Видео

I mean, yeah, I don't disagree - he’s putting out books on how platonic atheism is a view that could subvert Christianity 🍻

You're asserting that God orders reality without first proving this to be correct. You can assert whatever you want to back up your claim that God is foundational, but that doesn't make it so.

This doesn't answer my main thesis - there was never a time in actual history for humans to cause original sin to manifest itself through us.

​@@SamuelDevis89I haven't seen you present any substantial arguments for that thesis. Swap out God for Truth for a moment - you are saying humanity never had the opportunity to embrace the Truth and after that (partially) depart from it? I doubt anyone could ever argue that definitively

I have no idea why you need to swap out God for a capitalised version of truth. For Christianity to stand, we need to be at fault in regards to original and individual moral sin, I'm claiming we can't be at fault for original sin. My evidence is presented in the video and thus you’d need to tell me when the thread was cut to refute my claim that we aren't at blame.

What? This makes no sense…

Love the word bungler 😂

I need to get Josh Bowen onto the show at some point to push into the archaeology side!

Ohh nice! Who are the other three? There are two conversations with Josh on this channel btw - enjoy 🍻

You’re making two claims here: 1) atheism isn’t oppressed. 2) arguments can’t be made in favour of religion within Western academic institutions, and so therefore religion is being oppressed. 1) We end up talking about Hume, when atheism was oppressed, and it still is oppressed in various parts of the world today. 2) You claim we give no evidence, and then present non for your claim - saying that, it (religion) probably is oppressed in some places, but that doesn't mean everywhere, and at all times.

@@SamuelDevis89 yes you're talking about historical oppression and current oppression (it was an all round nice discussion.) I am not saying your podcast was bad. I listened to it all. To talk about current oppression it is moved from local oppression to foreign oppression. I was adding a counter position to this. I've many years of uni under my belt and as a monotheistic Hindu I've never experienced oppression in academia from Christians/Semitic religion but I have experienced many many years of condescending philosophically wonky attacks from atheists. Most of whom have zero study into eastern philosophy. As for proof I'll get you plenty of quotes when I get home of assertions of primitive folk and their appeals to animism from plenty of text books and etc that are currently used in philosophy and religious studies classes. These are assertions as we have no evidence about how these religious traditions formed. P.s. I am using the generic "you" as in we can without push back make certain assertions. Not that you the host and guests made those assertions.

Right ok! I might very well just not have understood what you originally said 😅👍

@@SamuelDevis89 thanks for the nice podcast keep it up. 😁

I don't think you’re listening to the definition of atheism we sketch out at the top. This seem’s evidenced if you (as you have), go on to claim that atheist’s can believe in impersonal gods. If you’re claiming things like consciousness or other possible fundamental elements of the universe are gods, then you're not talking about atheism but pantheism.

@@SamuelDevis89 I accept your definition of atheism for the scope of this dialogue. I am just commenting on the inherent limitations of this definition in the longer history of atheism. If you want to deny these other definitions that is up to you. I would hope you do it a little more rigorously. I'm still hoping that one day more of the philosophy of India and the east where atheism wasn't oppressed and there was religious and philosophical freedom makes it's way into the discussion. Wading in the baby pool left by Christian philosophy is a dialectic that I hope we can get past.

You’ll have to email me some suggestions of books and authors I could speak to on this. My email in in my bio section on RUclips or can be found on my Linktree 🍻

@@SamuelDevis89 It's been a while when I get a chance I'll try find some in english for you. There is a real lack of western engagement with these schools of philosophy. Just relistening to the end of this talk (I kinda vagued out by the end busy day) and Joe is going through all the variation of Atheism even in western philosophy. It's a rich tapestry.

Glad you enjoyed it - there is no rush finding stuff; I'm basically booked up until the start of March now, but I would happily do a few episodes on this stuff if there is something I can read and get my head around and then speak to the author! Cheers :)

Can’t argue with that 🤷‍♂️🕺

But maybe it’s not as well… the unknown is part of the problem. We dive into this in the full chat that comes out later today.

