Street Epistemology: Shane (4) | Linchpin to My God Belief (Prioritization)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 авг 2020
- A "Pre-Methodological" Discussion Series | Part 4 of 4
Summary: After creating a pie chart of reasons for thinking his Christian worldview is objectively true into categories grouped by importance, Shane and I explore the attributes of his reasons and how they interrelate or possibly influence each other.
Since all four of our talks cover important concepts that set the stage for exploring the quality of Shane's reasons and reliability of Shane's methods, I've dubbed this series "pre-method" or "pre-methodological" as a result. It's my hope that these four talks will resonate with practitioners of Street Epistemology and they can see the potential this line of questioning has when it comes to exploring deeply-held beliefs.
I am hopeful a discussion like this will one day break through the noise and truly help people reconsider how they decide to interact with someone else's claims, reasons, and methods. Identifying the relationships and dependencies of our "categories of reasons" is a critical path people should routinely consider.
Thanks to The Conru Foundation for supporting Street Epistemology International.
Note: Despite my best efforts, I was unable to conduct a 5th chat with Shane. I realize this may frustrate some viewers, but felt it would still be valuable to release these four talks to the public. The primary purpose of my videos has always been to show others how to do Street Epistemology themselves. If Shane and I never cross paths again, it's my hope someone will continue engaging with him in a productive manner. Thank you for your understanding and time.
pri·or·i·ti·za·tion
noun
1. the action or process of deciding the relative importance or urgency of a thing or things.
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Recorded: 4 December 2019
Released: 13 August 2020
SE Resources: tinyurl.com/abm-se-resources
SE Community: tinyurl.com/abm-se-community
SE Discord Server: / discord
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk:
--
Intro Montage: 00:02
Start: 01:27
Apprentices?: 01:34
Pie Chart: 02:37, 05:20, 11:09, 12:55, 18:09, 23:38, 25:47, 31:44, 51:00
Dependencies: 03:18, 25:37, 27:30
10,000 Hornets: 03:58
Justification (Why): 04:09, 05:50, 10:11, 25:03
Repeating: 04:25, 04:52, 05:45, 07:10, 07:27, 11:23, 21:53, 23:32, 24:32, 28:44, 29:57, 31:36, 37:13, 37:33, 39:37, 43:28
Clarifying: 06:40, 14:20, 15:18, 33:00
Encouraging: 07:51, 28:47
CRU Talk: 07:55
Skate or Die: 07:59, 12:46, 17:50, 21:44, 27:29, 46:55, 53:16
Summarizing: 09:55, 18:12, 23:21, 36:18
Claim (What): 10:44, 11:56
Confidence Scale: 11:00, 13:36, 21:53, 33:25
Acknowledging: 12:14, 20:45, 31:09, 37:08, 43:07
Observing: 12:31
Resetting: 12:55, 20:35, 37:09, 38:43, 40:53
Puzzle Pieces: 13:03, 56:02
Wondering: 13:18, 50:15
Bias: 15:03, 16:37, 46:46, 48:33, 49:22
Seen My Vids? 15:43, 42:53, 57:44
Steelmanning: 18:37
Think!: 19:44
Challenging: 21:23, 26:07, 27:56, 29:41, 30:32, 32:15, 33:25, 35:32, 41:33, 43:59, 44:57, 47:16
Morality: 23:03, 25:22
Assessing: 23:57, 29:05, 29:16, 31:02, 37:22
Telling: 25:22
Pausing: 26:05, 28:47, 33:20, 34:07, 38:49, 46:32, 47:53, 48:49
Reframing: 26:50
Linchpin: 34:42
Interrupting: 36:18, 40:01, 40:53, 42:01, 48:38
Afterlife: 36:26
Objectivity: 28:53, 31:46
Aporia: 29:41, 32:26, 39:02, 41:33
Storytelling: 34:13
Correcting: 43:12, 48:35, 55:31
Reminding: 43:38
Testing: 45:29, 49:00, 55:40, 56:36
Closing: 42:29, 47:11, 56:47
Commending: 45:56, 50:53, 52:24
Questions for Me: 48:07, 51:48
Planning: 51:12, 53:36, 55:15
Ego Check: 51:58
Truth Valuation: 52:35
Recapping: 56:59
End Screen: 58:02
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Audio Only: / s-vilb0apoa9q
Audio correction provided by Philipp Grzemba.
Artwork provided by Rebecca Fox rebeccaonpaper.com/
Intro and Outro Music 'New Horizons' by Futuremono, provided by RUclips.
Links to References in Video:
1st talk w/Shane (PERSPECTIVE) 10/02/2019: • Street Epistemology: S...
2nd talk w/Shane (BIASES) 10/22/2019: • Street Epistemology: S...
3rd talk w/Shane (MORALITY) 11/18/2019: • Street Epistemology: S...
4th talk w/Shane (PRIORITIZATION) 12/04/2019: • Street Epistemology: S... (this video)
5th talk w/Shane: (Apologies. I tried several times but this talk never happened)
Playlist of talks w/Shane: tinyurl.com/PL-AM-SE-SHANE
Intro Montage Only: • A "Pre-Methodological"...
Mistakes: "I just don't also want to lose my point." It probably would have been more accurate to say "lose my place".
