I know I'm late to the game (by 6 years), but I find it funny and sad that Hank had to finally disable the comments section on the last 5 philosophy videos (ya know, the ones about religion)... I'll never be around to find out what was said to force his hand, but I can't say I'm surprised. Regardless, thank you CrashCourse for making these short, informative videos! They are great springboards for further investigations!
"Pop Quiz: a quiz that you can't know is coming in advance." Forget the weird logic mind trick. By this definition, the minute she announced that there was going to be a pop quiz, it was no longer a pop quiz.
This is why proper definitions and accurate beliefs are valuable. The whole issue may have been avoided if a pop quiz had been more accurately defined as "A quiz where the specific starting time is unknown to the participants until it arrives, though a range of possible times may be specified." The teacher's inaccurate belief in the definition of a pop quiz contributed to the failure of the student (though, it was by no means wholly responsible and the outcome may have occurred regardless).
I know these videos came out quite some time ago, but they're really helping me with my intro to philosophy class that I'm taking in college! Needed to find philosophers discussing truth and "alternative facts" and this gave me a great starting point. I appreciate crash course so much!
Hank I want to say thank you. Thank you to you and the team at Sci Show, Crash Course and all of the other educational channels I have stumbled upon over the years. Thank you for developing my portentous scepticism but above all thank you for keeping me curious.
Clifford is great, but I think Hank's explanation falls short: Hank inferred that Clifford's only concern with false beliefs was that they would spread even if you never explicitly mentioned them, but most of his argument is how your beliefs inform your actions, which have consequences on those around you. Take for instance anti-vaxxers: 1) Vaccinations don't always work, but they only need to work something like 80% of the time for something called "herd immunity" to prevent the spread of the disease, thus protecting those for whom it wasn't effective. 2) If enough people falsely believe that vaccinations are harmful, and allow the spread of the disease, some people who had the vaccine may fall ill. The incorrect belief directly lead to the real physical harm (and possibly death) of someone who didn't also hold that incorrect belief. This is the ultimate evil that Clifford was espousing, that otherwise well-intentioned people will cause harm if their beliefs do not reflect reality as their actions will inevitably often result in harm despite their desire to do good. He also went as far as to claim that, even if no harm was done, simply having an unjustified belief drastically increases the risk that those beliefs are false (in an infinite amount of possible answers, all of them are wrong but one), and thus the expected outcomes of your actions will not reflect reality, which increases the chance that harm will be done. Now map this onto every aspect of life: 1) Belief in "alternative medicine" means more spending on these therapies which means less money spent on real medicine, which means less funds for medical research, which means diseases take longer to find cures/treatments, which means people who suffered in that time wouldn't have if people didn't believe. 2) Having faith that "faith" is virtuous and morally superior to knowledge (non-Gettier style "true justified beliefs") means that there is nothing that can "reason" you out of your faith (by definition: an un*reason*able belief), which makes it acceptable to hold beliefs with no justification, which can also include non-religious beliefs like politics and ethics and matters of reality, which in turn inform your actions in each respective realm, which will decrease the positive outcomes for others. The counter-argument by William James that a "Live, Forced and Momentous" belief should be exempt doesn't hold water; James' justification doesn't take into account the impossibly low probability that any random unjustified belief is true, and thus doesn't properly weight the cost of being wrong vs. benefit of being right. It's basically special pleading from the perspective of someone who's trying to justify an unjustifiable belief.
No! I love the 2 episodes I've seen so far! (I haven't been watching them in order.) The one on Batman and Identity grabbed my attention first, then I watched this one. I've added both to my "Educational vids" playlist along with a couple eps from the World History and American History courses.
If everybody understood what epistemic responsibility is and valued it, the world would be a much better place. So, thanks for the video and this series @crash course.
I have had whooping cough. 0/10 do not recommend. (FYI: If you were vaccinated for whooping cough as a kid, and you're old enough to understand the big words in this video, your vaccination has worn off! Go get an adult vaccination! Don't be like me and catch it in high school!)
I really like this philosophy series. As much as you can easily tell where the people writing it stand on a lot of these issues, I like that they present the other options and opinions in a way that doesn't make them sound idiotic or absolutely false. I like that they're trying to be sort of objective, even if it doesn't work all the time.
I am autistic. When people withhold vaccines from their children for fear that they'd become like me, it cannot not imply that they think it would have been better if I had died, because they are behaving as thought being autistic is worse than having a lethal disease. And it makes me sad.
***** Let's say that I want to entertain the notion that I'm technically aspie. What allistic doctors call aspergers' syndrome is one of the ways that you can be autistic. The distinction is also reliant on an ableist vision of what «functioning» is supposed to look like, and is therefore not worth much. At any rate, you have no basis to doubt my account, of my saying that I'm autistic, and your doing so is shameful. Even if we only counted seizures as what made parents afraid of vaccines, seizures, while a serious threat, are still better than measles, because they are as threatening to life, but seizures aren't contagious. Which means that it's still a dominant strategy to vaccinate anyway.
Annaelle Jacques-Morel I got the measles when I was 4. I haven't been sick since. It's great at developing the immune system. I know we live in a bubble wrapped world full of helicopter parents and nanny politicians but the measles aren't that bad. Seizures are. And I have aspergers and I would never consider myself autistic. I work with Autistic kids and anyone with your IQ doesn't deserve the title of disability. Forgive me if I question a spectrum that ranges from crack babies to nobel prize winners.
***** I am not sure if we have a responsibility to justify everything. Some believes are in my opinion completely harmless, and I don't mind it if they are not founded on evidence. For instance: What if someone believes that they will go into heaven if they attempt to be a good human being, but does not believe that the bible is the word of good. This believe may bring comfort and may perhaps even make someone a better person. I don't think that is morally wrong.
W.K. Clifford's views seem like common sense. A bealeaf strong enough to affect your behavior should have evidence. if we are adults/humans, we should take responsibility of our own behavior and treat everything else as an untested/baseless theory at most.
I know I'm two years late but I wanted to reply. You might be right that we should treat religious beliefs as theories, but theories need to be tested and observed. We could probably agree that religion is a forced opinion (as defined in the video) and that you either believe in god or you don't. Even if you are agnostic. So why not make the decision to believe, and don't end up with nothing at the end of your life? As it would stand right now (If I'm right in assuming you don't believe in a religion)… If you are right you get nothing, if you are wrong you get hell. If you were to believe and you were right in your belief you would get heaven, if you were wrong you would get nothing. Seems to me like that makes the safe bet religion, don't you think?
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre It is true that we do not know what the prerequisites are to get into heaven, or that simply believing in god is one of those prerequisites; however, isn't a >1% chance of eternal paradise better than a 0% chance?
@@FromThaJump Using fear to force idealogies is what fascist dictators do. Even if God(hell) were real I would never respect him or bow down to him. He is not worthy of praise if he has to threaten his followers. If Christianity had a truly benevolent entity I would most likely still be a Christian.
