I just finished watching the entire series in one setting and I have to give mad props to the creator of these videos. I'm an agnostic theist that has spent more hours than I could count on the web researching the best arguments for and against theism. 99% of the time it's nothing but ignorant fundamentalists on one side and arrogant condescending critics on the other. To come across a well thought out eloquently presented soft spoken critique like this is rare. Well done!
No shit! This is amazing. Speaking from my own experience, it's remarkable that he was able to work this out so quickly. It took me 15 years just to deconvert. I'm still working on my anger over being deceived. I'm always impressed with those who have enough clarity to move past the anger and find productive ways to problem solve the misperceptions that get us all tangled up. Of course, he had the help of a well seasoned and experienced skeptic. Not many of us are so lucky. But, nevertheless, he's made remarkable progress and, rather than move on, he came back to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to help the rest of us find our way. I feel so much gratitude. Kudos to Evid3nc3!
about 2 years ago, I stumbled upon your 'why I am no longer a Christian' series, with the arrogant mindset of a deluded Christian. I believed, at the time, that I could single-handedly (with the help of god, 'of course') refute all the points you would make against it. I barely made it past 2 videos, because I feared that it would shake my faith too much and so I viewed your videos as a threat. I return to this now, whilst in the process of my own deconversion. Hardly 3 weeks ago, I was an unstable liberal christian. Now, I am convinced of my atheism. I want to say thank you. You have shown me so much through these videos that have solidified my unbelief - my atheism. You have also contradicted much of my perceptions of what atheists are usually like. You make me want to learn more and to be a better human being.
I really hate people who do these types of things, like what chickenman297 and Pig0Benis88 have done. I understand that you have very little patience for religious people, and I can, to an extent, sympathize with that, but to reduce being an atheist, as I am, as just being better than a religious life, is just down right wrong. Many people can live extremely good lives, and sometimes, better lives than that of an atheist, not because they believe in God, or even because of the placebo effect, but because their lives, and how they live them, are just as valid as your own, and putting people down for believing in God is as bad as a Christian putting you down for not believe in God.
randomDisinformation I'm sorry, but where exactly have I invalidated anybodies life in my post? How does congratulating someone for their deconversion equate to putting someone else down? Enlighten us all.
randomDisinformation I didn't mean to offend anyone; the only reference I can find that people may find slightly offensive is 'deluded christian', and in that sense I was referring to myself. I was not explicitly mentioning the entire christian community. Infer that how you will, but I don't see how that can be so offensive. That's the only thing I found in my post which could have offended anyone.
@@robertmetcalf3748 His last video on RUclips is from almost seven years ago, but Evid3nc3r posted something two and a half years ago on his twitter channel. Probably his Patreon fundraiser wasn't such a success, and he can't afford to work less for his living while additionally investing time and money in the production of new videos. And I have to admit, I'm not yet having him (or anyone else) supported on Patreon.
Such a *great* series of videos. +Evid3nc3's talent for breaking down complex philosophical concepts into their root components while simultaneously narrating a compelling story is matched by few.
You have already done such a service to the world by making these videos. Take all the time you need. If I am having a conversation with a Theist I will direct them to your videos. One recently, you have inspired to record the de-conversion that he is going through at this exact moment. I have never had to go through a de-conversion and your videos have really shown me the other side with such honesty and clarity, You are awesome. Your videos rule. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
ZobmieRules He leaves gigantic holes in his argument. How does he ever justify the because 'some claims can be justified by physical evidence, therefore all claims are justified by physical evidence'? He just glosses over the justification for that, hoping his audience is too dumb to notice. And he never establishes that logic is based on physical observation. It's just a baseless assertion! In fact we have good reasons to suppose that logic cannot be based on physical observation. For instance, the law of non-contradiction, i.e. that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time, cannot be proven or disproven via physical observation. Because suppose we observe that something violates the law of non-contradiction. That means the law of non-contradiction is false. But if it is false, then propositions can both be true and false at the same time. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction can be both true and false, therefore it cannot ever be proven or disproven.
derezzed83 "then propositions can both be true and false at the same time. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction can be both true and false, therefore it cannot ever be proven or disproven." The key word in your own statement is "CAN". Just because something CAN be true and false does not mean it IS true and false. If an observation is made that that something exists which violates the law of non-contradiction then that law ceases to be true. Depending on what this observation we are imagining reveals, the truth value of the law of non-contradiction would have to be evaluated accordingly. The answer isn't necessarily a paradox. It could be that the discovery reveals that the law is simply nonsensical, like the Luminiferous aether, or it could simply be false.
I have never seen anything that has described my own progression away from theism so well. You are a fresh and welcoming addition to the advancement of the human experience, and I am pleased to share this perception of reality with people such as you. I look forward to future videos. Very well done good sir!
I am a Christian who has just finished watching the author's whole set of 'why I am no longer a Christian' videos. I am thankful he shared his journey. I learnt some valuable information and I think he is very talented at presentations too.
This might be one of the best video series / playlists I've seen on RUclips. Kudos to this guy for the massive project this clearly was. Absolutely amazing.
You, sir, have - without a doubt - vastly improved my knowledge. ...not by necessarily teaching me new facts or ideas because I've been using evidentialism my whole life to some extent, but you've helped me know how I can justify my conclusions I've made about literally everything. I hope you make many more videos covering epistemology.
I love these videos and they make perfect sense. I am amazed this young man went through this transitional journey so young. Like him, my religion is the truth NOW and nothing else. I have watched all of his videos and have been on a journey much like his but it has taken me twice as long to get to the point where he is. I was a devote Christian but no longer. It didn't happen overnight; it has taken 7-10 years I guess. I really opened my heart, mind and soul to other ideas. If people REALLY open their minds.... wow.... what a different world it would be. Religion had it's time and it was called 'The Dark Ages'. People need to stop being scared and intimidated by the constraints of religion, throw off the shackles and go on a search for the truth. What they find will be nothing short of 'mind blowing'. Don't be afraid to explore other possibilities. Religion was designed to control the masses and that is exactly what it has done and mainly through fear. I am no academic but I have been searching for God and for things to truly make sense (which they did not before) all my adult life. Be aware, that if you go down this path, it is like 'The Matrix', you will NEVER go back to your previous way of thinking. You might feel alone to begin with but would you rather stayed clouded in ignorance or take the trip down the rabbit hole and see how far it goes? That is what you have to decide and IF you are strong enough to handle the truth. It is not for everyone. I can not tell you how at peace I am now. I am not scared of religion or the so called repercussions of not following it anymore. I am truly free and I am happy having gained that knowledge, I will never go back.
The producer of this video is articulate, has done research, engaged advanced topics, produced a cogent description with bibliography suggesting they are again well-educated. But in 4:30 of viewing we have been introduced to some serious In fact fatal ways of arguing that don’t comport with the earlier data. No philosopher would destroy so much of what can be known in support of any thesis. There are good arguments for atheism but evidentialism is just an epistemic trick that forces its adherent to assert materialism. This is why we seldom find any proponents.
Stayed up all night watching every video in your series. What I can absolutely say about it is that it left a profound impact on me. Thank you for sharing this wealth of information.
The argument about why teachers who only give abstract concepts without evidence confuse students reninds me of Jaime Escalante - who was portrayed im the movie "Stand and Deliver" - who goit otherwise poor students in a Los Angerles barrio to get very high scores in his calculus class: his teaching must have included evidentiary methods.
I have now watched the whole series of your deconversion and the follow ups. I too fall into the choir of appraise! Not only are you very calm, polite and respectful, but also you bring up very interesting points of reflection and tie all to philosophy and your own very heartfelt story. A narrative that is pleasant to listen to, but still one that can keep one focused. I'm so impressed, and thankful for learning about a few of the philosophical aspects of my own experience. Excellent work!
I really like where you're going with this and I've really enjoyed the videos you've made up until now. Also, I think I know why I didn't enjoy calculus now! Thanks for all your hard work making these. They're really well put together visually, the background music fits into them well, and I love the way you transition effortlessly through your points. You're just lovely.