Recorded w/Go-Pro. Edited w/PowerDirector.
The views addressed here are mine and mine alone, and are not necessarily shared by members of my family and friends.
#StreetEpistemology #PieChart #Magnabosco #CognitiveBiases #Linchpin #BeliefRevision #MotivationalInterviewing #PreMethodological #CRU #Interdependence #AnthonyMagnabosco
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk:
--
Intro Montage: 00:02
Start: 01:27
Apprentices?: 01:34
Pie Chart: 02:37, 05:20, 11:09, 12:55, 18:09, 23:38, 25:47, 31:44, 51:00
Dependencies: 03:18, 25:37, 27:30
10,000 Hornets: 03:58
Justification (Why): 04:09, 05:50, 10:11, 25:03
Repeating: 04:25, 04:52, 05:45, 07:10, 07:27, 11:23, 21:53, 23:32, 24:32, 28:44, 29:57, 31:36, 37:13, 37:33, 39:37, 43:28
Clarifying: 06:40, 14:20, 15:18, 33:00
Encouraging: 07:51, 28:47
CRU Talk: 07:55
Skate or Die: 07:59, 12:46, 17:50, 21:44, 27:29, 46:55, 53:16
Summarizing: 09:55, 18:12, 23:21, 36:18
Claim (What): 10:44, 11:56
Confidence Scale: 11:00, 13:36, 21:53, 33:25
Acknowledging: 12:14, 20:45, 31:09, 37:08, 43:07
Observing: 12:31
Resetting: 12:55, 20:35, 37:09, 38:43, 40:53
Puzzle Pieces: 13:03, 56:02
Wondering: 13:18, 50:15
Bias: 15:03, 16:37, 46:46, 48:33, 49:22
Seen My Vids? 15:43, 42:53, 57:44
Steelmanning: 18:37
Think!: 19:44
Challenging: 21:23, 26:07, 27:56, 29:41, 30:32, 32:15, 33:25, 35:32, 41:33, 43:59, 44:57, 47:16
Morality: 23:03, 25:22
Assessing: 23:57, 29:05, 29:16, 31:02, 37:22
Telling: 25:22
Pausing: 26:05, 28:47, 33:20, 34:07, 38:49, 46:32, 47:53, 48:49
Reframing: 26:50
Linchpin: 34:42
Interrupting: 36:18, 40:01, 40:53, 42:01, 48:38
Afterlife: 36:26
Objectivity: 28:53, 31:46
Aporia: 29:41, 32:26, 39:02, 41:33
Storytelling: 34:13
Correcting: 43:12, 48:35, 55:31
Reminding: 43:38
Testing: 45:29, 49:00, 55:40, 56:36
Closing: 42:29, 47:11, 56:47
Commending: 45:56, 50:53, 52:24
Questions for Me: 48:07, 51:48
Planning: 51:12, 53:36, 55:15
Ego Check: 51:58
Truth Valuation: 52:35
Recapping: 56:59
End Screen: 58:02
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Note: Despite my best efforts, I was unable to conduct a 5th chat with Shane. I realize this may frustrate some viewers, but felt it would still be valuable to release these four talks to the public. The primary purpose of my videos has always been to show others how to do Street Epistemology themselves. If Shane and I never cross paths again, it's my hope someone will continue engaging with him in a productive manner. Thank you for your understanding and time.
Thanks to The Conru Foundation for supporting Street Epistemology International.
SE Resources: tinyurl.com/abm-se-resources
SE Community: tinyurl.com/abm-se-community
SE Discord Server: discord.gg/sKap3zM
Anthony Magnabosco what about a Skype chat or something? Hope it happens🍻🏆
I haven't watched yet, but I appreciate your masterful use of timestamps.
I know I'm a little late to the party, but had to say that your conversations with this guy have been really compelling. He seems like an extremely likable person, and has been very willing to engage in conversation. I definitely hope to see another talk with him. Might even edge out Vanessa?(I think that was her name) as some of my favorite watches yet, albeit for different reasons. I am curious, though, if you get a chance to read this, how much time between talks had passed? Even if it had only been a week or two, it looks like he's kept the conversation at the forefront of his mind, and has been genuinely eager to continue the talk. That's good on you, Anthony, and shows you have a way with people. Great stuff as always.
Edit: just read your comment about not being able to get together for a fifth time. That's unfortunate, as I'm sure you were looking forward to it as well, but it's still a great convo, and who knows what might happen down the line, right? Again, great stuff, and thanks for doing these videos. It's certainly changed my approach and attitude when discussing religion and belief systems with people, and with a more amiable approach, I've had a lot more productive conversations.
This was a great series. I think he's a bit scared.
I am interested to know why you were not more direct. That were pretty long 4 sessions and I feel like you barely challanged him.
Shane if you end up reading this:
Keep talking to different people with different beliefs. Keep asking questions.
Great conversation.
also shane might want to look up richard carrier, i only just found him, he appears to have delved into the "historicity" (hate that word) of the bible quite deeply, he's also quite a good historian and knows quite a lot on the subject of evolutionary biology.
@@HarryNicNicholas and Bart Ehrman
Oh no - Anybody but Carrier.