I've been arguing in favour of Clifford's position for years, though this is the first time I've ever heard of it. Foundationless beliefs are indefensible, because, not only to do inform your decisions (and thus affect the world and the people around you), but they also introduce the possibility of confirmation bias. By holding an opinion, that colours your view of new evidence, and if you hold a false opinion (which a baseless opinion may well be) then that bias is only going to force you further and further from the truth. Therefore, holding a foundationless belief is an choice to understand the world less well. By holding a belief for which you have no evidence, you are choosing to drift further and further from actual knowledge. It is wilful and persistent and growing ignorance. And it is perhaps the greatest possible human failing.
This is the explanation that I was looking for the other day. Thank you! I settled for, "it's the idea that you already know everything and therefore don't need to learn anything else. God exists, why keep checking? Fox news is (news), why cross-check with another source, etc."
Isn't James' argument Begging the Question? He started from the idea that his belief in god is okay, then tried to reason why it's okay. Looking at his categories, I'm left suspecting that his "momentous" category is only defined as an improvement because he felt his own source belief to be an improvement. Without that being part of the definition, I'm not sure how one would come to the conclusion that "live", "forced" and "momentous" is what makes a belief okay, rather than simply "trivial" (with the other two category type not mattering).
+biggerdoofus Special Pleading, arguing that his one sacred belief is in some special way worth believing without evidence. Many beliefs could be argued to fit all three criteria.
No, you're confused on your understanding of begging the question. Begging the question entails "belief in god is okay, because belief in god is okay." According to your characterization, any time a philosopher sought to justify a belief that they already hold, they would be committing the fallacy. Also, you defined the "momentus" category incorrectly: according to the video, this category is defined as something that "stands the chance of radically changing your life for the better". It is not true that momentus entails that it will necessarily improve your life, as you've suggested; momentus refers to something that is otherwise not trivial and could improve your life.
That system of classification seems brilliant and insightful at first glance, but -- as he himself demonstrated by deciding to disregard agnosticism -- literally any belief could be arbitrarily placed in any of those three "acceptable" types.
I'm really surprised by how civil and open minded the comment section is, especially considering the potential contention this topic can hold. You keep good company, Hank.
I have to say, Hank, sexism is not a negative behavior against women, but a negative behavior against one of two sexes. I say this because these days we're so focussed on one side of the word sexism that many people don't even consider that there is another side, so much so in some cases that they see men as sexist in general. Ironically enough, a very pure example of sexism in action. Therefor I find it important not to treat sexism as men discriminating women alone else we become so blindly focussed on this side that we don't even see wether we ourselves discriminatingly think all men are lesser than women. I am whining here, but it is a very important matter to heed these days.
+coconutcore the example of sexism provided is based on a manifestation of sexism that is widely-understood and commonly testified by the vast majority of us watching the video. the point of the video is not about sexism. Unfortunately, youtube is a terrible place for any videos about sexism, because it's a total cesspool of MSA brats and feminist brats who just churn out vlogs and response videos to a echo chamber of sheepish and dimwitted subscribers. Very few people actually believe that men are lesser than women, and likewise very few people actually believe women are less than men. The burden is on us rational thinkers to illuminate when a held belief leads to harmful consequences to someone of any gender. My boss might promote me first because of a bias that I am more of a "leader" than a female coworker, and that's fucked up, but he might also fire me if I show up to work in a dress, and that's equally fucked up. Both cases are sexism, but in our capitalist society, the plight of the wage-slave woman gets more attention than the suffocating behavioral restrictions placed on men (since one can't slap a dollar sign on its value). MRAs would do well to give up the anti-feminist whining and learn a thing or two from the liberating self-expression ethos of the Radical Faeries (a men's movement that is amazingly not a toxic wasteland of man-children in desperate need of therapy). When forward-thinking men stop lashing out at others and take responsibility for their own liberation, we might actually get somewhere.
+coconutcore +OberonTheGoat I'm inclined to agree with both of you. The example in the video was clearly not defining all sexism as male against female, but society does focus on sexism against females because it is more quantifiable and tangible. Regardless of how wide it actually is, there is a wage gap as well as a glass ceiling. Sexism vs men tends to be more about behavior and not as easily quantified, i.e. you must act a certain way and do certain things to be manly. Sexual assault and domestic violence against men not being taken as seriously and etc are issues, but it's much harder to see because there isn't necessarily reliable data for it and society discourages people from coming forward about such things because it's seen as unmanly.
+OberonTheGoat victor zen (an MRA on youtube) opened up a men's rights club to dicuss men's issues on college campus. he was shut down by feminist sexists who attacked his club. so when MRA's do go out and stop lashing out and instead focus purely on men's issues, feminists often show up to attack them. this also happened when warren farrell came to a college to talk about the plight of young boys in primary schools. feminists frequently suppress and oppress men who try to work on men's issues.
+coconutcore Except, sexism in today's world is men discriminating against women. To say that the vast majority of sexists in the world are men does not in any way imply that all men are sexists. That's not how logic works.
This series does continue to amaze me. If more people would actually start acting more in a philosophical and/or scientific way, the world would be so much better.
Great video! philosophy encourages me to think about things I'd never think about and it really affected my life! I've always been someone to question everything but philosophy somehow puts it in order 😊 the philosophy playlist is my absoulte favorite (even though the others are not far behind!) keep up the great work!
+Joe Kennedy Yes, momentous, as in, the choice you make, the act of belief itself, will mean a significant improvement in your life, when the opportunity is unique, when what is at stake is very significant (like your child's life, or your immortal soul), and the decision is irreversable. There are some good argument's against James' thesis, including the common belief in Philosophy that belief is not actually a choice, troubles with the definition of truth, and the fact that no one has perfect information.
If something like a child's life is at stake, then shouldn't you be making your decisions based on fact and reasoning? If you make a bad trivial decision it doesn't really matter. If it's important, that is when it is most necessary to think logically.
Joe Kennedy Logic does not come into it, because perfect information is not available. Once you enter the realm of statistics and measurements, logic goes out the window. Secondly, remember, this discussion is presupposing that there is no evidence to support the belief, and also, don't forget, the conspiracy theory case is presented as a problem with this model of epistemology, not a feature. It was designed as a defence of theism, and it does an alright job at that, but it casts too broad a net and winds up defending some things that we would rather not have.
I'm 22 and I will be taking the SAT again shortly as my scores have expired, and I am attempting to go back to school. I started watching Crash Course as a way to catch up on some stuff before college, but I feel like I've learned more in these videos than I did in highschool. I'm sure that's not the reality of it, but regardless I really appreciate this channel and all the content you guys put out.
One thing I will say about philosophy is that not everything can be argued. Somethings are beyond our understanding and we are still learning so much more about humanity and where we came from. Religion can't be argued because it's based on faith and a belief system.
I do have a few questions in regards to Darwinism. "If we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys no longer evolving into humans. Has evolution just stopped? Also, if people are evolving everyday than why haven't we taken on a new form, like monkeys to humans? I say if your asking these questions then why still believe in Darwinism?
Why is it ok to believe a momentous option instead of a trivial one? If it doesn't affect your life significantly then go for it, do whatever you want. A momentous option, that can radically affect your life (and by extension others') shouldn't be chosen without the evidence to back it up.