Kristi Winters Yeah I'm a bit iffy on him constantly using "belief" in the last few videos. Drawing solid conclusions based on evidence rarely ends up being considered a "belief" for the simpler things (like the earth going around the sun) but instead is something similar to a fact. So why "believe" the earth goes around the sun? It's a solid conclusion, a fact, which can be improved upon in future.
FullCircleStories You are a pedant after my own heart :) I never say I believe in evolution, because I don't. I have been convince of the accuracy of the ToE because of the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps together we can campaign for accuracy in language use :D
Kristi Winters Haha, I guess I'm just discussing the point further, adding to your comment. Accurate language use would be wonderful, but as someone in their postgrad of Linguistics, it's just a pipe dream! XD
@mrfilthyrags In case you haven't been told this yet: you seem to have forgotten the segment about radiation and wind in the previous video and how we use instrumentation to perceive them. Ultimately, even if you are using an instrument to measure a phenomenon (like subatomic particles), you are using your direct senses to read the instrument. But instruments allow us to reach places our direct senses can't. The sensor readings are the evidence. This all fits within Evidentialism.
I discovered your posts and watched them all over the weekend (whew - what a RUclips session). Very enjoyable, provocative, and deeply emotive at some points. I look forward to seeing the continuation of the argument. Many thanks.
I know this video is old, but I want to say, that it would be helpful if you distinguish between the different types of evidentialism. In 3.4.1(1) you sound like a strict empiricist or some type of verificationist, but in this video 3.4.1(2) you sound much more like a classical empiricist to avoid the problems of strict empiricism. I think that classical is the way to go, but you can't just jump around out of convenience, so it would be nice for you to specific as to which particular 'version' you are. Also I think you will enjoy handling Thomas Aquinas when it comes to empiricism and Natural Theology
Hezekiah Domowski You are assuming these are common labels and that you and I are using the same definitions. I disagree and I don't know what your definitions are.
Speaking as someone who is learning the methods of math tutoring, I now know how true this is. The algorithms of rationalism are handy when you already understand what they represent (and half the time, I've noticed, I never really questioned what these abstractions represented as I learned math; I just accepted it as one large system of internal consistency that I was good at and that colleges loved), but you truly begin to understand the nature of explanation when a seven-year-old asks you WHY the denominator has to be the same when you add fractions. In a sense, the kids who "don't get" math when it's not explained evidentially are the truly smart ones, because they aren't content to just accept arbitrary standards without learning why those standards are there. It's sometimes frustrating when you literally cannot put the concept in any other terms, but when they get it, it's immensely rewarding. :)
I loved your first video on evidentialism too and I felt I was right on board with it, like you were clarifying the thoughts I was working out myself in college. I've also found that many people misunderstand things which I thought were very simple and clearly explained. Sometimes their objections are valid but also quite often people don't even realize the flaws in their reasoning which have lead to their misunderstanding of what I wrote. It's great to listen to your thoughts.
I am surprised that this is still as popular as it is. A friend showed me this video in college. I showed it to my philosophy professor, he burst out laughing, said "don't take this guy seriously," and told me to go read J.L. Mackie and David Hume. I did that, and my life has been great. I advise you all to do the same.
I really enjoy this series - its one of the most well argued series on RUclips. However the stuff about mathematics and logic being derived from or dependent on physical objects existing is just wrong. The point about the value of using concrete examples in teaching is fine up to a point - but once you move beyond counting etc you are constructing abstractions of abstractions. You cant show me 5i+3 marbles! When I learned group theory and vector spaces and elementary set theory - so much of what I was taught about "real world" examples became irrelevant. And it was marvelous and intellectually exhilarating! So I like existentialism for rocks and stars and "beings" but I just don't need (or want) it for numbers and logical relationship - ta all the same!
But I can show you 5 red and 3 blue marbles as a symbol of 5i + 3. I can also illustrate the theory of discrete groups by flipping a coin or rotating a pyramid, or the theory of the Lie group SO(3) by rotating a spherical object (which is how group theory is commonly taught). 2D vector spaces can be drawn on a piece of paper. Vector bundles like the tangent bundle on a sphere can be illustrated by looking at a point on a physical ball, drawing some axes and zooming in. Of course some problems of mathematics are inaccessible to regular sensory evidence, but the problems that can be visualized in that way always serve as a highly evidence-backed toolbox to tackle the more abstract problems. Mathematics is always easiest to do when everything is close to the real world. In his book on quantum field theory, A. Zee cited some mathematician (can't remember who) that claimed the best mathematicians are the ones that secretly think like physicists. I do think that there's some interesting stuff going on here with regard to the nature of truth, and I'm not educated enough to grasp the matter completely, but I do think Evid3nc3's stance might be valid even in the case of abstract mathematics.
This is obviously a brilliant guy. These videos are entrancing and incredibly organized and clear. His comments on the nature of truth, evidence, logic, and the notion of what is "self evident" are all beautifully simple and insightful.
Only insomuch as it was a human that taught Alex what the symbols for numbers meant, and was done in order for us to better understand the animals around us. We also have evidence of domestic canines performing deductive reasoning, and of porpoises not only having an understanding of imagination, but they're also capable of communicating it to one another (through their language, whatever you want to call it--clicks and whistles). Just because we can find out that math (which is really just pattern recognition, something at which the human brain is incredibly fast) is used and understood by other animals, and they're more capable than we originally thought doesn't make any of these discoveries either anthropomorphic or anthropocentric. Indeed, Alex started teaching it's offspring math. It's hard to find a single reason Alex would teach it's offspring math for anthropocentric reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of Evid3nc3's video series. I've watched it a few times and recommend it to my students (I'm a behaviorist) who were seekers. I just found the claim... ASSUMPTION math only exists in the human brain to be a bit far reaching, especially when we have evidence it's not true.
Art Scott The issue here surely is that these concepts exists in minds. That is they can only be deduced (abstracted) by minds, as what they are derived from is not itself abstract.
Plastic Vision I'm not sure I follow. I would agree ideas are abstract, but science is not abstract. It's very concrete. I want to understand what you're saying, but don't quite get it from that.
Art Scott. My apologies. I was stating that minds, whether they belong to animals or man, is where these concepts actually reside. That is they are not intrinsic qualities of the actual world, but instead give rise to consistent conceptualisations of the world in those minds, which may well be wired to perceive associations via the mechanism of pattern recognition (to varying degrees of capability, depending on evolutionary adaptation). Is that clearer?
The point you make using the example about how math is based on set theory derived from the physical world and then stepped mentally away from there into mental symbols is actually quite brilliant. Some assume that numbers, or math was abstracted from just mental images, or quantities divorced from the real world, but your example of set theory based on the numbers of like objects in the physical world is quite exceptional, and spot on, thank you.
@RickHanlonII I find it bizarre that you think I don't get high-level math since I referenced ZFC and Russel's paradox in the video. FYI, I will soon have a PhD in Computer Science and I grade proofs for a senior-level Data Structures course. My mathematics background covers vector calculus, statistics, and theoretical computer science. And my best teachers were the ones who both abstracted the intuition for theorems from concrete examples AND validated them with deductive proofs.
You saw how deep the rabbit hole really was, I admire you very much for being able to get out of it using reason and logic. This has been the most inspiring documentary I've ever seen. This should be seen by everyone on this planet. I can very much relate to your story and I can't thank you enough for sharing this. You contributed to the next evolutionary step of mankind!
Since I will just support you, I will make this short. Thank you for doing these. By making us feel less alone, and giving us all see that anyone can do it, you have given us hope. This life is a lonely one. Thanks for making it look less like that.
I've only just discovered your channel and really love the way you explain things. I particularly love your explaination of math from its basis in evidence to abstract concepts. It makes me want to learn logic so I can understand what all those strange squiggles mean. Thanks for explaining technical concepts in a rigorous, yet colloquial way.
Evidence, your videos are thoughtful and clear. I appreciate your sincere and gentle approach in describing your deconversion and transition to a new worldview. What is so very helpful is the listing of sources for your observations. Thank you. You have inspired me in my transition from 40-plus years of Christianity to atheism.