@@MrTwostring anybody but Harris you mean 😂
I saw people saying how Shane "is not really enjoying questionning his beliefs but is just displaying his academic learning of the bible"
Please don't assume what people think and feel. This only shows a lack of empathy and doesn't help anyone progress.
Yes Shane is religious and honestly believes his reasons to believe are well founded.
Anthony is guiding him very well with relevant questions and Shane seems to be stimulated by it and genuinly excited to see how this will evolve.
Let's just enjoy the fact that there are believers that are willing to come back to talk more. This is only possible in a safe environment and it won't be achievable if the SE community is being condescendant(condescending ?) about believers.
Your second paragraph does what your first paragraph condemns. I think it's fine to (respectfully) discuss our understanding of Shane's perspective. That, by itself, is not at all condescending and we can do it while appreciating that he's willing to have this conversation.
As a former 20 yr southern Baptist i can tell you that Anthony's way is DEFINITELY the correct way to get a person that is so wrapped up in their belief,,,to question.. He treats them with respect and tons of patience..
@10101110101011001 I understand what you're saying but what I was trying to explain is the concept of the principle of charity.
@@10101110101011001 the second paragraph doesn’t do what the first paragraph condemns. The first paragraph says we shouldn’t assume what Shane believes, and the second restates how Shane describes his beliefs . Assuming someone is speaking from a position of good faith isn’t an assumption about those beliefs
Not sure if Shane is aware that he has fans now haha! I made some sort of audible noise when I saw this notification.
siriusthecat
surely, that's in stark contrast to those
inaudible noises you make.
haha love this.
Yep. I'm now a Shane fan :)
He's smart and cute!
Only 4 minutes in and I am riveted. It's truly AWESOME to see Anthony's interlocutor not coming from a place of justification, but a place of curiosity and discovery. Like he's so willing to just examine his own psyche and is willing to accept the possible psychological fallout that could come with a major mental restructuring. He seems like he's coming from a place of "well if I'm wrong, I really want to know!" perspective, which is truly heartwarming to see. As someone who was formerly Christian but is now agnostic (leaning atheist), I understand how deeply upsetting it can be on an instinctual level to question those beliefs, or I used to put it, "losing faith". But taking that leap and really examining how you think and how your brain works critically is the first step to being truly independent, both intellectually and emotionally. Whatever conclusion he takes away from this, he has the most valuable aspect, which is critical thinking and self-analysis. That's for sure been the most valuable gift I've ever given myself, at least. Religious or not, that'll get you far.
Huge props to this guy for actually answering Anthony’s well formed yes / no questions with a “yes,” or “no.”
Hardcore theists, especially apologists, almost never do that because them definitively committing to a position is always problematic if not devastating to their argument somewhere down the line.
This!
Now that you mention it, Shane’s brief “yes” or “no” responses were refreshing. However, it presented a challenge for me because I had to ask him to expand on those replies, which could be seen as pedantic or condescending.
Anthony Magnabosco I honestly do not see you or other Street Epistemologist coming off as condescending in your best interviews. And this is definitely one of your best.
My view is that in some SE Interviews there is a lot of what I would call leading the witness. And this may be my bias but it appears to me that a lot of prominent Atheist are former Christians and so have an axe to grind.
So in some of the SE Interviews I see the interviewer using reverse Evangelism.
That is starting with their conclusion that there is no evidence for anything we could legitimately call God and leading the person to that conclusion based on the fact that the word Objective is used. Objective being defined as facts that are independent of what any one individual may believe.
But in my view although I agree that there do exist facts that are independent of any one individuals beliefs... I only agree because I do NOT see beliefs having anything to do with Knowledge.
To me Belief is only a Psychological state. And truth is only objective in math or logic.
Knowledge must be defined independently of any belief and there is no “type” of belief that can be justified as Knowledge.
Please read Epistemological Nightmare in the Book The Mind’s I.
That being said, I liked this particular SE Interview because it used the Socratic Method correctly where the interviewer was not obviously trying to establish a preconceived conclusion.
So in my view when you asked questions to expand yes or no answers it didn’t come off as condescending.
I think the only caveat to this is when I watch an Atheist use SE I have a bias where I am waiting for the Atheist to use a “Gotcha”
So I would stipulate that in Philosophy there is a reason that the term Philosophers God exist. And I find it hilarious that Theologians like William Lane Craig admit that the Christian God Concept is a Strawman that Atheists love to take apart instead of addressing the Steelman in the Philosophers room ...which is the Philosopher’s God.
But of course then Craig turns the truth on its head by insisting that by establishing the Steelman as something the Atheist can not easily take apart ...that it somehow follows that this strengthens the Strawman of the Christian God Concept over other God Concepts.
And that is because Craig and many other Theologians misrepresents the attributes of the Philosophers God.
But that is a whole nother discussion. Bottom line you did good in my view.
@@brgordon38 Isn't "having an axe to grind" just another way of saying "holds an oppinion" or "is willing to defend a held position or oppinion"? If that is that case, in a debate, who doesn't?
Kevin Tomlinson Yes having an axe to grind does usually mean having a position to defend.
And most positions do create bias in debates because most debates are created for both entertainment value and for the motive of advancing a viewpoint of agenda.
There are several problems here.
So I will mention the most obvious one.