+Joaquin Pirotto Interestingly enough, Life of Pi (whose argument, I do not agree with) argues for the existence of God by calling religious belief trivial, and saying it's ok to believe trivialities. It also makes the mistake of ignoring agnosticism.
+Utkarsh Bansal Also I find it puzzling that momentous options include "for the better" only when something that could change your life dramatically for the better is just as likely to make it worse most of the time.
Utkarsh Bansal I haven't seen the movie but religion is only trivial so long as there aren't any crusades, inquisition or terrorism. Oly when people can transcend their fundamentalism is it a trivial option.
+Utkarsh Bansal I don't see the dichotomy of belief or lack of belief as a problem. What other possibility is there? Agnosticism would simply be a lack of belief, but openness to the possibility of believing should you find a reason to do so.
+Ryan O'Grady gosh i hate Pascal's wager, all of his religious work was all about how by nature god was illogical and could not be proved logicly and the one thing he is remembered for is an easaly dismanteled thing he wrote in the margens in his notes. it was never ment to be published because he knew it wasn't a solid argument it was added to one of his books after his death.
+Zen Unity In my opinion, believing in God/gods doesnt make sense because they arent necessary to the world that we see around us. But that is just how I view things.
While I completelly agree with Clifford's view, one could point out that 2:20 statement ("it is wrong always, and everywhere, for anyone, to belive anything upon inssuficient evidence.") might just be a belif of his which can not obtain sufficient evidence. I mean just by the nature of statement, how do you prove the "wrongness" of something all the time and everywhere ? A valid question if one aspires to be difficult :D
Part of me is happy that there is a philosophy that actually states what I have been saying for years. On the other hand, I'm a little sad it's not as original as I thought.
+highdough well be happy because this philosophy is going to take you far ahead than what you have been saying. and probably if you have been saying these for long time, then probably you can take it ahead too. probably you have great talent for this.
The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were poisoned? The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were so tasty as to be life changing? The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were so greasy as to give you a heart attack? Butterfly effect?
James just creates his own criteria for a belief he knows is unsound in an attempt to retain it anyway. It’s mental gymnastics and a perfect example of backfire effect.
That's staying in, as you are still constrained by the limits of the structure, just a specific part of the perimeter structure. You might also be wasting energy used to heat or cool the place. :)
"choosing" to believe something is ridiculous. to believe something is to be convinced that something is true, and that happens by the application of reason to evidence. they are not "choosing to believe", they are believing in belief.
MrPonitron says the one that just did the text equivalent of histrionic screaming. i have 60k subscribers and have dealt with much worse, thousands of times. dont flatter yourself by pretending you can evoke so much as a blink.
MrPonitron what indication is there that i am not 100% serious? none. is that your stock response for when you have absolutely no retort? the irony (again) of someone that spewed philosophical gobbledegook to see if he could get away with it, making out it is the other party that is taking the piss.
Define sufficient evidence for a belief. I cant reproduce every necessary science experiment up to this point. generally we cant expect everyone to do that. We are a society of specialization and as such are often forced to blindly believe what "experts" from other fields say or what sounds reasonable. Some amount of faith is necessary i guess.
William James' argument sounds suspiciously like Special Pleading to me - he seems to acknowledge Clifford's take on Epistemic Responsibility, but then constructs **an argument to make his belief in a God the exception to it. **...and not a solid argument, IMO: I'll agree that choosing to buy in or not to religious belief is a potentially monumental one, but 1) I have a beef with his live vs. dead option (he and many others can totally see holding a belief in a god to be appealing, while others don't as much, especially when you're assuming said god to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent - I for one cannot accept such a prospect); 2) the argument regarding forced vs. unforced doesn't wash with me, either - you _can_ choose to withhold judgement on whether to believe or not. He sets up a false dichotomy here.
+John M Well, not in conventional Christian terms. If you don't profess positive belief in God than you are in sin, as whatever skeptical reasons you have for doubting or waiting to choose comes second to faith, which is by its very nature an irrational choice, or leap. If you choose not to choose, then you haven't chosen God. This is why James saw it as a forced choice.
+John M It's like the ham and chees, or peanut butter choice though, except the question is "do you choose the peanut butter" so "I refuse to choose a sandwich" is still no.
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose not to decide You still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears And kindness that can kill I will choose a path that’s clear I will choose free will. Free Will by Rush is an amazing philosophical document!
+chaseshaw22 James wasn't actually making an exception specifically for belief in God. He also applied it to the belief that there is such a thing as truth, and that we can discover it. That the laws of nature apply uniformly across space and time. That right and wrong exist. That one will be able to put up with one's potential spouse. Etc.
+idklolzors autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused from a genetic difference at birth. The only cure for autism is eugenics, and autistic people are avidly against a cure because autism is so intrinsically a part of ourselves that we cannot separate it and do not want to. So yeah, the only way to cure autism would be to slowly wipe out all autistic people from the gene pool, which just, no. Our lives are just as valuable as any allistic person and that'd be horrible.
At the beginning of this series I thought it was gonna be a sort of history of philosophers, like Sophie's World. Instead, it's mostly about ideas and arguments; much better than I imagined:) No disrespect to Sophie's World btw
+Gijs Klaassen wow that brings back some memories. I remember reading that book in highschool to do better in my philosophy class. I really liked the book as a basic source of information, but I remember I got bit bored with the story by the end of it. Did you have the same "problem" with it or just me? Nevertheless, I still liked it :)
+Juan I mostly got bored due to the variation in storytelling and informative reading; it's a long read. The story however ended as one of my first mindfucks:p
_"But a sexist's beliefs, even if they're never overtly stated, tend to show through in the ways they interact with women and speak with them."_ The irony makes a great case in how beliefs can't be private; good job!
The forced and unforced argument was actually a pretty good one. Most likely your going to be in a situation where each side has little to no evidence to support them at some point. If it's is a forced situation where you have to believe one or the other, then you have no choice but to believe in a side with little to no evidence. Usually in these kinds of situations though, it's best not to put much commitment into whichever belief you choose.
+Malcolm Kealey Re watch the video. A forced belief is like when you choose have to choose whether or not to believe in God. You can't fallback to the sidelines because doing so is automatically not believing in God until you make your decision.
+stormyCodex Without evidence however, it's very difficult to justify a belief in a particular religion. If you have no evidence, all religions that are equally complex are equally likely--it's about as likely that the Christian god exists as that Thor and Odin exist. Since there are an infinite number of possible religions that are equally complex to Christianity, and they're all equally likely, the probability that a particular religion is right must be zero.
+Saposhiente Yeah, I know I said the exact same thing to someone else on the last video. I was trying to say that there are situations where you have no choice, but to make a decision without evidence, because of forced beliefs.
stormyCodex I don't really agree with the idea of forced beliefs. I think a better approach is to assign probabilities to various states of the world. For example, if you flip a coin, Newtonian physics has already dictated how it will land, but I don't choose to believe that it's heads until I see it land. As an athiest, I think it's entirely possible that a God exists--for example, if the universe is a computer simulation as some argue, then the creators of the simulation would be gods--but I don't believe that a loving god is more probable than an unloving god, and so the possible existence of a god doesn't factor into my decisions at all.