Just finished watching your videos and wanted to take a moment to give thanks for having gone through the trouble of making this incredibly insightful and educational series (which you easily could have charged for in the form of an adiobook, dvd or online lecture). It must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together. Although I enjoy the work of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens - this surely is the way to go. I hope you continue making videos.
@MercifulMing This is probably the only time I will interrupt the series by formally responding to rebuttals in video form. Since evidence and Evidentialism are kind of my "thing" and it seems like I am the appropriate person to defend them.
When I first saw this video, I fully agreed. Evidentialism seems correct on the surface. However, upon closer examination, it leads to some problems: 1. Infinite Regress: Even with provisional assumptions, there is never enough justification for a belief if one is sufficiently skeptical, leading to an infinite regress. 2. Induction Problem: Evidentialism relies on induction, which is problematic due to David Hume's induction problem. 3. A Priori Truths: Some a priori truths cannot be proven with evidence. Your "proof" of the identity principle only demonstrates that our brains tend to recognize patterns in nature, but in reality, nothing is truly identical. Molecules differ, atoms differ, and even particles differ from one another. I challenge you to prove that A = A using physical evidence. 4. Theory-Dependence of Observations: Evidentialism seems to ignore the fact that observational propositions are dependent on theory. For example, consider the simple proposition, "This apple is red." To make this statement, you must know what an apple is and what red is. This concept applies to all propositions. Therefore, you can't simply "let the evidence tell the rest", because your evidence is already influenced by theory. I would genuinely like to be proven wrong, but it seems that evidentialism is flawed.
Thank you so much for this series, I do hope it's not over. I think you have clearly presented your argument for evidentialism and given interested parties plenty to consider. I subscribe and look forward to more from you.
@Evid3nc3 I'm pleased you did so: I find very useful to see how you respond to specific critics about your epistemologic system (pretty close to mine). Thank you from Italy!
I would also contend that it is meaningless so say that "My senses are accurate." At best, you can simply say that you have sense experiences, and that you would like to try and formulate a set of beliefs that make sense out of them. After all, what does it mean to say "my sense of red is accurate?" Is red a physical thing? Or what does it mean to say "my experience of loud is accurate?" What is loudness, if not a subjective personal experience?
Wow, you put words on something i've been thinking about for a long time. In my education to become an engineer i was always frustrated when forced to learn apriory truths. So i always made it a habit to relate these truths to something physical in order to accept them. Sometimes this was very time consuming, since something like resonances in the continuum of solid mater is pretty hard to imagine. I never thought that i just needed the evidentialist aproach to learning these things.
You should read Hume, an actual evidentialist that recognizes how even our notions of causation are imparted from our own minds, similar to logic and mathematics.
Congratulations on your life events. I hope these are exciting and rewarding times for you and your family. I've really appreciated your videos, and look forward to more when they come. Cheers.
@Washu1973 You're doing it backwards. The abstraction is historical, not predictive. The argument is: The reason we form abstractions like modus ponens is because of PAST experiences. E.g. dropping glasses and breaking them. It HAS happened. We've SEEN it happen. And from that EXPERIENCE, we form a cause->effect abstraction. In the FUTURE, it may be true or not. Either way, the *informal* (intuitive) foundation which evolves into the *formal* modus ponens has been established. By evidence.
4:38 “A set of beliefs can be internally consistent in isolation without actually being true.” This is how you warp people’s intuition about the world. Intuition relies on people’s sense of consistency and non-contradiction. Control the information they receive, and you control their intuition. Unfortunately, this is the philosophical position I took when I was questioning religion, free will, psychological ego, and my sense of reality. I could not even begin with the assumption that “I exist.” I don’t recommend this move, because truth can easily become a shouting contest, where one network of beliefs tries to overwhelm the other one with information from its own side to invoke contradictions on the other. If you find yourself trying to question your worldview while being trapped and surrounded by people whose primary motivation is to change your worldview, you can easily fall into superstition.
@ChaotePD This seems to be primarily a problem for people in the UK. In the United States, people don't automatically associate "belief" with "faith". In the US, beliefs are merely the end-point of a thought process. That thought process may be evidentialism, faith, rationalism, or experience. Under this definition, not all beliefs are equal; some are better justified than others. I will continue using "belief" to mean that because I think it is a useful concept.
@OpenAirAtheist I never said "I have knowledge that I don't have knowledge". I have the *belief* that we can't "know" anything. I could be wrong about it. That is the difference between the claim of "knowing" and belief: the awareness that you could be wrong. I find the use of the word "knowledge" problematic because it implies that anything one labels as "knowledge" can't later be revised by corrective evidence. No claim should be exempt from correction.
I am so enthusiastic about your series. It's an amazing journey. Thanks for your videos they even help me with Epistemology at University. Hope to watch a new one soon.
I have a question relating embodied mind theory and some of the assumptions made by the SETI programs. Specifically, is there a simple evidence-based argument for the existence of prime numbers other than the use of mathematics, and thus that prime numbers would be discovered independently of human math? It is often said that radio signals of pulses of prime numbers would be signs of intelligent life because primes do not form in the natural radio signals. Thanks.
@badblueman I tend to think so, yes. In fact, I've already written up an alternative (and better, imo) starting point than these "first principle" approaches based entirely on our sense perceptions. I'll use it instead of first principles if/when I write this section into book form.
@edricnavigator "On this evidentialist conception of logic, would logic be considered an invention or a discovery?" How does this effect the price of fish?
This video really hit me. I have been watching these videos, hoping to get new information, which I have, hence me getting this far, but this video made me realize something. I am an Evidentialist. I have, many times, in my math classes; which I love, asking myself why something they are teaching me is true. I just couldn't accept A+B=C without proof. And a few professors I have talked to, and had classes with, have gone through and explained why something is true, and I always have a better and easier time, learning from them, rather than someone who just tells me something it true.
Omg, from believing in the bible to THIS, that was just incredible growth, you are incredibly smart, and I must re-visit all of it, because I didn't quite get it all, so much material, so well presented, I can't wait for the next video, a year without posting? Please come back!!
I really enjoy these videos.. Thanks for posting this. Each time I view one of your videos (with a nice cup of tea and a breathing space) I am in some way compelled to be more considerate of what I believe. Also. RE:Rationalist assumptions. I was struck with the thought of the beginning of the American constitution - "We hold these truths to be self-evident". A small starting point for a constitution. What (do you think) would be an "Evidentialist opener" for the constitution? Many thanks.
Part 2 - None of the thousands of thumbs up voters ever thought to ask of your third point requiring "physical" evidence! What physical evidence supports the statement, "The only evidence we will consider to be meaningful is physical evidence?" Opps, by point three in the presentation we are introduced to an incoherent rule! Like a square circle or a married bachelor! Yet the thumbs up votes keep coming at a rate of 40/1! So one could conclude that only ~ 1 in 40 recognize that on evidentialism we have an incoherent (I.e. Self-refuting) proposition. That most of things we say we know are NOT knowledge. And all we know about the early universe, and historical understanding of early earth through geology, and our understanding of the rise of hominids , and archeological pronouncements, shoot even some math and most business knowledge is NOT knowledge. What happens is that through special pleading atheist exempt everything above except religious knowledge. Fallacious but fooled 40/1!
@DoubtIsAVirtue A more familiar example is the equation 1 + 1 = 2. You can model the counting of apples with this and correctly predict that 1 apple plus another apple comes to 2, but if you attempt to model 1 cloud merging with another cloud the result is still 1 cloud (though a larger one). The point is that a particular piece of mathematics like addition or the distributive law can be used to correctly model some aspects or the world and not others. That doesn't challenge mathematical truths.
Your reason, logic & evidentialism (and educated intellect) is refreshing, encouraging and uplifting to all of us who pursue the reality of life through reason & evidence. I am thankful for intellectuals like you who are capable of simplifying the complexities of life and can teach and apply real knowledge over the tribalistic "demon-haunted world" of superstitious ideologies so pervasive in society. Please, never stop this important work!
