($$$$) by fleecing gullible and desperate people for their hard earned money
He's heard all the arguments against Jeesus but acknowledges none of them. Pretty sure he doesn't believe any of the BS he claims, but is happy to receive the pay-checks every month
Why think that he's doing this in bad faith? Seems much easier to think that he's just sincere in his beliefs, perhaps mistaken (because he's susceptible to the same biases as everyone else), AND uses gimmicky clickbait nonsense because it's what gets clicks and generates revenues on YT.
Fwiw, I totally think we ought to think hard about the bad incentives created by online apologetics, but if I had to place bets I'd say most of that operates at a subconscious level. I doubt there are *that many* pure grifters in this space. And I think it's very unlikely that Cameron is one of them. I say that even though I'm almost uniformly unimpressed with his (esp recent) content.
It's his livelihood for a start. Like I said, he's heard all the arguments and even when the evidence or logic against him is incontrovertible, he ignores/ avoids it. When he's been proven to be wrong or shown that he came unjustifiably come to a conclusion, he denies all such points.
It's much easier for me to believe that he's just not that bright. He's the perfect demonstration that "educated" and "intelligent" are very different things.
Scrap that, William Lane Craig is the perfect example. Dude is an idiot.
Cameron was a camera man? Is that true? Seems a little too good to be true.
@@zhengfuukusheng9238Yeah I mean you're not wrong. It does not seem like he's amenable to reality.
Philosophy is merely a collection of opinions. Very little of it is useful at all for understanding reality. They haven’t come up with a single actual discovery about reality since Descartes.
Pretty much all of it is. How do we understand science? Philosophy. How do we understand history? Time, which is something we understand coherently through philosophy. How do we organise our society and decide which things are right and wrong? How do we figure out what 'right and wrong' even mean? How do we understand language? How do we understand conciousness? We do all of this through philosophy. It is not my word against your word; that itself is a philosophical view.
Furthermore, philosophy has come a long way since Descartes. Hume, Kant, Bentham, Singer, Kripke, Gettier, Russell, Wittgenstein, Marx, Chomsky, Nagel, Chalmers and plenty of others are all examples of well-known philosophers who (i) came after Descartes and (ii) have arguably changed the way we view reality and our place within it forever.
@@irish_deconstruction All of that is wrong, I’m afraid. No one bothers with the opinions of philosophers outside their own discipline. Consciousness, for example, is a physical process. Philosophers have been talking about it for hundreds of years, without doing anything except muddy the waters. Philosophy in the main is utterly divorced from reality, which is why working scientists can and do simply ignore it. Further, all conceptual analysis is not philosophy; philologists, lawyers, engineers, mathematicians all engage in such analysis without bothering with the mutually condradictory and largely ignorant opinions of philosophers.
That's not entirely true, Set theory, cantors theorems, Gödel's incompleteness. There's actually a lot of good 20th century philosophy. But you're right in part, we haven't really made progress since the 20th century.
@@davethebrahman9870Consciousness is literally defined as not being a physical process. How can a thing defined as non physical be physical? It's absurd.
@@TheMahayanist Nonsense. Consciousness is a product of and occurs spatially within the human brain.
If you think phenomenal conservatism is absurd, do you think the opposite of it is rational? It would be you are justified in believing things that don't seem to be. BTW, seemings are not things limited to sense perception.
The negation of "you are justified believing sentences that contain the word green" does not entail that "you are justified believing sentences that do not contain the word green", instead it is "you are not justified believing sentences that that contain the word green" - the scope of the negation is over the entire proposition and not just the part of the proposition that offers a condition for justification (look at the difference between each carefully).
You could just reject justification altogether. We do not need it to have arguments or anything like that.
Yeah I was gonna say that’s not how negation works but Nathan beat me to it
Of course. That's why I'm a skeptic.
@@spongbobsquarepants3922Yeah, but what's knowledge then? Just true belief? But you can have true beliefs and not knowledge. Justification seems to be at least a necessary condition for knowledge.