I'd never heard William James' counter argument to epistemic responsibility, but I find it really interesting. I have one question that I don't think he answered (or at least I didn't see it answered in the video): WHY are Live, Forced, Momentous beliefs grounds for exception to epistemic responsibility? We could just as easily argue that, because these are some of our most important and most personal beliefs, that we should DEFINITELY test them.
For a belief to be 'live', as I understand it, requires us to already have tested it to a degree, even to the degree that our minds/judgement can be trusted. It being both forced and momentous only means we are not able to forever postpone or be on the fence because that is a decision on its own. So you are literally forced to make a decision on insufficient evidence, then you are allowed to go with your gut. If I understand the video correctly, hope it helps. If anyone has different understanding please.
For a belief to be 'live', as I understand it, requires us to already have tested it to a degree, even to the degree that our minds/judgement can be trusted. It being both forced and momentous only means we are not able to forever postpone or be on the fence because that is a decision on its own. So you are literally forced to make a decision on insufficient evidence, then you are allowed to go with your gut. If I understand the video correctly, hope it helps. If anyone has different understanding please.
Oh thank you. Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. In my understanding though, the amount of evidence doesn't seem to be a factor in Williams' model. That's why it works for both God (which is difficult to prove one way or another) and the Anti-Vaxxer movement (which has some definite evidence against it).
When Leon Wieseltier was on The Colbert Report he said something I thought worth writing down: "A democratic society, an open society, places an extraordinary intellectual responsibility on ordinary men and women, because we are governed by what we think, we are governed by our opinions. So the content of our opinions, and the quality of our opinions, and the quality of the formation of our opinions, basically determines the character of our society."
I'm a biologist. I have a Master's degree from an extremely highly-ranked medical university. I have worked for a total of six years--and still currently work--in labs that develop and test vaccines. I have also received vaccines not generally available to the public (for work-related reasons), even though I know those vaccines have a higher incidence of serious adverse effects. And I have even taken part in the receiving end of a vaccine clinical trial, when the safety of a investigational vaccine was tested *on* me. In order to get along with friends and family members who are anti-Vaxxers, I've done my best not to be around or initiate conversations on the subject. Well, damn, W. K. Clifford. . . . there goes my easy life . . .
+CrashCourse I'm not quite sure I understand James' argument. I get the definitions of live, forced, and momentous. After defining these, though, you just repeat his conclusion, that if it checks those boxes, it's justified. But surely there's some reasoning? As stated, it hardly seems like a defensible position. "Live" - It seems reasonable to me to postulate that for any belief, it's possible to assemble social and other mental pressures such that for at least some people, it's an option they could entertain. "Forced" - Likewise, it seems like you could do a bit of belief algebra and rephrase literally any choice as A or not A and then you've got to choose one. "Momentous" - This actually does restrict the discourse, but if anything, it's going to Clifford's point. On the one hand, this argument doesn't justify my right to think I'll like green apple gum, because who even cares. On the other hand, it justifies my belief that if I don't kill my neighbors, the King will kill me and my family. I could almost see Clifford saying "well fine, you can hold unjustified beliefs, but not if they're momentous." I'm sure I'm missing something, but how does this argument work?
+GeterPoldstein I'm making a guess here, but maybe the reasoning goes like this. Believing in god is something I can see myself doing and since I only have the option of believing in god or not, I have to choose one of them. However, if I say that the belief is trivial, than it doesn't matter and I would withhold from making a belief until I had proof. For example, if I am deciding whether or not watching football is good use of my time, before I have actually watched a game and without knowing anything about it, it would be a live, forced and trivial belief. It would be live because I can see myself enjoying the game from my experiences with other sports like soccer and baseball etc; it would be forced because I can decide either that it is a good use of my time or that is a waste of my time. However, since it is a trivial issue, the best course of action is to watch a game to see if it is worth my time or not. With other issues, however, it can be nearly impossible to get enough evidence and having the wrong belief can have dangerous consequences. For example, if I am in a narrow alley and I see a large person with a knife start walking towards you. You have the option of believing he is dangerous or not. It is a live decision because you have to compare the current situation with previous knowledge. It is forced because you have to decide whether or not he is dangerous, you do not have to option to withhold judgment. It is also monumental because having the wrong belief can result in you getting injured or killed. Like the previous situation, you have very little evidence regarding the issue; however, this time around you cannot wait around to collect the evidence. In this case, it is reasonable to believe that the guy coming towards you is dangerous even though you don't have proof because that belief might be most be the best option for you. The argument for believing in god can be expressed similarly. I can see myself believing in god maybe due to past experiences, family members etc. I can choose to believe in him or not believe in him. Since the cost of not believing in god could be eternity in hell, it is reasonable to believe in god regardless of the lack of evidence. The only time I could gather evidence whether or not god is real would be after I die and by that time it would be too late. The above argument is not solid though. I might argue that it is not momentous since as long as I am a "moral" person, if there is a god, I will get into heaven. Furthermore, I could argue that it is not a forced argument since I have the option of rejecting both options. I might also say that believing in god is not something I can see myself doing and therefore not believe in him. However, if you have noticed, in each case, I have argued against one of the basic assumptions about the belief i.e., it is a live, forced and momentous belief. I would also argue that using this same sort of logic for anti-vaccination beliefs is not correct. For one, I would say that the belief that vaccines cause autism is more of a trivial one since, while not desirable, autism is not something that will make your life unbeareable. Moreover, it is possible to gather evidence about this belief (tons and tons of it). It is not entirely a forced choice since I have three options: believe that I should vaccinate my kids, believe that I should not vaccinate my kids or believe that I should wait and educate myself more before I vaccinate my kids. The problem with these types of arguments is not that the argument structure is invalid, it is because people try to shoehorn issues into 3 of these boxes when they kind of fall in-between. TLDR: It is not wrong to believe in something if it is live, forced and momentous if you cannot gather evidence for or against the belief. It does not necessarily make it right however, and if this sort of argument is used to believe in something despite evidence showing otherwise, then it is wrong to hold that belief. The issue with the argument isn't the structure of the argument itself, it is the people making it.
"Imagine a modern day sexist at an American university." You don't have to imagine anything, just take look at any Gender Studies course, where sexism is actually taught.
+Angel Angelov lets also imagine that u actually know what u are talking about and have actually read about it, besides ofc what u read from ur men''s rights act groups who tend to pick and chose information about the feminism moment
I think the biggest problem with James's rebuttal, other than that it leads to allowing false beliefs that harm people, is in that last category of momentous vs trivial. These provide a bucket for options that can greatly benefit you and a bucket for options that are pretty unimpactful, but it doesn't even consider that an option could greatly harm you (or others around you). Just because a belief could potentially make you feel happier doesn't mean it won't also harm people around you; and if it does more harm than good, then its benefit to you is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure you haven't read his other essay on "cash value" which goes into detail exactly what you are saying. And to add I think you are confusing belief with choice, even though belief does influence choice, in this case they are separate matters. And don't forget, James agrees with Clifford, he also agrees to follow the evidence.
ambient0902 James disagrees with Clifford in that he thinks there are certain beliefs which don't require evidence, while Clifford does not. And no, I haven't read his other essay; can you please link me to it (or at least let me know its name to search)? And I'm not confusing belief with choice. Beliefs don't just influence choices, they fully inform them. No one acts on the world as it is, we all only act on the world we believe in. That makes false beliefs just as dangerous as any choices made because of them.