You do not have to "assume" your own existence. You can prove it absolutely. "I think" - True by incorrigibility; 100 % certain "To be" - Verb: True by definition; things which think are a subset of things that exist; 100 % certain "Therefore I am" - True by compliance with axioms: if A (me) is a subset of B (things that think) and B is a subset of C (things that exist), then A is a subset of C (I am a thing that exists); 100 % certain. I exist. QED
A small correction: though ZF/C (some don't like the C) is a well accept basis for Maths, it isn't really the beginning. This abstraction was generated *well* after Maths as a whole developed. Psychological studies have shown that babies can "count" to 3. This was extrapolated from to abstract both "above" (number theory, calculus, etc) and "below" (set theory) as we evolved (socially). So, it comes from us, but also was motivated by business (the need to count amount owing, etc).
Great series of films, I recommend you go back and annotate the previous series to point to this one =) Anyways keep it up; I love both the production quality, clear examples and path of reason on these video's, and pure content.
Sincerely, I wish you prosperity and satisfaction with your personal life and the best to you and your family. I appreciate what you are doing and to show my appreciation I am doing what I can to spread your educative material to my peers. I sincerely hope that you continue to let us in on your knowledge and wisdom, and experience more of what's cooking in that beautiful mind of yours. Better sooner than later! ;)
What methods are you referring to? 55 out of how many, and what was the likely degree of bias in the results considering the experimenters' biases? What interests do the writers of Intelligent Life magazine and the study authors possess regarding this subject? Are you referring to the magazine associated with The Economist? Would that happen to be... this study, oh copy-paster? "Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal" by Dwight J. Kravitz and Chris I. Baker
@Evid3nc3 If it has not come through then I would be happy to post it again ! My argument as from an experientialist basis which in my view puts evidentialism into a broader context. Look forward to hearing from you. John T
Amazing series. Your journey to atheism is very different from mine, and makes me reconsider things I assumed about belief in a personal God: in Québec, most theists are mild Catholics, who don't go to church much and don't really base their daily life on religion. Being an atheist in that context is much easier -- it was for me. The epistemology lesson is very interesting as well, as it puts words and logical reasons on my personal epistemological position. I cannot wait for the next video!
Evid3nc3----You have been my strong support as I am a lonely Atheist-Agnostic-Skeptic. Since I made my break with the standard Christian Doctrines 50 years ago, I have tried to avoid discussing politics and religion with any one, for it usually deteriorates into an argument. I have studied every religion that I can find on the Internet and in the library's. I can not find any proof that there is a ' Personal God'. And I refuse to ' live by faith ', especially, faith in what some one tells me. I live by ' Proof ', And for me, No Proof -- No Belief. I value your approach to this subject, and I Thank You for sharing. (Joseph)
Yes, I've been trying to say this for the longest time: math explains the universe because universe determines math. Without the universe, math is not only meaningless, it cannot even exist. As such, math can only be justified through the experiences of the universe.
Thank you for your videos! I share concern with astroboomboy in that it appears that you're second assumption contains within it the presumption that there is no immateriality within ourselves and/or the universe. This may be, but then how do we account for the potential immateriality of thoughts and awareness itself? Is it not possible that we may uncover methods of discerning the immaterial outside of physical manifestations? It just seems a bit early in the game to rule this out.
I really wish you would continue this series! It's excellent! You could totally package it and sell it later, too. Hell, do a Kickstarter project if you need some funding.
This man brings some very concise arguments. I really enjoy and take pleasure in watching him intellectually dissect many false rationalizations. Please continue to bring knowledge to this world. Then, write a book! and become rich!
@Viscant1 No problem. I find Evidentialism to be inherently Foundationalist in practice. Glad we finally see closer to eye-to-eye. Thanks for the challenge.
+Evid3nc3 I became an atheist (from Christianity) many years ago, but I really enjoyed watching your videos - well thought out and presented. Particularly enjoyed the video on the link to Babylonian Pantheism which was new to me.
@Evid3nc3 : All knowledge begins as a thought, an idea, or comes from an understanding. It all begins in the mind and then must be proven or confirmed in the outside world. Some hypotheses take centuries to confirm as valid and true. Do we deny them in the meantime? Since there is no concrete evidence for it (yet), then it is false? Is that correct?
What do you think about Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems? Maybe this doesn't refute evidentialism because frankly I don't understand Godel much myself and I could be wrong about how the Theorems apply, but I thought the theorems were "shown" to be true but they technically could not be proven. Does the Incompleteness Theorem refute a strictly evidential account of mathematics?
@Kooshmeister3 We don't use hypotheticals. We use literally nothing. Consider nothing,null, {} or 0. Now consider a set that contains this nothing, {0}. This defines 1. Now consider the set set that contains 0 and 1 {0,{0}}. This is 2. Now consider the set {0,{0},{0,{0}}}. This is three. Our number system is emerging from the cardinality of sets of nothing.
Wow. I've never really thought about math or logic that way. I generally approach teaching with an eye towards evidence, but I've never thought about why it is intrinsically necessary. This is great stuff!
As a student in an engineering school I had difficulties in maths the goal was to cram as many calculation tools into the students heads. While I personnally memorize complicated theorems or methods much better if I can actually do the reasoning by myself. I think your thoughts about rationalism and teaching methods should be shared amongst professors. A lot of students can remember and implement complex formulaes, but few really grasp more abstract yet essential concept like "isomorphism"
dude your freakin awesome ive been watching your vids from the begining for like 3 or 4 hours now and man you make way to much sense....my only advice to you is to remember that not everyone thinks on this level and (unlike me) you may lose the attention of the people your trying to reach. Its absolutely amazing stuff and im still gonna fallow it but man do i have to get to bed
@rkyeun With your explanation the second assumption would be changed from "My senses are sometime accurate" to "my senses are sometimes close to accurate". That is not the same assumption. The error bars represent the a range that with a chosen probability contain the correct answer, so the answer could be outside the error bar.
It might also have a sever impact on ones ability to read factual data and infer from it. I'm not sure if this would indeed affect his daily life... I mean would he apply this in the real world? If he reads somewhere that its perfectly okay to take a corner at 80mph will he just take that as perfectly okay? Or would he question it? Or at the very least test it with slight increases in speed until its obvious how dangerous it is?
@7lllll The next video is almost entirely focused on how theists misapply Evidentialism to the idea of God ("But there IS evidence for God!"). I wouldn't be surprised if your argument is one of the very arguments I plan to address. You could present your argument here briefly in a comment for me to verify.
@Evid3nc3 Even though I am eager to see how the series continues I am still glad you address the criticism, and doing so with such maturity, patience and intelligence. In no way is this video a waste.
I just finished watching the entire series in one setting and I have to give mad props to the creator of these videos. I'm an agnostic theist that has spent more hours than I could count on the web researching the best arguments for and against theism. 99% of the time it's nothing but ignorant fundamentalists on one side and arrogant condescending critics on the other. To come across a well thought out eloquently presented soft spoken critique like this is rare. Well done!
No shit! This is amazing. Speaking from my own experience, it's remarkable that he was able to work this out so quickly. It took me 15 years just to deconvert. I'm still working on my anger over being deceived. I'm always impressed with those who have enough clarity to move past the anger and find productive ways to problem solve the misperceptions that get us all tangled up. Of course, he had the help of a well seasoned and experienced skeptic. Not many of us are so lucky. But, nevertheless, he's made remarkable progress and, rather than move on, he came back to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to help the rest of us find our way. I feel so much gratitude. Kudos to Evid3nc3!
Jed, out of curiosity, would you still consider yourself an agnostic theist or have you moved from that position in the last 7 years?
I just did the same thing
Jed, are you still an agnostic theist?
@@TesIaNikolahopefully not a Christian nationalist 😂
about 2 years ago, I stumbled upon your 'why I am no longer a Christian' series, with the arrogant mindset of a deluded Christian. I believed, at the time, that I could single-handedly (with the help of god, 'of course') refute all the points you would make against it. I barely made it past 2 videos, because I feared that it would shake my faith too much and so I viewed your videos as a threat.
I return to this now, whilst in the process of my own deconversion. Hardly 3 weeks ago, I was an unstable liberal christian. Now, I am convinced of my atheism.
I want to say thank you. You have shown me so much through these videos that have solidified my unbelief - my atheism. You have also contradicted much of my perceptions of what atheists are usually like. You make me want to learn more and to be a better human being.