Yeah, I like John! I don't agree with him (I'm not a theist), but I like him 🍻

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hey, thanks for the question! Here are some thoughts For me, I was born into and raised to beleive in God - I want what I thought my whole life was based on to be evidently true - which is where the desire comes in - as an answer to your question this is a bit chicken and egg, but I hope that makes sense - the beleif came first, and the desire came when I lost it. Lot's of people hold various supernatural beliefs, and these beliefs can provide comfort, meaning, or a sense of purpose, making them appealing despite a lack of tangible proof. I want to beleive as many true things as I can, which is why I don't believe in Christinaity, as I don't think it's claims are true. Doesn't mean I don't want them to be true (because of my past). Lastly, I find it really interesting that I have this desire, because NO part of me desires any other religious traditions to be true...

@@SamuelDevis89 Thanks so much for your reply! If I may now then respond to some of what you said; You mentioned people getting comfort and a sense of meaning and purpose from these god (and/or other supernatural) beliefs, right? But, since those god-beliefs are an attempt to _answer_ questions of meaning and purpose (suffering; the human condition; etc.), and _designed_ to provide comfort, isn't that to be expected? Especially considering that those who were _brought up_ believing that that's where our meaning, purpose and comfort -questions are answered, while _not_ being taught how to deal with any sort of existential dread in any other way than to ''just place it in the hands of, -and leave it up to'' the supernatural powers that be, and thus leaving you utterly under-prepared and ill-equipped, psychologically, to deal with any crisis in that area, when the belief is lost. Nor is it surprising that one would be longing for a return to this state of peace of mind it is associated with. The thing is, that this peaceful mindset, and even the experiences (like sensations of an all-encompassing _love;_ a loss of ego and an awe-inspiring notion of _oneness_ with the whole of existence), often _claimed_ by the various religions as _''god-given,''_ and thus presupposed as something none-believers must be lacking, _ISN'T_ uniquely theirs, but *_something we can all experience,_* god-believers and lifelong atheists, or those who never even heard of a god-concept, alike. It simply isn't true that the answers that provide you with peace of mind concerning ''the big questions,'' is _the monopoly_ of religion, let alone that supernatural beliefs that are not evidently true, are _needed_ to achieve said peaceful mind and meaningful wholeness of existence. The various religions just claimed it as such, to then provide their followers with no other tools but theirs, to achieve it, and thus leave you stranded once the belief is gone.. (oops: I've now said the same thing twice, didn't I?) It seems I'm rambling (happens sometimes, sorry), so: in closing: You say you ''want to know as many true things as possible,'' right? So do I, but I'd add to that: ''(...) as many true, and as little false things'' as possible, cause: If you just wanna believe as many true things as possible, that is achieved by believing _everything,_ (meaning you're gullible) And if your only goal is to not believe false things, you'd achieve that by believing _nothing,_ (leaving you cynical). It's when the two go together that makes for rational skepticism. And it's _there_ where the experiences and answers, though claimed by the religious to be exclusively theirs, can be found too, without invoking anything supernatural. (and I almost started typing a summary of the above! Dear o dear.... O well: I'm gonna click the 'reply' button, anyway)

I think I made the point of as many true things and as few false things when I said, ‘I want to beleive as many true things as I can, which is why I don't believe in Christinaity, as I don't think it's claims are true. Doesn't mean I don't want them to be true (because of my past).’ I don't think we are saying different things, we are just saying the same thing differently.

Hey San, thanks for your thoughts here! I'm glad to hear the video is appreciated. It took a lot of work to get it all down, spoken, and then out, but (I think) it's come out well! My main hope is that it will help people. I don't think the 'My desire for God' section is going to convince anyone that God is real - it's really just my inner desire for some of the Christian motifs to be true, and it's my way of expressing what that looks like and why. At the same time, there are many biblical motifs that I have no desire to be true, some of them being Biblical sexism, slavery, and divinely bestowed human dominance (over other creatures and this world). If my desire for God outweighed my concerns about Christianity and, thus, its claim of actually being true, then I wouldn't be a non-theist; I'd be a Christian.