IceMetalPunk "Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results" by William James. To briefly sum up, he argued for choices that "insures" people from future disaster or was better for long-term planning. And yes, you are right- they disagree on that point, that belief needs justification (evidence). I agree that belief does influence choice, but only to the degree of how the individual deems the belief is held, monumentally or trivial. Some beliefs dont matter if there is an objective or goal at the end. An example would be a racist that sells goods to a colored person, he hates the person but it doesn't impede the transaction from happening (a trivial matter). A flaw with Clifford's beliefs informing choices is that people can have contradictory beliefs and be aware of them. Suppose a Japanese-american during WW2 and he fights against the Japanese and Axis powers. Assuming he actually had a choice whether to fight against his nationality, to what degree was that choice influenced by belief? The choices we make may be decided by factors other than belief, and not to deny Clifford's argument, but to me James makes a more compelling argument when it comes to choices.
And lastly, I don't think he argued about monumental vs trivial, just that choices can be monumental or trivial. I think I said this point but tacked it rather strangely at the end of my first post. He agrees with Clifford that we should use evidence to support our choices.
Ummm...for whom? You obliviously neither HAVE autism or have the on going care in your world of someone who does. This is a highly ignorant and careless statement.
KingTesticus From the looks of your self- identifying vulgarity, I appears youre past the point of educating. Only the ignorant assume that there is one choice of out come for all soul with similar issues. Many people know that peace awaits them after this life and look forward to the day the are done here. This is not necessarily the same for everyone.
The things I don't like about the boat analogy: - We never know everything about everything, so even if you have a perfect-condition newly built boat, you still cannot always guarantee that it will reach its intended destination safely, you cannot predict the future. - He's taking a situation which is likely to have a bad consequence and ONLY bad consequences and using it as an analogy against religious beliefs, which often have good consequences, such as helping people turn away from alcoholism or practice tolerance, generosity, and other virtues. - There's no hard and fast measure of how much evidence is sufficient evidence. I mean, it's said he convinces himself the ship is still good, so he must have some reasons to trust it even though there are reasons for doubt. Everyone has to decide for his or her self what is or is not sufficient evidence.
Well you are forgetting that it did have positive possible outcomes. If the ship owner sailed without restoring his ship, he saved money and time. The negative outcome is that he could possibly kill people.
+Rachael Lefler This is called rationalizing. The analogy given was that the owner had reason to believe (aka evidence) that the boat was unsafe but talks himself out of that belief due to socioeconomic pressures. True the future is not predictable. That's why making decisions based on beliefs with no evidence, or even belief against good evidence, is posited (by Clifford) as morally wrong in any event. Place yourself on such a boat. You return from the voyage without incident. You discover later that maintenance was severely lacking and the owner of the boat knew it even to the point that he didn't think it would make the trip but sent you all out anyway. How would you feel? Simply lucky? This actually still happens today in automotive (GM/Toyota/VW recently) and aviation industries. Human error is acceptable, willful blindness is not. Now consider religion. Do you really think there are only good consequences from belief in God and/or following a religion? Do you believe it necessary to believe in God to turn away from self destructive behaviors or generally be tolerant and altruistic? There is no evidence for these beliefs - none. And a lot of evidence to the contrary. Religious leaders are aware of a severe lack of maintenance and upkeep or refitting required for modern social seas. And they KNOW it and they've convinced themselves (for economic reasons) that religion will keep you safe and they send you on your way. And thank you for your business. For me the only way belief without evidence is not amoral is if it's Live, Forced, and TRIVIAL. Momentous beliefs have momentous consequences.
"Do you really think there are only good consequences from belief in God and/or following a religion? Do you believe it necessary to believe in God to turn away from self destructive behaviors or generally be tolerant and altruistic?" That's not what I said. But you can't argue that there are no good consequences, or that all it is is brainwashing and conniving without benefiting MOST of the people who find an honest and virtuous house of worship.
"For me the only way belief without evidence is not amoral is if it's Live, Forced, and TRIVIAL. Momentous beliefs have momentous consequences." You could argue that belief in God is more trivial than they usually make it out to be, because it technically only matters much once you're dead, since the Bible says you can neither test God nor always expect God to grant you favors or protect you from suffering. Unless you mesh it with politics, which unfortunately happens way too much since we're a social animal, that's when it has momentous consequences. But not so much in a society where there is religious freedom and no official state religion, there's no real non-personal effects caused by you believing in whatever.
i love what your media company is doing and i see the underlying message. and im interested in learning more about it and how i might help in a meaningful way
The problem with the last argument is that the choice to believe in god is not momentous. Any benefits that could be gained from such a belief could also be gained without it. He fooled himself into thinking it was momentous because he wanted it to be true.
+SchiferlED can you please elaborate how it is not momentous? i am a non-believer myself but can't deny the evidence i see every day - faith has been pretty momentous for the faithful ones. can you make an argument to support your claim?
+SchiferlED Actually, if you 'properly' believe in god, you also believe in a hereafter. Going to heaven instead of hell is, at least if it's all really there, a pretty sweet deal. Of course, the existence of heaven and hell is in itself an unbiased belief, but if you believe in god you also must believe in heaven and hell. This makes it a loop of momentousness, where believe in one makes the other momentous. There are other, less physical rewards for believing in god, such as comfort. You'll have to ask people that believe in god for more of those, though.
+SchiferlED What are you talking about? The choice to believe in God is potentially the same as choosing eternal bliss. If that's not a momentous option, I'm not sure what is.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that, in Clifford's time, the smallpox vaccine had a 10% fatality rate. Much better than the fatality rate during an actual outbreak, but still, you could see why it would be tempting to freeload and rely on herd immunity. Of course, as the measles comeback proves, herd immunity is a very fragile thing, with only a tiny number of people who can take advantage of it. Those spots need to be reserved for kids with conditions like leukemia, who actually _are_ endangered by vaccines.
+aperson22222 While it wasn't as safe as the modern vaccines it was safer than the previous technology which was crushing up smallpox sores and blowing them up people's noses (around %3.) So %10 is a bit too high a guess, I believe it was more like %1 in his case.
+aperson22222 As i have said Many times "A person's Freedom ends, Where My safety Begins" IF your freedoms put me, or my family in danger. Your freedom to do what puts my family in danger ENDS
naihanchin Kempo Technically from a legal standpoint this is the idea for why a lot of possible choices are crimes. This is a big reason why we have laws regarding harassment, "hate" crimes, and restraining orders.