That is that most debates are purposely structured to support a False Dichotomy Aka False Alternative Fallacy in Logic.
Which is another way of saying that there are only two possible outcomes in any given inquiry into truth or knowledge.
And we have another even bigger problem.
And that is that Anthony has made clear in his videos and conversations that the point of SE is supposed to be inquiry into truth and is NOT supposed to be a form of debate.
But when it comes to creating Atheists this fails because SE as it is practiced based on the premise of creating Atheists doesn’t avoid the problems of using debate to advance a specific viewpoint or agenda.
It has been made very clear in the Atheist community that the main interest in debate is with Theists and that the only real interest is in debating Christianity.
This is also seen in SE, at least in practice, even if Anthony doesn’t advocate this specifically.
Because of this it is my view that previous indoctrination seems to be a prime motivator to many of the most prominent Atheists in the Atheist community.
And in my view this creates an extreme bias that undermines the basis of Epistemology.
The Atheist and Christian views are NOT the only views in Philosophy or specifically in Metaphysics.
But you would not know that from watching the typical videos produced by prominent Atheists.
It is true that there are many Non Theist that have interest in pursuing Metaphysical Questions on the Nature of Mind, God, FreeWill, and Reality.
But their views are often dismissed by most of the Atheists of the Atheist community as “ Atheists with Supernatural Beliefs”.
And as a Philosopher I see merit in pursuing these types of questions outside of Religion or Theology.
But most prominent Atheists in the Atheist community are dismissive of any views that do not fit neatly into Metaphysical Naturalism and accept the default position that Knowledge is a type of Belief.
So like any Evangelical many Atheists are motivated to plant seeds of doubt in what they don’t believe and encourage faith or confidence in what they do accept or do believe.
To me this is NOT Epistemology.
The problem with Metaphysical Naturalism is that it isn’t a true position.
And the reason is because it is simply a view in opposition to a Metaphysical view that does NOT exist.
“Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) “
But there is NO Metaphysics which are accepted or defended in Philosophy that supports the Supernatural or “Supernaturalism”.
The same article makes clear that this position that Atheists are refuting is a Religious or Theological position not a Philosophical one.
Here are 2 of the 4 main points of
Steven Schafersman
1. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle, can be explained and understood by science and philosophy;
2. The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by supernaturalism".[9]”
So in conclusion
1. Debates are irrelevant to SE.
2. Prior indoctrination causes the phenomenon of Evangelizing for doubt which isn’t Epistemology
3. Knowledge is NOT a type of Belief
4. Metaphysics is real and beneficial discipline that has nothing to do with the Supernatural (Although it does encompass Science and Philosophy’s inquiry into the nature of Matter Mind and Reality).
Anybody who takes the time to pie chart their beliefs is an SE winner in my book. Anybody who walks around with said pie chart in anticipation of an SE conversation is priceless.
I know SE international is trying to produce material on performing SE interviews. I wonder if Shane has any valuable insights for people being interviewed.
Shane's story about the bible and the Hittites sounded very familiar to me. In fact, replace "bible" with "Greek mythology" and "Hittites" with "Troy," and it's identical to a story I heard. But somehow I don't think he would conclude that Homer was infallible.
I like Shane. I'd like to see a fifth talk.
Can someone be actively attempting to mitigate their biases while also claiming to be 100% certain a belief is true?
I am not sure he is thinking before he is speaking. So many statements were just preachy and woo woo. They don't mean anything!
Jay B the power of indoctrination. He said himself he spent two years learning to argue like this.
I think that’s why Anthony repeats the questions slowly so that he tends to think more about his answers, when he thought more he wasn’t as on-script
No
Yes, it is possible, because for example a person can say such things as they have been conditioned to do while feeling cognitive dissonance or doubt in their actual confidence in such a statement.
Yeah I feel that it's a really common answer to say 100%, because that's what the religion itself requires it... It doesn't mean they are necessarily unshakable. I think it's part of their script
Omg he actually brought printed out pie charts... I love this guy so much!! His passion, honesty and enthusiasm to explore and question are just admirable and extremely entertaining to follow. Thank you so much for these videos, gentlemen.
Printing out pie charts doesn’t mean they have even thought about their beliefs. I found that conversation extremely frustrating. This guys didn’t seem to get the concept of an objective test, something that can fail his presuppositions. It’s scary that this is the education system today, raising kids that have never even had the slightest counters to their preconceived ideas
Shane's just a kid yet his cognitive ability is mind blowing. The fact that he enjoys testing himself, asking questions, letting his brain work in overdrive is what humanity is SUPPOSED TO BE.
College aged adults are not kids. You are not wiser because you are older.
Recorded during the good ol' days before COVID.
I was curious about that. I looked at the date it was posted because I wondered, and then I realized it might give more details in the description... which it does. :)
@@DonaldKronos
I eagerly await Mr. Magnabosco's first masked encounter. He will need to equip his GoPro with a telescopic lens and a reliably sensitive shotgun microphone.
Yeah but it says it was August 2020. Weren't we closed down then? Maybe he waited a while to upload these ones because they are so good.
You have to respect how hard Shane is trying not to deflect. Hes being as honest as he can be
The talks with Shane have been incredible.
What a thoroughly decent chap he is.