That's awesome brotha. Welcome to reality. Spread the love.
As one of the natives (atheist born and bred) congrats on your deconversion.
I really hate people who do these types of things, like what chickenman297 and Pig0Benis88 have done. I understand that you have very little patience for religious people, and I can, to an extent, sympathize with that, but to reduce being an atheist, as I am, as just being better than a religious life, is just down right wrong.
Many people can live extremely good lives, and sometimes, better lives than that of an atheist, not because they believe in God, or even because of the placebo effect, but because their lives, and how they live them, are just as valid as your own, and putting people down for believing in God is as bad as a Christian putting you down for not believe in God.
randomDisinformation
I'm sorry, but where exactly have I invalidated anybodies life in my post? How does congratulating someone for their deconversion equate to putting someone else down? Enlighten us all.
randomDisinformation I didn't mean to offend anyone; the only reference I can find that people may find slightly offensive is 'deluded christian', and in that sense I was referring to myself. I was not explicitly mentioning the entire christian community. Infer that how you will, but I don't see how that can be so offensive.
That's the only thing I found in my post which could have offended anyone.
Come back soon, Evid3nc3, you are missed and needed.
we still need him
He's gone. :(
@@aralornwolf3140 not really. He just posts seldomly.
@@senor2930 It's been over 10 years, Senor.
@@robertmetcalf3748 His last video on RUclips is from almost seven years ago, but Evid3nc3r posted something two and a half years ago on his twitter channel. Probably his Patreon fundraiser wasn't such a success, and he can't afford to work less for his living while additionally investing time and money in the production of new videos.
And I have to admit, I'm not yet having him (or anyone else) supported on Patreon.
Such a *great* series of videos. +Evid3nc3's talent for breaking down complex philosophical concepts into their root components while simultaneously narrating a compelling story is matched by few.
"When we apply evidentialism to the concept of God."
Dagnabbit, you left us hanging!
You have already done such a service to the world by making these videos. Take all the time you need.
If I am having a conversation with a Theist I will direct them to your videos. One recently, you have inspired to record the de-conversion that he is going through at this exact moment.
I have never had to go through a de-conversion and your videos have really shown me the other side with such honesty and clarity,
You are awesome. Your videos rule. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Will we get more videoes in this series? Just watched it all... I need more! :D
Ahh!! He left off at such a horrible place! Please come back, Evid3nc3!!
ZobmieRules His arguments are terrible! Logical positivism? That has been dead in philosophy for decades.
ZobmieRules He leaves gigantic holes in his argument. How does he ever justify the because 'some claims can be justified by physical evidence, therefore all claims are justified by physical evidence'? He just glosses over the justification for that, hoping his audience is too dumb to notice. And he never establishes that logic is based on physical observation. It's just a baseless assertion! In fact we have good reasons to suppose that logic cannot be based on physical observation. For instance, the law of non-contradiction, i.e. that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time, cannot be proven or disproven via physical observation. Because suppose we observe that something violates the law of non-contradiction. That means the law of non-contradiction is false. But if it is false, then propositions can both be true and false at the same time. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction can be both true and false, therefore it cannot ever be proven or disproven.
derezzed83 I hope you enjoyed ranting against a strawman.
derezzed83
"then propositions can both be true and false at the same time. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction can be both true and false, therefore it cannot ever be proven or disproven."
The key word in your own statement is "CAN". Just because something CAN be true and false does not mean it IS true and false. If an observation is made that that something exists which violates the law of non-contradiction then that law ceases to be true. Depending on what this observation we are imagining reveals, the truth value of the law of non-contradiction would have to be evaluated accordingly. The answer isn't necessarily a paradox. It could be that the discovery reveals that the law is simply nonsensical, like the Luminiferous aether, or it could simply be false.
I found this one I decided to look deeper:
evid3nc3.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/why-i-am-not-posting-videos/
I have never seen anything that has described my own progression away from theism so well. You are a fresh and welcoming addition to the advancement of the human experience, and I am pleased to share this perception of reality with people such as you. I look forward to future videos.
Very well done good sir!
I am a Christian who has just finished watching the author's whole set of 'why I am no longer a Christian' videos. I am thankful he shared his journey. I learnt some valuable information and I think he is very talented at presentations too.
This might be one of the best video series / playlists I've seen on RUclips. Kudos to this guy for the massive project this clearly was. Absolutely amazing.
You, sir, have - without a doubt - vastly improved my knowledge. ...not by necessarily teaching me new facts or ideas because I've been using evidentialism my whole life to some extent, but you've helped me know how I can justify my conclusions I've made about literally everything. I hope you make many more videos covering epistemology.
I love these videos and they make perfect sense. I am amazed this young man went through this transitional journey so young. Like him, my religion is the truth NOW and nothing else. I have watched all of his videos and have been on a journey much like his but it has taken me twice as long to get to the point where he is. I was a devote Christian but no longer. It didn't happen overnight; it has taken 7-10 years I guess. I really opened my heart, mind and soul to other ideas.
If people REALLY open their minds.... wow.... what a different world it would be. Religion had it's time and it was called 'The Dark Ages'. People need to stop being scared and intimidated by the constraints of religion, throw off the shackles and go on a search for the truth. What they find will be nothing short of 'mind blowing'. Don't be afraid to explore other possibilities. Religion was designed to control the masses and that is exactly what it has done and mainly through fear.
I am no academic but I have been searching for God and for things to truly make sense (which they did not before) all my adult life. Be aware, that if you go down this path, it is like 'The Matrix', you will NEVER go back to your previous way of thinking. You might feel alone to begin with but would you rather stayed clouded in ignorance or take the trip down the rabbit hole and see how far it goes? That is what you have to decide and IF you are strong enough to handle the truth. It is not for everyone. I can not tell you how at peace I am now. I am not scared of religion or the so called repercussions of not following it anymore. I am truly free and I am happy having gained that knowledge, I will never go back.
The producer of this video is articulate, has done research, engaged advanced topics, produced a cogent description with bibliography suggesting they are
again well-educated.
But in 4:30 of viewing we have
been introduced to some serious
In fact fatal ways of arguing that don’t comport with the earlier data.
No philosopher would destroy so much of what can be known in support of any thesis.
There are good arguments for atheism but evidentialism is just an epistemic trick that forces its adherent to assert materialism. This is why we seldom find any proponents.
Where's the rest of the series? He alludes to more videos in the future.
He was taken out by fundamentalists
Stayed up all night watching every video in your series. What I can absolutely say about it is that it left a profound impact on me. Thank you for sharing this wealth of information.
The argument about why teachers who only give abstract concepts without evidence confuse students reninds me of Jaime Escalante - who was portrayed im the movie "Stand and Deliver" - who goit otherwise poor students in a Los Angerles barrio to get very high scores in his calculus class: his teaching must have included evidentiary methods.
I have now watched the whole series of your deconversion and the follow ups. I too fall into the choir of appraise! Not only are you very calm, polite and respectful, but also you bring up very interesting points of reflection and tie all to philosophy and your own very heartfelt story. A narrative that is pleasant to listen to, but still one that can keep one focused. I'm so impressed, and thankful for learning about a few of the philosophical aspects of my own experience. Excellent work!
If you don't choose your beliefs based on evidence, what are your alternatives?
1. making things up.
2. believing things other people made up.
I really like where you're going with this and I've really enjoyed the videos you've made up until now. Also, I think I know why I didn't enjoy calculus now!
Thanks for all your hard work making these. They're really well put together visually, the background music fits into them well, and I love the way you transition effortlessly through your points. You're just lovely.
Using the word 'conclusions' instead of 'beliefs' clarifies both the nature of the process and that it is based on evidence.
Kristi Winters Yeah I'm a bit iffy on him constantly using "belief" in the last few videos. Drawing solid conclusions based on evidence rarely ends up being considered a "belief" for the simpler things (like the earth going around the sun) but instead is something similar to a fact. So why "believe" the earth goes around the sun? It's a solid conclusion, a fact, which can be improved upon in future.