Cedric Kulacz My comment was limited to anti Vaxx ..But can apply to many things..Guns, safe cars, speed limits, safe buildings ..the old saying was" You may have a right to free speech but you can't yell fire in a Movie theater..;)
That's a difficult question. Anything less than infallible justification is simply subjective, and could open the door to any number of definitions. If justification could mean anything, is it truly justification anymore? If you claim justification must be infallible, it renders nearly every belief we have unjustified, other than those that are analytic in nature, or formed from deductive arguments. This leaves us with very little ability to say that we know anything, we can't even be certain of most scientific study. As you can see, this causes a lot of issues for a lot of people, so it's not easy to find a good answer to the question.
Intent ... that is why intend is so fundamental to our legal system .... epistemic implies a moral obligation or a reasonable level of curiosity or exploration .... thus we come back to reasonable doubt or reasonable knowledge Does that help?
+James A Clouder The principle directly applies to conspiracy theories. I think it's entirely fair for him to leave that as an exercise for the student. Can you do it?
You determined that Epstein didn't kill himself with the support of compelling evidence and how it's Live, Forced and Momentous to your well being. Good Day..
I've been keeping up with this series since episode 10 caught my attention. "What makes an argument cosmological," I asked, and ever since then you have taken me--a devout monotheist--on a very fascinating roller-coaster on what it means to be a religious thinker. Of course, moderate-length-of-time listener, first-time commenter, as until now I have been humbled at how high-end the thoughts and arguments presented have been--both the ones I agree with and disagree with--and this is simply you quoting mostly people who have died hundreds of years ago! Even concepts that I thought myself familiar with, like the Problem of Evil, and the upcoming episode about Pascal's Wager, you have (and very likely will) take it a level above and beyond my previous understanding of the concept. This episode, however, I feel that I may have something to contribute to the discussion. Repeatedly, the premise was given that religious belief must always be held without evidence--the "blind faith" described by Clifford--and is thus epistemically irresponsible. The only counter-argument given is from William James, that epistemic responsibility can somehow have exceptions, implicitly agreeing that a religious belief must inherently be without evidence. William James is clearly the weaker philosopher here, and while I cannot blame him for at least trying to level with Clifford, who was essentially calling him an inherently bad person for his beliefs, you basically demolish his premises by pointing out that, in carving out his exception, he simultaneously justifies anti-vaxxers and marginalizes agnostics. I conclude that the more reasonable belief would be that no such magical exception to epistemic responsibility exists. This leads me to level with W.K. Clifford myself, with a counter-argument of my own demonstrating that my own beliefs are not epistemically irresponsible. I argue that one can empirically have an experience with the divine (also known as a revelation), and use that as evidence for their beliefs. Of course, the sheer existence of atheism implies that not everybody experiences a revelation, but if you know a trusted person who does, it might be a bit of a stretch to imply that the person has lost their mind, especially if nothing else about their behavior would imply it. Such occurrences are not entirely uncommon throughout the history of religion (again, there is even a word for it), so I feel it is safe to say that I am not talking out my butt. This does not mean that religious thinkers--or, by extension, thinkers in general--are free from epistemic responsibility. I would dare say that one who has never questioned their beliefs believes them for all the wrong reasons, and is highly susceptible to dogmatism to boot. This is not even going over the impact such a person has on others. No, one should not necessarily be afraid of having their beliefs called into question, but instead embrace knowledge! One should strive to learn more about the world and why one should or should not have whatever beliefs they might hold. Personally, all of my worldly experiences and knowledge thereof have only fortified my own beliefs.
+TazTheYellow I hope this series eventually does a segment on personal revelation. It's incredibly persuasive when you have it, and not at all persuasive when you don't.
I don't expect that'll you'll ever return to see this, and if you do please know that I'm not specifically targeting you or your personal belief (if there is such a thing). If pressed, I would chalk "revelation" to mis-attribution. People are aware of the christian god, and when something remarkable happens they are often lead to the conclusion that his divine intervention was the mechanism. In other times and places different gods and goddesses were substituted (god of war, goddess of fertility, etc) and no evidence presented through this very day has made those people any less right (or wrong) than people today who claim God changed their life. Regarding whether the belief in any deity is inherently evil- ehh...this might get messy. A LOT of people (in the U.S. at least) has been introduced to the idea of transgender individuals in the last few years. Now if you (royal) subscribe to the 7 days, man and a woman version of events this might strike you as the devil's work, morally wrong, etc. Modern medical science, however, is looking into the matter and they have some ideas. Prominently, the notion that different parts of the brain and body develop at different times both before and after birth, and an influx or absence of certain hormones at any point in this process can leave an individual with a "male" body and a "female" brain. Additionally, the idea of primary and secondary characteristics existing on a spectrum (more feminine, more masculine, rather than binary male or female trait) is relatively new to the popular conscious. I'm very interested to see where this work might end up, but some people, perhaps too many, are utterly convinced that they "know" all they need to on the subject as a byproduct of their faith/belief in God, and those people wield considerably power when it comes to crafting legislation that funds research, provides legal protections, and access to certain services (hormone therapy or SRS). This IS a dangerous amount of power for people who feel fully justified in their ignorance. Maybe this doesn't apply to you, and, again, I don't wish to assume that it does, but those in your position should be VERY aware that your religion DOES hurt people.
Hi Crash Course team! I really loved this video and would love to read more about epistemic responsibility. Were there are any books that were used in researching or writing this episode that I could look up? I was also wondering if you guys ever considered making reading lists to go with your courses or individual lessons? It's always good to cite your sources so that people can see how your train of thought in the episode was developed, and it would provide a road to further exploration if they want to learn more. Thanks!
+Jared Prymont I agree, though I hope it doesn't overstay its welcome. I'd like to see them cover other topics which would be very difficult to connect directly to the topic of God.
"Only" is an absolute term, i.e. if you say "only" then you must be a Sith. Just as Obi Wan could walk away from Anakin, neither joining him nor fighting him, it's possible to deal in absolutes and not be a Sith. I conclude that by Obi's own logic, he must also be a Sith.
I ask myself this question before overtime I go driving. I have no way of guaranteeing that I'll get from point A to point B unscathed, and yet I risk it anyway because I must. Does this make me an immoral person then?
One of the big issues is the idea that belief is somehow voulentary. Belief is a compulsion that results from your brain processing information. You might believe things for bad reason or make big mental exceptions to examining some beliefs rationally, but the belief itself is a compulsion. You cannot choose to believe or not to believe, you either believe or don't believe. You can choose to own your beliefs or pretend to hold different beliefs, this is however seperate from what beliefs you actually hold.
+Brad Evans I don't mind the God stuff so much, but I hope they do episodes over, for example, symbolic logic or Venn diagrams, or otherwise secular tools used to analyze philosophical arguments.
The story of the ship owner got me thinking about the origin story for the name of the band Twenty One Pilots (I was obsessed with them in high school). Essentially, the lead singer, Tyler, read a play called All My Sons in which a man who sold parts to plane during one of the World Wars (don't remember which one) received news that a batch of his parts were faulty/flawed/likely to cause harm and the man was faced with the moral crossroads of either selling the parts anyway for the financial gain, at the risk of their malfunction, or not selling them, taking the financial blunder but doing the "safe" and "right" thing. He decided to sell them anyway and they malfunctioned (surprise, surprise) and, as a result, twenty one pilots died. So there's a fun fact about the band story (still obsessed with them, tattoo and all, #1 fav of my whole life) and come to find out it parallels a famous philosophical parable. Yeehaw.