I get the impression, that his lynch pin, is actually his fear of what happens to him - when he dies.
I feel that's quite a common one; I get that sense here as well, Neil.
@@robsbackyardastrophotograp8885 And its kinda understandable, IF you think you have an immortal, eternal soul. If I thought that, I'd be going thru the small print.
What's that Homer Simpson quote about, "What if we're praying to the wrong god & making the real one angry?".
@@neildunford241 It took me a while to escape this thought process coming out of religion myself.
@@robsbackyardastrophotograp8885 well, fair play to you - doubt it was easy to move from that place.
@@neildunford241 Thank you Neil! It wasn't easy, but I was lucky to have enough curiosity to keep looking into the matter.
Shane is now my new favorite talk in this channel. SE is so amazing where you can have someone who is strongly holding onto his belief, but still be SO HAPPY with the challenge, even knowing it might destroy his whole foundation. Hope you get a follow up someday. Congrats on the talks!
Wow, what a process, and what a exceptional interlocutor! Shane's intellectual honesty is quite impressive.🖖😇👍
Shane has been my favorite participant in Anthony's videos ever! I would really love to see him again. I wonder how his ideas have evolved in the last year.
Shane has entered the false equivalency zone, conflating historical facts with groundless, supernatural biblical narrative. Shane is believing out loud what he wishes were true.
@Josue Olivas What views? I hear him asking questions.
@Josue Olivas Could you tell me some lies about evolution?
@Josue Olivas
The joke's on you and God. Mr. M. shaves his head.
Josue Olivas - after people questioning their own believes that made them leave whatever religion they were following.
@Josue Olivas the truth has nothing to fear from being questioned.
You could tell that being a christian is a big part of who Shane is as a person. It shows when he unconsciously skirts or avoids getting too close to heavily questioning his core beliefs.
Dawn Guinto classic genetic fallacy. Can you restate your comment without relying on fallacious reasoning?
@@ubergenie6041 How is this actually a fallacious claim? It's more of a description
@@Sazi_de_Afrikan I would say more of an observation but I agree... it can't be fallacious. Just pointing out what is noticable in the video.
Uber Genie fail troll attempt lol
Enjoyed your talk, Shane. Hope you come return for more discussions.
While I could never again hold conversations like this with evangelicals, due to being horribly bigoted and filled with hatred (massive abuse - Ex Christian), Anthony - I'm glad that there's someone like you that can accomplish this! I've seen all of the videos interviewing Shane and I've got to say, I've got hella respect for people like him that can remain open minded and answer questions honestly! Most of them won't, especially when they see where it's leading. It's a constant struggle for me to keep in mind that there are a few of them that are actually descent human beings. For them, just like with me, that indoctrination runs/ran deep and is extremely difficult to overcome. Anthony - thanks for the work that you do, while you're trying to help them, I think in some way, you might also be helping people like me a little too. Thanks!
35:31
SE practitioner:
"And you have the ability to test this?"
35:33 - 35:41
Interlocutor:
(crickets)
35:44
Interlocutor:
"At the end of my life..." diversion technique.
I don't think crickets is good. I think
Focused silence
@@paramountx
What occurs after the silence breaks?
Sometimes the most terrifying thought is confronting our own thoughts. An echo that you will do anything to quiet.
This part i found significant. Shane established multiple times that being unable to test would shake confidence, but is now being asked if he can test. What he described earlier wasn't testing but post hoc confirmation. He also let slip that his goal is to reinforce belief when staggered rather than discover the extent of the offending info (house building analogy).
Shane never stop asking questions! I appreciate your honesty!
Anthony magnabosco I love the way you talking to people. I try all the time to talk to people like you
Jon Kaufold Thanks. And thanks for being willing to try and help other people take another look at their views.
I like Shane, he seems like a good man.
@Jonny Sevent Well that's not really how you're taught to think when you learn religion. It's no surprise. Everyone who hasn't been exposed to that way of thinking would be.
Shane, you are a strong and intelligent young man that I personally admire, your attitude and thinking of such important questions is to be commended, I wish more young people would have your values and attitude towards such fundamental issues.
This being said here are some thing that I would like you, or anyone reading this, to consider:
- If you want to uncover the actual truth of anything you need to strong man (as apposed to straw man) both your initial position and the opposite position.
- If you can't come up with valid strong man opposite position than it might be an indication of your own bias at work here, in this case I would recommend looking for someone that believes, with as much fervor as you, but in the opposite direction of said issue
- If you arrive at the conclusion that what you thought was true might not be true then you might be reluctant to investigate further because this will fundamentally shake your understanding of reality. As everyone who has gone thru such a fundamental shift in thinking will tell you this can be scary as hell, changing your fundamental thinking and reevaluating your most fundamental beliefs is not a trivial matter, this will take time, it won't happen over night but you do not need to go at it alone, there are others that have gone thru this and can help, don't be afraid to reach out.