FullCircleStories You are a pedant after my own heart :) I never say I believe in evolution, because I don't. I have been convince of the accuracy of the ToE because of the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps together we can campaign for accuracy in language use :D
Kristi Winters Haha, I guess I'm just discussing the point further, adding to your comment. Accurate language use would be wonderful, but as someone in their postgrad of Linguistics, it's just a pipe dream! XD
FullCircleStories
Hey, dream big! Even nerdy dreams can improve the world ;)
@mrfilthyrags
In case you haven't been told this yet: you seem to have forgotten the segment about radiation and wind in the previous video and how we use instrumentation to perceive them. Ultimately, even if you are using an instrument to measure a phenomenon (like subatomic particles), you are using your direct senses to read the instrument.
But instruments allow us to reach places our direct senses can't. The sensor readings are the evidence. This all fits within Evidentialism.
Thank you so much for making these.
I discovered your posts and watched them all over the weekend (whew - what a RUclips session). Very enjoyable, provocative, and deeply emotive at some points. I look forward to seeing the continuation of the argument. Many thanks.
I know this video is old, but I want to say, that it would be helpful if you distinguish between the different types of evidentialism. In 3.4.1(1) you sound like a strict empiricist or some type of verificationist, but in this video 3.4.1(2) you sound much more like a classical empiricist to avoid the problems of strict empiricism. I think that classical is the way to go, but you can't just jump around out of convenience, so it would be nice for you to specific as to which particular 'version' you are. Also I think you will enjoy handling Thomas Aquinas when it comes to empiricism and Natural Theology
I'm not seeing any jumps in position between the two videos, only more detail in this one. You'll need to give an example of a specific contradiction.
Evid3nc3 I might watch them again, but probably not. Why not just state which type you are? It can't hurt, it can only clarify.
Hezekiah Domowski You are assuming these are common labels and that you and I are using the same definitions. I disagree and I don't know what your definitions are.
Evid3nc3 you allude to future videos. has it been but on the back burner, or is this series just, done.
ElfHostage Back burner. I'm in the process of spinning things back up as of last week.
Speaking as someone who is learning the methods of math tutoring, I now know how true this is. The algorithms of rationalism are handy when you already understand what they represent (and half the time, I've noticed, I never really questioned what these abstractions represented as I learned math; I just accepted it as one large system of internal consistency that I was good at and that colleges loved), but you truly begin to understand the nature of explanation when a seven-year-old asks you WHY the denominator has to be the same when you add fractions. In a sense, the kids who "don't get" math when it's not explained evidentially are the truly smart ones, because they aren't content to just accept arbitrary standards without learning why those standards are there.
It's sometimes frustrating when you literally cannot put the concept in any other terms, but when they get it, it's immensely rewarding. :)
This is an excellent series with high production values. I hope the series continues!
I loved your first video on evidentialism too and I felt I was right on board with it, like you were clarifying the thoughts I was working out myself in college.
I've also found that many people misunderstand things which I thought were very simple and clearly explained. Sometimes their objections are valid but also quite often people don't even realize the flaws in their reasoning which have lead to their misunderstanding of what I wrote.
It's great to listen to your thoughts.
I definitely had too many Rationalist math teachers...
I am surprised that this is still as popular as it is. A friend showed me this video in college. I showed it to my philosophy professor, he burst out laughing, said "don't take this guy seriously," and told me to go read J.L. Mackie and David Hume. I did that, and my life has been great. I advise you all to do the same.
You have to expound: what is the purpose of reading Hume and Mackie?
I really enjoy this series - its one of the most well argued series on RUclips.
However the stuff about mathematics and logic being derived from or dependent on physical objects existing is just wrong.
The point about the value of using concrete examples in teaching is fine up to a point - but once you move beyond counting etc you are constructing abstractions of abstractions. You cant show me 5i+3 marbles! When I learned group theory and vector spaces and elementary set theory - so much of what I was taught about "real world" examples became irrelevant.
And it was marvelous and intellectually exhilarating!
So I like existentialism for rocks and stars and "beings" but I just don't need (or want) it for numbers and logical relationship - ta all the same!
But I can show you 5 red and 3 blue marbles as a symbol of 5i + 3. I can also illustrate the theory of discrete groups by flipping a coin or rotating a pyramid, or the theory of the Lie group SO(3) by rotating a spherical object (which is how group theory is commonly taught). 2D vector spaces can be drawn on a piece of paper. Vector bundles like the tangent bundle on a sphere can be illustrated by looking at a point on a physical ball, drawing some axes and zooming in.
Of course some problems of mathematics are inaccessible to regular sensory evidence, but the problems that can be visualized in that way always serve as a highly evidence-backed toolbox to tackle the more abstract problems.
Mathematics is always easiest to do when everything is close to the real world. In his book on quantum field theory, A. Zee cited some mathematician (can't remember who) that claimed the best mathematicians are the ones that secretly think like physicists.
I do think that there's some interesting stuff going on here with regard to the nature of truth, and I'm not educated enough to grasp the matter completely, but I do think Evid3nc3's stance might be valid even in the case of abstract mathematics.
This is obviously a brilliant guy. These videos are entrancing and incredibly organized and clear. His comments on the nature of truth, evidence, logic, and the notion of what is "self evident" are all beautifully simple and insightful.
Alex, the African Grey parrot, was capable of arithmetic, so saying math exists only in the human mind is fallacious.
However, surely 'twas merely a trivial bit of anthropocentrism.
Only insomuch as it was a human that taught Alex what the symbols for numbers meant, and was done in order for us to better understand the animals around us. We also have evidence of domestic canines performing deductive reasoning, and of porpoises not only having an understanding of imagination, but they're also capable of communicating it to one another (through their language, whatever you want to call it--clicks and whistles).
Just because we can find out that math (which is really just pattern recognition, something at which the human brain is incredibly fast) is used and understood by other animals, and they're more capable than we originally thought doesn't make any of these discoveries either anthropomorphic or anthropocentric. Indeed, Alex started teaching it's offspring math. It's hard to find a single reason Alex would teach it's offspring math for anthropocentric reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of Evid3nc3's video series. I've watched it a few times and recommend it to my students (I'm a behaviorist) who were seekers. I just found the claim... ASSUMPTION math only exists in the human brain to be a bit far reaching, especially when we have evidence it's not true.
Art Scott The issue here surely is that these concepts exists in minds. That is they can only be deduced (abstracted) by minds, as what they are derived from is not itself abstract.
Plastic Vision I'm not sure I follow. I would agree ideas are abstract, but science is not abstract. It's very concrete. I want to understand what you're saying, but don't quite get it from that.
Art Scott. My apologies. I was stating that minds, whether they belong to animals or man, is where these concepts actually reside. That is they are not intrinsic qualities of the actual world, but instead give rise to consistent conceptualisations of the world in those minds, which may well be wired to perceive associations via the mechanism of pattern recognition (to varying degrees of capability, depending on evolutionary adaptation). Is that clearer?
The point you make using the example about how math is based on set theory derived from the physical world and then stepped mentally away from there into mental symbols is actually quite brilliant. Some assume that numbers, or math was abstracted from just mental images, or quantities divorced from the real world, but your example of set theory based on the numbers of like objects in the physical world is quite exceptional, and spot on, thank you.
@RickHanlonII
I find it bizarre that you think I don't get high-level math since I referenced ZFC and Russel's paradox in the video. FYI, I will soon have a PhD in Computer Science and I grade proofs for a senior-level Data Structures course. My mathematics background covers vector calculus, statistics, and theoretical computer science.
And my best teachers were the ones who both abstracted the intuition for theorems from concrete examples AND validated them with deductive proofs.
You saw how deep the rabbit hole really was, I admire you very much for being able to get out of it using reason and logic. This has been the most inspiring documentary I've ever seen. This should be seen by everyone on this planet.
I can very much relate to your story and I can't thank you enough for sharing this. You contributed to the next evolutionary step of mankind!
You got to make more videos like this.
This playlist is a youtube-gem.
When is the next video? These are so good and make you really think about reality.
Since I will just support you, I will make this short. Thank you for doing these. By making us feel less alone, and giving us all see that anyone can do it, you have given us hope. This life is a lonely one. Thanks for making it look less like that.