+Alicia Gomez Withhold believe until believe is justified. Do you know of any conspiracy that has turned out to be true in the last century within science?
I know I'm late to the game (by 6 years), but I find it funny and sad that Hank had to finally disable the comments section on the last 5 philosophy videos (ya know, the ones about religion)... I'll never be around to find out what was said to force his hand, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Regardless, thank you CrashCourse for making these short, informative videos! They are great springboards for further investigations!
"Pop Quiz: a quiz that you can't know is coming in advance." Forget the weird logic mind trick. By this definition, the minute she announced that there was going to be a pop quiz, it was no longer a pop quiz.
@ Clark Lawlor
At least I wasn't the only one who noticed.
Good one, Clark.
This is why proper definitions and accurate beliefs are valuable. The whole issue may have been avoided if a pop quiz had been more accurately defined as "A quiz where the specific starting time is unknown to the participants until it arrives, though a range of possible times may be specified." The teacher's inaccurate belief in the definition of a pop quiz contributed to the failure of the student (though, it was by no means wholly responsible and the outcome may have occurred regardless).
I know these videos came out quite some time ago, but they're really helping me with my intro to philosophy class that I'm taking in college! Needed to find philosophers discussing truth and "alternative facts" and this gave me a great starting point. I appreciate crash course so much!
Hank I want to say thank you.
Thank you to you and the team at Sci Show, Crash Course and all of the other educational channels I have stumbled upon over the years.
Thank you for developing my portentous scepticism but above all thank you for keeping me curious.
W.K. Clifford... you've just changed my life. I love your epistemic responsability
I agree.
Clifford is great, but I think Hank's explanation falls short: Hank inferred that Clifford's only concern with false beliefs was that they would spread even if you never explicitly mentioned them, but most of his argument is how your beliefs inform your actions, which have consequences on those around you.
Take for instance anti-vaxxers:
1) Vaccinations don't always work, but they only need to work something like 80% of the time for something called "herd immunity" to prevent the spread of the disease, thus protecting those for whom it wasn't effective.
2) If enough people falsely believe that vaccinations are harmful, and allow the spread of the disease, some people who had the vaccine may fall ill.
The incorrect belief directly lead to the real physical harm (and possibly death) of someone who didn't also hold that incorrect belief. This is the ultimate evil that Clifford was espousing, that otherwise well-intentioned people will cause harm if their beliefs do not reflect reality as their actions will inevitably often result in harm despite their desire to do good.
He also went as far as to claim that, even if no harm was done, simply having an unjustified belief drastically increases the risk that those beliefs are false (in an infinite amount of possible answers, all of them are wrong but one), and thus the expected outcomes of your actions will not reflect reality, which increases the chance that harm will be done.
Now map this onto every aspect of life:
1) Belief in "alternative medicine" means more spending on these therapies which means less money spent on real medicine, which means less funds for medical research, which means diseases take longer to find cures/treatments, which means people who suffered in that time wouldn't have if people didn't believe.
2) Having faith that "faith" is virtuous and morally superior to knowledge (non-Gettier style "true justified beliefs") means that there is nothing that can "reason" you out of your faith (by definition: an un*reason*able belief), which makes it acceptable to hold beliefs with no justification, which can also include non-religious beliefs like politics and ethics and matters of reality, which in turn inform your actions in each respective realm, which will decrease the positive outcomes for others.
The counter-argument by William James that a "Live, Forced and Momentous" belief should be exempt doesn't hold water; James' justification doesn't take into account the impossibly low probability that any random unjustified belief is true, and thus doesn't properly weight the cost of being wrong vs. benefit of being right.
It's basically special pleading from the perspective of someone who's trying to justify an unjustifiable belief.
*Responsibility
Clifford sounds like a very reasonable guy.
On another note am I the only who love the CrashCourse philosophy theme?
It's really relaxing, isn't it?
+Benjamin Garcia Don't even know how that happened, tbh.
If there is a possibility to be god exist therefore there is a Responsibility to Promotion of atheism
No! I love the 2 episodes I've seen so far! (I haven't been watching them in order.) The one on Batman and Identity grabbed my attention first, then I watched this one. I've added both to my "Educational vids" playlist along with a couple eps from the World History and American History courses.
I came here because of philosophy, and I'm still here, so, I love it, sure.
If everybody understood what epistemic responsibility is and valued it, the world would be a much better place. So, thanks for the video and this series @crash course.
I have had whooping cough. 0/10 do not recommend. (FYI: If you were vaccinated for whooping cough as a kid, and you're old enough to understand the big words in this video, your vaccination has worn off! Go get an adult vaccination! Don't be like me and catch it in high school!)
+Megan L. (Cantras) this need to get upvoted! booster shots save lives!
That reminds me to get the flu shot!
And get the shot if you're pregnant; it'll protect the baby.
I'VE NEVER BEEN VACCINATED!!!!! I'm as healthy as can be :)
one person doesn't prove an entire theory though; you simply are quite lucky.
I really like this philosophy series. As much as you can easily tell where the people writing it stand on a lot of these issues, I like that they present the other options and opinions in a way that doesn't make them sound idiotic or absolutely false. I like that they're trying to be sort of objective, even if it doesn't work all the time.
Some of these ideas just can't be presented in a better light because of how bad they are, that's not his fault.
I am autistic. When people withhold vaccines from their children for fear that they'd become like me, it cannot not imply that they think it would have been better if I had died, because they are behaving as thought being autistic is worse than having a lethal disease.
And it makes me sad.
*****
Let's say that I want to entertain the notion that I'm technically aspie.
What allistic doctors call aspergers' syndrome is one of the ways that you can be autistic.
The distinction is also reliant on an ableist vision of what «functioning» is supposed to look like, and is therefore not worth much.
At any rate, you have no basis to doubt my account, of my saying that I'm autistic, and your doing so is shameful.
Even if we only counted seizures as what made parents afraid of vaccines, seizures, while a serious threat, are still better than measles, because they are as threatening to life, but seizures aren't contagious.
Which means that it's still a dominant strategy to vaccinate anyway.
Annaelle Jacques-Morel I got the measles when I was 4. I haven't been sick since. It's great at developing the immune system. I know we live in a bubble wrapped world full of helicopter parents and nanny politicians but the measles aren't that bad. Seizures are. And I have aspergers and I would never consider myself autistic. I work with Autistic kids and anyone with your IQ doesn't deserve the title of disability. Forgive me if I question a spectrum that ranges from crack babies to nobel prize winners.
Cool story. Tell that to my boss and the asshole psychiatrists who won't allow me to get my job back.
My banker would also welcome the news.
I never heard of the concept of epistemic responsibility, but I absolutely love it!
(not that I fully agree with everything, but I think it's a fascinating concept)
***** I am not sure if we have a responsibility to justify everything. Some believes are in my opinion completely harmless, and I don't mind it if they are not founded on evidence.