- If you decide to go the route of changing your mind in such a fundamental way what are the negative effects of it? Some of those might include being outcast by your friends and family that still believe and feel betrayed by your new way of thinking, this challenges people in a way that they don't want to be challenged (hopefully here you can see the difference between a person such as yourself and one that just wants to preserve the status quo of convenience and/or not asking difficult questions)
- Don't be ashamed or scared or reticent or feel lesser for being wrong about any topic, this is how we as people grow, once we realize that we are wrong about any topic or subject it is not a personal failure, something to be mocked or ridiculed but instead something that should be celebrated as a unique chance to learn something new and more profound towards the ultimate truth. Perfect knowledge of any subject is a illusion, its something that one should strive towards with the realization that it can't be achieved. The fun is in finding out stuff not in the actual knowing of things.
Great thoughts, well put. It's called a "steel man" by the way :)
I applaud Shane for making an effort to ponder.
I love this kids honesty
Great video Anthony. I'm looking forward to this conversation continuing.
I strongly admire the honesty of this believer.
Anthony, these are incredible. This has to be one of my favorite, absolute favorite episodes you have done.
Holy crap this is the one I've been waiting for! This is literally more interesting then anything else I could be watching. Here we go!
46:49
"What bias is the best bias to be biased by?"
To the person who irrationally accepts he/she must believe in a supernatural dimension and mysticism in order to survive, it's the bias that provides the greatest sense of comfort.
I sincerely want to thank you both for these discussions. I like the honesty that Shane puts in these 4 talks. Well done !
That was a great 4 episodes! Thanks Anthony!
This series is a masterclass, Anthony, great job! And kudos to your interlocutor for being so open & honest : )
This series, you and him, my favorite demonstration of SE
Thank you
What a wonderful talk! Shane is so open, honest and smart.
And Anthony you have a real talent to truly listen and find THE good question.
Anthony...I'm really enjoying watching you demonstrating this method..and I'm learning all the time.
Great interview! I really like his open mind approach
Anthony: I think your ability to persist in understanding someone else's belief system - especially when they pull out a pie chart to illustrate it in detail is an ability I feel envious of.
Shane: Your candour and willingness to have your beliefs examined in detail is something I find very courageous.
I can be a fly on the wall over discussion like these, and I find them very enlightening. Thank you to both of you for being willing participants.
Owen Thomas Thanks for the kind comment. Honestly, this is something that most people can do if you put your mind to it and don’t let your ego get in the way. Try to make it all about them for the purpose of the exploration. You can do this! PS it helps if you have an honest interlocutor like Shane here :-)
@@magnabosco210 Some people are better at being honest interlocutors than others just as some people are more adept at teasing out the core tenets of another's beliefs than are others. Keep it up; I like your style.
Love Shane. I Can't wait for the next one.
What a great guy! Love his positive, considered reflections!!!
Stayed tuned to find out if Shane realizes there is no test for his test to test his bias beliefs.
Great job Anthony!
Shane.....I love your honesty. You are among the most intellectually comprehensive believer Anthony has ever interviewed. Please keep in mind the most honest answer a person can give on any topic is, "I don't know".
I absolutely love Shane. Right before abandoning religion myself, I remember making a similar chart trying to hold all of my beliefs together. I recognize a kindred sincerity and earnestness in seeking out truth. Kudos to Shane for his candor, enthusiasm and integrity.
Count me in the Shane fan-club. Fantastic conversation!
I love, respect and appreciate his honesty and introspection
Can’t wait to hear about these tests
At some point, I was able to guess his answers because I picked up his way of thinking and because he's honest and consistent. Very interesting to watch and listen.
Great graphics! Good video, Anthony!
The beat of that intro... Implies and foreshadows weighty discussion. Your interviews are great, method is interesting af.
Justin Pridham Good catch. Includes siren warnings, too.
Wow I really hope he returns, this was my favorite SE yet.
Anthony, that was a tremendous assignment you and Shane agreed on in #4. It may take him many months to either rationalize his positions or overcome those positions. Hopefully we will hear from him at some point.
Thanks so much Anthony for helping to propagate critical thought.
Like another comment said, "Shane come back"!
This was a great series, Anthony. It's to your credit that he finds this so fun. You create that safety for others to explore their biases; otherwise there might only be negative consequences, and they might never attempt it.
I wish we (read: you) could still do SE in 2020. There are a few topics I would love to see explored. Hopefully we get back to it soon.
I have grown from these 4 videos with Shane. Thanks for an honest q and a with an openly informed Christian
Really like the new graphics, helps explain his position.
I can’t wait for the return of Shane! This kid is great, reminds me of me at his age 😁
I’m really pulling for him
Yes. This person is very refreshing.
Yay! Been waiting for this episode!
....and there is going to be a 5th!! awesome!
Blue piece, red piece, yellow piece, brain. If Shane ever returns for a 5th chat, what "parting gift" should he receive after?
A question mark, perhaps?
Michael Lasso exclamation point , cogs, then question mark lol
Let there be a light bulb.
A manual for creating atheists?
A magnifying glass or mirror
Wonderful conversation.
When I started watching these 'Shane' interviews, I initially wondered if he was incredibly arrogant and egotistical. But now I don't think he is.
I think he's a rare breed. He actively wants to take a step back from and challenge his own beliefs, and I suspect there's a hint of him getting very slightly nervous now about where that might lead!
As usual you are remarkable Anthony. That is such a skill you have honed and learned to use to it's full potential.
I can't wait for a 5th time with Shane. I may not agree with his views much but I really like how honest and thoughtful his responses are and how he really enjoys the conversations and actively wants to get together to get more of them done.