I've only just discovered your channel and really love the way you explain things. I particularly love your explaination of math from its basis in evidence to abstract concepts. It makes me want to learn logic so I can understand what all those strange squiggles mean. Thanks for explaining technical concepts in a rigorous, yet colloquial way.
Evidence, your videos are thoughtful and clear. I appreciate your sincere and gentle approach in describing your deconversion and transition to a new worldview. What is so very helpful is the listing of sources for your observations. Thank you. You have inspired me in my transition from 40-plus years of Christianity to atheism.
When are you going to make more? This is my favorite series by far. It's so amazingly close to my own experience.
Just finished watching your videos and wanted to take a moment to give thanks for having gone through the trouble of making this incredibly insightful and educational series (which you easily could have charged for in the form of an adiobook, dvd or online lecture). It must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together. Although I enjoy the work of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens - this surely is the way to go. I hope you continue making videos.
@MercifulMing
This is probably the only time I will interrupt the series by formally responding to rebuttals in video form. Since evidence and Evidentialism are kind of my "thing" and it seems like I am the appropriate person to defend them.
When I first saw this video, I fully agreed. Evidentialism seems correct on the surface. However, upon closer examination, it leads to some problems:
1. Infinite Regress: Even with provisional assumptions, there is never enough justification for a belief if one is sufficiently skeptical, leading to an infinite regress.
2. Induction Problem: Evidentialism relies on induction, which is problematic due to David Hume's induction problem.
3. A Priori Truths: Some a priori truths cannot be proven with evidence. Your "proof" of the identity principle only demonstrates that our brains tend to recognize patterns in nature, but in reality, nothing is truly identical. Molecules differ, atoms differ, and even particles differ from one another. I challenge you to prove that A = A using physical evidence.
4. Theory-Dependence of Observations: Evidentialism seems to ignore the fact that observational propositions are dependent on theory. For example, consider the simple proposition, "This apple is red." To make this statement, you must know what an apple is and what red is. This concept applies to all propositions. Therefore, you can't simply "let the evidence tell the rest", because your evidence is already influenced by theory.
I would genuinely like to be proven wrong, but it seems that evidentialism is flawed.
The ending sounds like there is more to this series. Where can I find it?
Thank you so much for this series, I do hope it's not over. I think you have clearly presented your argument for evidentialism and given interested parties plenty to consider. I subscribe and look forward to more from you.
@Evid3nc3
I'm pleased you did so: I find very useful to see how you respond to specific critics about your epistemologic system (pretty close to mine). Thank you from Italy!
I would also contend that it is meaningless so say that "My senses are accurate." At best, you can simply say that you have sense experiences, and that you would like to try and formulate a set of beliefs that make sense out of them. After all, what does it mean to say "my sense of red is accurate?" Is red a physical thing? Or what does it mean to say "my experience of loud is accurate?" What is loudness, if not a subjective personal experience?
Wow, you put words on something i've been thinking about for a long time. In my education to become an engineer i was always frustrated when forced to learn apriory truths. So i always made it a habit to relate these truths to something physical in order to accept them. Sometimes this was very time consuming, since something like resonances in the continuum of solid mater is pretty hard to imagine.
I never thought that i just needed the evidentialist aproach to learning these things.
This is the most awesome thing I've watched in years. You are one of the most intelligent people I've listened to.
You should read Hume, an actual evidentialist that recognizes how even our notions of causation are imparted from our own minds, similar to logic and mathematics.
Congratulations on your life events. I hope these are exciting and rewarding times for you and your family. I've really appreciated your videos, and look forward to more when they come. Cheers.
I really enjoyed this series and would love to see more. It was incredibly informative and interesting.
@Washu1973
You're doing it backwards. The abstraction is historical, not predictive.
The argument is: The reason we form abstractions like modus ponens is because of PAST experiences. E.g. dropping glasses and breaking them. It HAS happened. We've SEEN it happen. And from that EXPERIENCE, we form a cause->effect abstraction. In the FUTURE, it may be true or not.
Either way, the *informal* (intuitive) foundation which evolves into the *formal* modus ponens has been established. By evidence.
4:38 “A set of beliefs can be internally consistent in isolation without actually being true.”
This is how you warp people’s intuition about the world. Intuition relies on people’s sense of consistency and non-contradiction. Control the information they receive, and you control their intuition.
Unfortunately, this is the philosophical position I took when I was questioning religion, free will, psychological ego, and my sense of reality. I could not even begin with the assumption that “I exist.” I don’t recommend this move, because truth can easily become a shouting contest, where one network of beliefs tries to overwhelm the other one with information from its own side to invoke contradictions on the other. If you find yourself trying to question your worldview while being trapped and surrounded by people whose primary motivation is to change your worldview, you can easily fall into superstition.
@ChaotePD
This seems to be primarily a problem for people in the UK. In the United States, people don't automatically associate "belief" with "faith".
In the US, beliefs are merely the end-point of a thought process. That thought process may be evidentialism, faith, rationalism, or experience. Under this definition, not all beliefs are equal; some are better justified than others. I will continue using "belief" to mean that because I think it is a useful concept.
These videos are SO GOOD.
@OpenAirAtheist
I never said "I have knowledge that I don't have knowledge". I have the *belief* that we can't "know" anything. I could be wrong about it. That is the difference between the claim of "knowing" and belief: the awareness that you could be wrong.
I find the use of the word "knowledge" problematic because it implies that anything one labels as "knowledge" can't later be revised by corrective evidence. No claim should be exempt from correction.
I've missed you Evid3nc3. I hope you are well and will one day again grace us with your thoughts.
I am so enthusiastic about your series. It's an amazing journey. Thanks for your videos they even help me with Epistemology at University. Hope to watch a new one soon.
Good to hear that they are just on hold and not full stop. I hope you soon get time for them again!
I have a question relating embodied mind theory and some of the assumptions made by the SETI programs. Specifically, is there a simple evidence-based argument for the existence of prime numbers other than the use of mathematics, and thus that prime numbers would be discovered independently of human math? It is often said that radio signals of pulses of prime numbers would be signs of intelligent life because primes do not form in the natural radio signals. Thanks.
@badblueman
I tend to think so, yes. In fact, I've already written up an alternative (and better, imo) starting point than these "first principle" approaches based entirely on our sense perceptions. I'll use it instead of first principles if/when I write this section into book form.
@edricnavigator "On this evidentialist conception of logic, would logic be considered an invention or a discovery?"
How does this effect the price of fish?
This video really hit me. I have been watching these videos, hoping to get new information, which I have, hence me getting this far, but this video made me realize something. I am an Evidentialist. I have, many times, in my math classes; which I love, asking myself why something they are teaching me is true. I just couldn't accept A+B=C without proof. And a few professors I have talked to, and had classes with, have gone through and explained why something is true, and I always have a better and easier time, learning from them, rather than someone who just tells me something it true.
Omg, from believing in the bible to THIS, that was just incredible growth, you are incredibly smart, and I must re-visit all of it, because I didn't quite get it all, so much material, so well presented, I can't wait for the next video, a year without posting? Please come back!!
I really enjoy these videos.. Thanks for posting this.
Each time I view one of your videos (with a nice cup of tea and a breathing space) I am in some way compelled to be more considerate of what I believe.
Also. RE:Rationalist assumptions. I was struck with the thought of the beginning of the American constitution - "We hold these truths to be self-evident". A small starting point for a constitution. What (do you think) would be an "Evidentialist opener" for the constitution?
Many thanks.
Part 2 - None of the thousands of thumbs up voters ever thought to ask of your third point requiring "physical" evidence!
What physical evidence supports the statement, "The only evidence we will consider to be meaningful is physical evidence?"
Opps, by point three in the presentation we are introduced to an incoherent rule! Like a square circle or a married bachelor! Yet the thumbs up votes keep coming at a rate of 40/1!
So one could conclude that only ~ 1 in 40 recognize that on evidentialism we have an incoherent (I.e. Self-refuting) proposition. That most of things we say we know are NOT knowledge. And all we know about the early universe, and historical understanding of early earth through geology, and our understanding of the rise of hominids , and archeological pronouncements, shoot even some math and most business knowledge is NOT knowledge. What happens is that through special pleading atheist exempt everything above except religious knowledge. Fallacious but fooled 40/1!
thank you for your awesome thoroughness, Chris. Your explanations are incredibly lucid. My wife and I wish that you had taught us math!