Enjoy the one we just released on Epistemology. Also, we are going to be recording on Sunday to chat about ethical vegetarianism, though that won't be out for a while due to the backlog 🍻

Hey Lance, I don't expect this to be a satisfactory answer, but I'll do my best to explain where the question came from. From what you've said, I think I'm trying to get at (b) an empirical claim about how things seem to people in general (and then are worked out within society). It seems intuitive to me that most people from a very young age use morality by deploying the idea of 'fairness'. Go to any park, and you'll hear children saying things like, "But Dad, it's not fair! I was in the queue for the zipline/slide/climbing frame first." When we extrapolate this out individually (as we grow up), rightness and wrongness seem to be woven into the fabric of society. It's right for me to clothe and love my children, and it's wrong for me to torture and disown them. When I say that error theory 'feels intuitively wrong', I am making a claim about the way most people interact with moral claims and stances. I think (happy to be proven wrong) that most people believe that morality is either subjective or objective but does connect with reality. Error theory, if I am not getting this totally wrong, claims that moral statements are always false because there is no corresponding space in reality that they attach to (so to speak). Error theory, along with emotivism, seems less intuitive than other metaethical positions, at least within societal ways of dealing with fairness, morality, and ethics. To be clear, this doesn't mean that I think people's (including mine) intuitions are right. When I realised that I was an error theorist about religious claims, I began to see how ideas can be intuitively woven into the fabric of society and still informally false (as they don't connect with reality in any way). I don't know if there is any scope in this to chat further, as I might very well be making some very common mistakes that you've addressed time and time again - if it'd be helpful, then it might be fun to do so on your channel one day.

​@@SamuelDevis89 Thanks for the response. Happy to have you on my channel some time or to talk to you on yours. Feel free to reach out and set something up. (1) I'm a bit puzzled at the claim that it seems intuitive that things seem a particular way to other people. Philosophical intuitions strike me as typically concerning conceptual claims and have a private feel to them. However, you're making a claim about an intuition about an empirical question. While I may say I have intuitions about empirical matters, this use of "intuition" differs from what I take a philosophical intuition to be about, which usually concerns some a priori matter. (2) You say, >It seems intuitive to me that most people from a very young age use morality by deploying the idea of 'fairness'. Go to any park, and you'll hear children saying things like, "But Dad, it's not fair! I was in the queue for the zipline/slide/climbing frame first." That’s a normative consideration, though, not a metaethical one. I also question whether personal experience is sufficient to make universal claims about human morality. I’d only understand children speaking English. There are 7000+ languages and countless cultures in the world, and I don’t have knowledge of how people speak or act in most of them. (3) When I say that error theory 'feels intuitively wrong', I am making a claim about the way most people interact with moral claims and stances. I think (happy to be proven wrong) that most people believe that morality is either subjective or objective but does connect with reality. Error theory holds that people do speak as though morality were objective but that it isn’t objective. It holds the same empirical view about how people think as realists do. It just reaches a different metaphysical conclusion. So I’m puzzled as to how it would seem counterintuitive insofar as it serves as a description of how people think or speak, given that it agrees with realists. (4) You say >Error theory, along with emotivism, seems less intuitive than other metaethical positions, at least within societal ways of dealing with fairness, morality, and ethics. What’s less intuitive about it? Error theory doesn’t strike me as having any problem with how societies deal with fairness, morality, and ethics.