53:08
Knowing why you believe what you believe doesn't, in itself, make your beliefs true. However, the motivations behind your embraced beliefs may provide a good jumping off point from which to let go of imprecise beliefs.
Been waiting for this :)
The reframe was stunning. I absolutely enjoyed the dynamic between you. I hope he at least sends you an email so you can carry on.
This is fantastic talk from Shane and Anthony😀
This is a great example of SE. I'm probably crazy for saying this, but my overall favorite SE video is Anthony talking to Caleb the street preacher and keeping his cool the entire time. That attitude is what SE practitioners will encounter more often than not. I understand it may not have the greatest viewership, but it's the most constructive SE demonstration I've ever seen.
I hope Anthony will be willing to upload more content of people unwilling to examine their beliefs and his reactions. Those are the videos I learn the most about. SE is not easy!!
Shane, you're awesome! Your interviews with Anthony are my favorite SE interviews ever! You really opened up, put in the efforts, and I felt your brain working hard to think and express and reevaluate. It was super interesting, I really enjoyed this. Now I think I have a crush on you lol
*blushing*
Great talk- too bad he has not returned for #5!
By uncovering someone’s personal traumas and anxieties it is likely to discover the reasons behind their irrational supernatural beliefs.
What a great conversation partner
Great series
I can't wait for the next one with this guy. It will be interesting to see what test he comes up with. He could be a future Atheist if he follows his own logic.
Amazing conversation
Shane, if you read this comment, know that I was once where you were at, tested the Bible in every sense of the term "infallible", and every way that I did test the Bible, it failed.
(1) Historically, Luke fails to give the proper time frames of Jesus' birth being in Bethlehem, saying that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod, but the motivations for Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem was because of a census performed by Quirinius. King Herod died in 4 BC, but Quirinius wasn't made governor of the region until AD 6. I think you can do the math on that one.
(2) Numerically, there are several contradictions between the accounts of the Kings and Chronicles that are clearly describing the same thing, but give 2 different numerical amounts for what was being measured. Your interpretation would need to become 100% subjective and go beyond what is said in the text in order to reconcile them.
(3) Concerning an Objectively Good and Just God, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 gives the law that says that if a woman lies with a man in the city and doesn't cry out for help, you will stone her to death. In the context of that "Good Law", a woman who was raped at knife-point and told to "BE QUIET, OR I'LL KILL YOU!" would be stoned to death for a crime that was committed against her. That's not justice, that's evil.
(4) Canonicity. Have you ever wondered why different groups of Christians came to different conclusions about which books are a part of the inspired and infallible canon of the Bible? Have you yourself ever read The Deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Bible? Or the Epistles of Ignatius? Or the Book of Enoch? Or most interestingly, the "Epistle of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa"? So what makes the empirically and objectively factual and infallible Bible? Subjective groups of people led by the same Holy Spirit to come to different conclusions which lead to fallible inconsistencies between different canons across the globe.
(5) Scientifically, there is so much wrong with Genesis and beyond, it's not even funny. It suggests that the earth was made with everything else, and the scientific consensus is that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, when the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Through the context, it suggests the earth is a little over 6,000 years old, but because the speed of light is constant, we wouldn't even be able to see the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy if the Bible was to remain accurate on the issue. If the Bible is instead to be interpreted to mean that "a day to God, is different for a day to man", we would have to inject our own subjectivity into the scripture to make it objectively true on this matter.
(6) Double checking the original scripture and context. Perhaps some errors happened in translation? Or maybe the whole message of the Bible is infallible, but the fallible humans wrote their biases into the book? What is the point of having such a shifty wall propping up your house, if either of those excuses are the case? At that point, your firm foundation on the Bible starts to look a lot like a sand castle.
Lastly, this has nothing to do with the Bible, but more of an expansion on the analogy you gave with the linchpin: Have you ever considered that it's not the linchpin in the parachute that fails, but false hope that there is even a parachute to begin with? A linchpin is pointless if the parachute cannot be shown to empirically exist.
Respect to Shane!
Love the 80's theme in the intro!
If he considers the Bible infallible as a source of truth, why does it only constitute 30% of his confidence? Why does he need to supplement that with anything else?
Diarmid Baillie Yep! One of the “thirty questions jumping around in my mind”.
This is SOOOO COOL!
“Oh this is going to be fun!”
I’m not sure that Shane really gets the purpose of this interview.
Teresa Amanfu cccc
Hearing that was so odd. What a unique person.
Anthony has such an amazing talent for making friends w ppl that do not hold his beliefs. Admire this about him..A great example of how ANY human interaction should go. Im not an atheist but I Thank you Anthony...
If a pagan psychic was able to say things like the preacher seemed to know about Shane, would that make paganism true?
Good point. It’s the same thing as horoscopes. If you leave them vague enough, people can find a connection to it. If your horoscope said, “you will make a hard decision today“ then I’m sure most of us can probably find something throughout our day that affirms our horoscope, thus making some people believe it.
It sounded exactly like a cold reading from any mentalist, be it a scammer or a stage mentalist.
Chris Whitehouse exactly. I’d ask Shane how we could tell whether that street preacher was doing a cold reading or he was receiving some sort of divine information
Rather "Would that be worth 5% of confidence paganism is true ?"