@DoubtIsAVirtue A more familiar example is the equation 1 + 1 = 2. You can model the counting of apples with this and correctly predict that 1 apple plus another apple comes to 2, but if you attempt to model 1 cloud merging with another cloud the result is still 1 cloud (though a larger one). The point is that a particular piece of mathematics like addition or the distributive law can be used to correctly model some aspects or the world and not others. That doesn't challenge mathematical truths.
Your reason, logic & evidentialism (and educated intellect) is refreshing, encouraging and uplifting to all of us who pursue the reality of life through reason & evidence. I am thankful for intellectuals like you who are capable of simplifying the complexities of life and can teach and apply real knowledge over the tribalistic "demon-haunted world" of superstitious ideologies so pervasive in society. Please, never stop this important work!
You do not have to "assume" your own existence. You can prove it absolutely.
"I think" - True by incorrigibility; 100 % certain
"To be" - Verb: True by definition; things which think are a subset of things that exist; 100 % certain
"Therefore I am" - True by compliance with axioms: if A (me) is a subset of B (things that think) and B is a subset of C (things that exist), then A is a subset of C (I am a thing that exists); 100 % certain.
I exist. QED
Please don't stop in the middle of your documentary! We're waiting eagerly :D
A small correction: though ZF/C (some don't like the C) is a well accept basis for Maths, it isn't really the beginning. This abstraction was generated *well* after Maths as a whole developed. Psychological studies have shown that babies can "count" to 3. This was extrapolated from to abstract both "above" (number theory, calculus, etc) and "below" (set theory) as we evolved (socially). So, it comes from us, but also was motivated by business (the need to count amount owing, etc).
Great series of films, I recommend you go back and annotate the previous series to point to this one =) Anyways keep it up; I love both the production quality, clear examples and path of reason on these video's, and pure content.
Great video. Thank you for pouring in what must have been huge amounts of time so I could learn in just over 17 minutes! Utterly convincing stuff!
Sincerely, I wish you prosperity and satisfaction with your personal life and the best to you and your family. I appreciate what you are doing and to show my appreciation I am doing what I can to spread your educative material to my peers. I sincerely hope that you continue to let us in on your knowledge and wisdom, and experience more of what's cooking in that beautiful mind of yours. Better sooner than later! ;)
What methods are you referring to? 55 out of how many, and what was the likely degree of bias in the results considering the experimenters' biases? What interests do the writers of Intelligent Life magazine and the study authors possess regarding this subject? Are you referring to the magazine associated with The Economist?
Would that happen to be... this study, oh copy-paster?
"Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal" by Dwight J. Kravitz and Chris I. Baker
@Evid3nc3 If it has not come through then I would be happy to post it again ! My argument as from an experientialist basis which in my view puts evidentialism into a broader context. Look forward to hearing from you. John T
Amazing series. Your journey to atheism is very different from mine, and makes me reconsider things I assumed about belief in a personal God: in Québec, most theists are mild Catholics, who don't go to church much and don't really base their daily life on religion. Being an atheist in that context is much easier -- it was for me. The epistemology lesson is very interesting as well, as it puts words and logical reasons on my personal epistemological position. I cannot wait for the next video!
This latest video, like all your videos, have truly inspired and enlightened my life. Thanks so much.
I just watched past few years of my inner life. I love you for this video you made. Thank you.
Evid3nc3----You have been my strong support as I am a lonely Atheist-Agnostic-Skeptic. Since I made my break with the standard Christian Doctrines 50 years ago, I have tried to avoid discussing politics and religion with any one, for it usually deteriorates into an argument. I have studied every religion that I can find on the Internet and in the library's. I can not find any proof that there is a ' Personal God'. And I refuse to ' live by faith ', especially, faith in what some one tells me.
I live by ' Proof ', And for me, No Proof -- No Belief. I value your approach to this subject, and I Thank You for sharing. (Joseph)
Yes, I've been trying to say this for the longest time: math explains the universe because universe determines math. Without the universe, math is not only meaningless, it cannot even exist. As such, math can only be justified through the experiences of the universe.
+Bob Jones Therefore, math is God. No wonder it is an evil creature :P
Thank you for your videos! I share concern with astroboomboy in that it appears that you're second assumption contains within it the presumption that there is no immateriality within ourselves and/or the universe. This may be, but then how do we account for the potential immateriality of thoughts and awareness itself? Is it not possible that we may uncover methods of discerning the immaterial outside of physical manifestations? It just seems a bit early in the game to rule this out.
I really wish you would continue this series! It's excellent!
You could totally package it and sell it later, too. Hell, do a Kickstarter project if you need some funding.
This man brings some very concise arguments. I really enjoy and take pleasure in watching him intellectually dissect many false rationalizations.
Please continue to bring knowledge to this world.
Then, write a book! and become rich!
@Viscant1
No problem. I find Evidentialism to be inherently Foundationalist in practice. Glad we finally see closer to eye-to-eye. Thanks for the challenge.
+Evid3nc3 I became an atheist (from Christianity) many years ago, but I really enjoyed watching your videos - well thought out and presented. Particularly enjoyed the video on the link to Babylonian Pantheism which was new to me.
@Evid3nc3 : All knowledge begins as a thought, an idea, or comes from an understanding.
It all begins in the mind and then must be proven or confirmed in the outside world.
Some hypotheses take centuries to confirm as valid and true.
Do we deny them in the meantime?
Since there is no concrete evidence for it (yet), then it is false?
Is that correct?
What do you think about Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems? Maybe this doesn't refute evidentialism because frankly I don't understand Godel much myself and I could be wrong about how the Theorems apply, but I thought the theorems were "shown" to be true but they technically could not be proven. Does the Incompleteness Theorem refute a strictly evidential account of mathematics?
@Kooshmeister3 We don't use hypotheticals. We use literally nothing.
Consider nothing,null, {} or 0. Now consider a set that contains this nothing, {0}. This defines 1. Now consider the set set that contains 0 and 1 {0,{0}}. This is 2. Now consider the set {0,{0},{0,{0}}}. This is three. Our number system is emerging from the cardinality of sets of nothing.
Wow. I've never really thought about math or logic that way. I generally approach teaching with an eye towards evidence, but I've never thought about why it is intrinsically necessary. This is great stuff!
As a student in an engineering school I had difficulties in maths the goal was to cram as many calculation tools into the students heads. While I personnally memorize complicated theorems or methods much better if I can actually do the reasoning by myself. I think your thoughts about rationalism and teaching methods should be shared amongst professors. A lot of students can remember and implement complex formulaes, but few really grasp more abstract yet essential concept like "isomorphism"
dude your freakin awesome ive been watching your vids from the begining for like 3 or 4 hours now and man you make way to much sense....my only advice to you is to remember that not everyone thinks on this level and (unlike me) you may lose the attention of the people your trying to reach. Its absolutely amazing stuff and im still gonna fallow it but man do i have to get to bed
@rkyeun With your explanation the second assumption would be changed from "My senses are sometime accurate" to "my senses are sometimes close to accurate". That is not the same assumption. The error bars represent the a range that with a chosen probability contain the correct answer, so the answer could be outside the error bar.
It might also have a sever impact on ones ability to read factual data and infer from it. I'm not sure if this would indeed affect his daily life... I mean would he apply this in the real world?
If he reads somewhere that its perfectly okay to take a corner at 80mph will he just take that as perfectly okay? Or would he question it? Or at the very least test it with slight increases in speed until its obvious how dangerous it is?
@7lllll
The next video is almost entirely focused on how theists misapply Evidentialism to the idea of God ("But there IS evidence for God!"). I wouldn't be surprised if your argument is one of the very arguments I plan to address. You could present your argument here briefly in a comment for me to verify.
@Evid3nc3
Even though I am eager to see how the series continues I am still glad you address the criticism, and doing so with such maturity, patience and intelligence.
In no way is this video a waste.