​@@lanceindependent Hey Lance, yeah, I didn't expect what I typed out to hit all these areas as cogently as I think you'd like. I am also wondering if I continue to respond if I will be able to at all? I'll give it a whirl with these last responses: (1) When I use the term 'intuitions' here, I am claiming that my intuitions align with those I speak to about morality and ethics in the general public. From there, they are worked out within societal frameworks, which leads to what I was trying to get at when I claimed error theory could feel intuitively wrong. (2) Yeah, the claim/statement aligns with 'what should I do?', so it is normative, but at the same time, it's an example of a normative consideration which will have a metaethical root/assumption, so to speak. Again, I'm trying to press at the underlying weave that these assumptions are built upon because most people'd question their normative expressions if they found out that ethics was a societal glue rather than an objective framework. I wonder why we need to be concerned about languages unless we want to make this more complicated, so that's thrown me a bit. (3) I'm trying to press at the counterintuitive nature of error theory, given that most people believe that morality is either subjective or objective. I understand that 'Error theory holds that people do speak as though morality were objective but that it isn’t objective' - what I am trying to drive at is that most people, living their life, don't think that their moral stances aren't connecting with objective reality and would be shocked to realise this could very well be the case - hence it'd seem intuitively wrong to someone. This boils down to the differences between reality and practice. If error theory is true, then the normative societal frameworks that most people (say in the UK, where I am from) work from (what should I do?) aren't based on objective reality but rather on a heuristic (if that's the right word) - something that guides rather than 'is'. (4) I know I've said this before, so I'll re-say it to see if I'm being clearer (and highlighting my errors - no doubt) - but it's all about the differentiation between individual stances to morality and their knock-on societal outworking's - morality as a societal glue rather than an objective or subjective tangible reality would throw people. I could imagine (rightly or wrongly) that we'd have societal and normative challenges if tomorrow everyone woke up holding error theory to be correct, regardless of its rightness or wrongness for a metaethical underpinning to moral claims .

@@SamuelDevis89 Thanks for the reply and sorry for the late response. I think the fairness suggestion is reasonable. I don't have any strong dispute about the normative side of everyday human thought. My only doubts are about metaethics. Here's a really short version of my take: I think metaethics has little to do with everyday moral thought and practice. I see it a bit like if we imagined everyday claims about math relying on assumptions about mathematical Platonism (an example suggested by the philosopher Michael Gill). So I don't think people generally think morality is subjective or objective: I think they haven't thought about it much at all. I suspect a shift towards error theory or other antirealist views might have some initial, short-term consequences (probably bad ones), but I think in the long-term it wouldn't matter to people much. That's not a test we could ever perform though, so who knows what would really happen.

@lanceindependent thanks for this Lance, this has been a really helpful exchange! Once again, thank you for all your work on RUclips and Substack - it’s appreciated and helped me loads (as I'm sure it’ll continue to do) 🍻👍

Hey Anthony, thanks for the comment! Regarding the audio: honestly, I'm just speaking in my normal voice and way… I’m talking into a Rode PodMic that links into a Cloudlifter CL-1 and then into a Focusrite Scarlett 4i4 and into my PC. I'm a slow talker and it’s a good setup - I'm sorry to hear it drives you insane! Regarding the content: thanks for the love! I hope people find and enjoy the channel, and that they can put up with my audio! 🤔😉

*shines Batman light into the sky* 🦇

You could probably tag me, but I do eventually get around to all the metaethics videos. Fisher is the author of an excellent introduction to metaethics (one of the few that exist) so looking forward to having something to say!

@lanceindependent - love your stuff Lance! My full conversation with Fisher is out on Friday with one more clip on Tuesday. It’s basically and intro to his intro 🤔😅 Glad to see you've found the channel ❤️

​@@SamuelDevis89 Much appreciated. You probably already know what I'm going to say then! But I'll leave a comment, anyway.

Not really - I literally say ‘we all do this’ within the first 2 mins…

@@SamuelDevis89 but then the whole conversation is about the bias of theists?

This doesn't mean atheism is correct or that I'm confirming atheism over theism, theism is solely used as an example here of possible psychological bias - which we all hold within our worldviews. I actually spoke to Swinbrune a few weeks ago about his views, so if you want to hear his side (though we don't discuss psychological bias) that’ll be out eventually. I speak to both sides and use examples from both camps - we are all human and prone to error.

I hope you enjoy the full chat as well 🍻