I had the same thought -- and my NEXT thought was that the exchange certainly was not video recorded -- and other prophesies from the same preacher are not recorded... and various non-convincing prophesies for Shane were not recorded... so how could this be demonstrated in a way that's convincing? I'm "100% certain" that it couldn't be. Anthony was smart not to lean too hard on this point.
Shane is awesome and his vids are great!
Has Shane ever read books by people who did not find the Bible compelling ?
Doubt it. He seems very indoctrinated and hence scared of having doubts.
Sweet. ~1hr well spent!
Shane is a great, enthusiastic critical thinker. His days as a theist are definitely numbered.
Got my attention when he said he did a summer at Panama City Beach, FL with Campus Crusade for Christ. I did two summers at the same beach, but with Campus Outreach, a smaller version of CC4C. Shane is young. Travel Shane. Keep questioning, and stay open to learning.
I applaud Shane for his diligence, and willingness to examine his foundation. When I consider his pie chart and the methods he chose for testing
the infallibility of the bible however, I am reminded of the "Spider Man Comic" analogy. It just seems his research was more contextual and less
substantive. Confirming places, culture, and artifacts says nothing about the truth of the claims surrounding them. I would be really interested in
that slice of the chart pertaining to "biblical foundation". I look forward to more conversation on this.
I note he is getting a pay off as he said, “I enjoy this too much”. He is not open minded at this point. He enjoys showing what he feels is his academic activity and stance. He is preaching.
What I see is a person with some intelligence and a well developed user of language but is not really examining his beliefs. Even the process of SE does not seem to get through his preconceptions.
I was thinking the same thing! I felt like it was an academic showboating of his intelligence. And I’m not trying to discredit his intelligence, because he did seem like a smart, well - spoken guy, but I feel like a lot of his answers were just to appease the SE system, like, “look at me, this is how you’re supposed to answer questions like this“. Mental flex. It’s so frustrating watching Anthony ask these great, thought-provoking questions, and hear such let downs for answers. Indoctrination is a poison.
Yes, he is very eager to show that he is "not like other guys" and enjoys intellectual discussions etc. He knows the "right" things to say, but despite constantly making a point of wanting to mitigate his biases and dissect his beliefs, etc, he isn't actually do that. It all comes across as an (unconscious) performance, saying what he thinks he should say.
True, it looks like he’s trying so hard to believe in those things he’s saying
100% on point.
I agree here. I think it's quite telling when he struggles to answer a question and Anthony jumps in and says, "What would an honest person say?"
Every time he comes back he seems to have interpreted the previous question and spun it in his favour instead of trying to answer it honestly. I suppose this could be conscious or unconscious.
Maybe SE isn't the method that will get through to him.
Concerning the discussion about the afterlife: I would've asked, "Would there being an afterlife make you happy?", and then ask "Does that make you more likely to believe that the bible is infallible?". Or I would've asked, "If you could change reality and thus the truth, would you prefer it to be true that the afterlife exists?". Or, "Would you believe in the bible [or have less confidence in the infallibility of the bible] less if it didn't claim there was an afterlife?". The constant usage of 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' was hard to follow [for me (beware typical mind fallacy)] (though, Shane did say he was following); in general, the abstract language is sometimes useful for avoiding biases, but is also often harder to follow.
What jumped out to me immediately when he was discussing the afterlife is that the afterlife is not supported by science and history, even if the other claims in the bible are supported. It seems natural to ask: "Is the bible's claim of the afterlife supported by science?"; I've seen the afterlife claim be used as an example of un-testable claims, which would really shake his 100% confidence.
I have to agree with the other commenters that it's kind of shame that Shane is kind of showing off his academic prowess instead of fully trying to be right. But, I think that as long as he is "competitive" in trying to investigate, not preaching, it's okay; with SE, if you answer completely honestly [and remember you're previous answers] you have to come to a point where they contradict which you need to resolve and admit "I don't know". But it seems bad that he still maintains that he has "100% confidence" when we can actively see him struggle with some of the questions.
This kid is awesome
I've been looking forward to this one in particular.
36:30 "What method did you use to make sure you have the right parachute, and that that pin will work when you die? Can someone take another holy book, read it, and conclude with a 100% certainty, THEIR parachute is going to work, and that it's yours that will fail?"
Wracky Excellent question.
I like how open and honest Shane attempts to be. I think he'll eventually discard his beliefs, maybe shift to something less fundamental - fundamentalism doesn't trend well with empiricism. Still, good job, glad school is working.
Welcome back. Good talk.
Working in a COVID MICU UNIT, I am concerned about not wearing masks, though.
It was just before winter break, I think they said.
enjoyable watching him in his journey of becoming an atheist
What is your confidence that Shane will become an atheist, say within the next two years?
@@jugglinglessons
He is honnest. and wants to be honnest.
He is going to try to see if the bible might be incorrect.
Lmao I had this thought but I didn't wanna say it!
It's a very hard exercise to question the very core of your perceptions and belief system.
It's an even harder exercise to do it while smiling and being respectful.
Some question god, and the last video I watched questioned the existence of our conscience and mental perception.
Well was I in for a ride.
Great talk