For instance: What if someone believes that they will go into heaven if they attempt to be a good human being, but does not believe that the bible is the word of good. This believe may bring comfort and may perhaps even make someone a better person. I don't think that is morally wrong.
W.K. Clifford's views seem like common sense. A bealeaf strong enough to affect your behavior should have evidence. if we are adults/humans, we should take responsibility of our own behavior and treat everything else as an untested/baseless theory at most.
I know I'm two years late but I wanted to reply.
You might be right that we should treat religious beliefs as theories, but theories need to be tested and observed. We could probably agree that religion is a forced opinion (as defined in the video) and that you either believe in god or you don't. Even if you are agnostic. So why not make the decision to believe, and don't end up with nothing at the end of your life? As it would stand right now (If I'm right in assuming you don't believe in a religion)… If you are right you get nothing, if you are wrong you get hell. If you were to believe and you were right in your belief you would get heaven, if you were wrong you would get nothing. Seems to me like that makes the safe bet religion, don't you think?
@@FromThaJump Also if I were just to believe in God simply for hell insurance, it would be disingenuous. I would be going to hell anyway.
@@maudde0 The idea is that once you choose to start indoctrinating yourself into a religion, you will eventually come to believe it.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre It is true that we do not know what the prerequisites are to get into heaven, or that simply believing in god is one of those prerequisites; however, isn't a >1% chance of eternal paradise better than a 0% chance?
@@FromThaJump Using fear to force idealogies is what fascist dictators do. Even if God(hell) were real I would never respect him or bow down to him. He is not worthy of praise if he has to threaten his followers. If Christianity had a truly benevolent entity I would most likely still be a Christian.
I've been arguing in favour of Clifford's position for years, though this is the first time I've ever heard of it.
Foundationless beliefs are indefensible, because, not only to do inform your decisions (and thus affect the world and the people around you), but they also introduce the possibility of confirmation bias. By holding an opinion, that colours your view of new evidence, and if you hold a false opinion (which a baseless opinion may well be) then that bias is only going to force you further and further from the truth.
Therefore, holding a foundationless belief is an choice to understand the world less well. By holding a belief for which you have no evidence, you are choosing to drift further and further from actual knowledge. It is wilful and persistent and growing ignorance.
And it is perhaps the greatest possible human failing.
Sylvius the Mad Criminally underrated comment
okay Mr big brother, though policing is ok
This is the explanation that I was looking for the other day. Thank you! I settled for, "it's the idea that you already know everything and therefore don't need to learn anything else. God exists, why keep checking? Fox news is (news), why cross-check with another source, etc."
You make it sound like holding a belief is a choice.
"Clifford, who was both a mathematician and a big red dog.."
🤣🤣
Isn't James' argument Begging the Question? He started from the idea that his belief in god is okay, then tried to reason why it's okay. Looking at his categories, I'm left suspecting that his "momentous" category is only defined as an improvement because he felt his own source belief to be an improvement. Without that being part of the definition, I'm not sure how one would come to the conclusion that "live", "forced" and "momentous" is what makes a belief okay, rather than simply "trivial" (with the other two category type not mattering).
+biggerdoofus It seems biased too
+biggerdoofus Special Pleading, arguing that his one sacred belief is in some special way worth believing without evidence.
Many beliefs could be argued to fit all three criteria.
No, you're confused on your understanding of begging the question. Begging the question entails "belief in god is okay, because belief in god is okay." According to your characterization, any time a philosopher sought to justify a belief that they already hold, they would be committing the fallacy. Also, you defined the "momentus" category incorrectly: according to the video, this category is defined as something that "stands the chance of radically changing your life for the better". It is not true that momentus entails that it will necessarily improve your life, as you've suggested; momentus refers to something that is otherwise not trivial and could improve your life.
"Here's a cup of calm down" I've gotta remember that line.
If arguing intelligently would have a real effect on the masses, we wouldn't be where we are now.
That system of classification seems brilliant and insightful at first glance, but -- as he himself demonstrated by deciding to disregard agnosticism -- literally any belief could be arbitrarily placed in any of those three "acceptable" types.
I'm really surprised by how civil and open minded the comment section is, especially considering the potential contention this topic can hold. You keep good company, Hank.
I have to say, Hank, sexism is not a negative behavior against women, but a negative behavior against one of two sexes.
I say this because these days we're so focussed on one side of the word sexism that many people don't even consider that there is another side, so much so in some cases that they see men as sexist in general. Ironically enough, a very pure example of sexism in action.
Therefor I find it important not to treat sexism as men discriminating women alone else we become so blindly focussed on this side that we don't even see wether we ourselves discriminatingly think all men are lesser than women.
I am whining here, but it is a very important matter to heed these days.
+coconutcore the example of sexism provided is based on a manifestation of sexism that is widely-understood and commonly testified by the vast majority of us watching the video. the point of the video is not about sexism. Unfortunately, youtube is a terrible place for any videos about sexism, because it's a total cesspool of MSA brats and feminist brats who just churn out vlogs and response videos to a echo chamber of sheepish and dimwitted subscribers. Very few people actually believe that men are lesser than women, and likewise very few people actually believe women are less than men. The burden is on us rational thinkers to illuminate when a held belief leads to harmful consequences to someone of any gender. My boss might promote me first because of a bias that I am more of a "leader" than a female coworker, and that's fucked up, but he might also fire me if I show up to work in a dress, and that's equally fucked up. Both cases are sexism, but in our capitalist society, the plight of the wage-slave woman gets more attention than the suffocating behavioral restrictions placed on men (since one can't slap a dollar sign on its value). MRAs would do well to give up the anti-feminist whining and learn a thing or two from the liberating self-expression ethos of the Radical Faeries (a men's movement that is amazingly not a toxic wasteland of man-children in desperate need of therapy). When forward-thinking men stop lashing out at others and take responsibility for their own liberation, we might actually get somewhere.
+coconutcore +OberonTheGoat I'm inclined to agree with both of you. The example in the video was clearly not defining all sexism as male against female, but society does focus on sexism against females because it is more quantifiable and tangible. Regardless of how wide it actually is, there is a wage gap as well as a glass ceiling. Sexism vs men tends to be more about behavior and not as easily quantified, i.e. you must act a certain way and do certain things to be manly. Sexual assault and domestic violence against men not being taken as seriously and etc are issues, but it's much harder to see because there isn't necessarily reliable data for it and society discourages people from coming forward about such things because it's seen as unmanly.
+OberonTheGoat victor zen (an MRA on youtube) opened up a men's rights club to dicuss men's issues on college campus. he was shut down by feminist sexists who attacked his club. so when MRA's do go out and stop lashing out and instead focus purely on men's issues, feminists often show up to attack them. this also happened when warren farrell came to a college to talk about the plight of young boys in primary schools.
feminists frequently suppress and oppress men who try to work on men's issues.
dude, I totally agree with you
+coconutcore Except, sexism in today's world is men discriminating against women. To say that the vast majority of sexists in the world are men does not in any way imply that all men are sexists. That's not how logic works.
This series does continue to amaze me. If more people would actually start acting more in a philosophical and/or scientific way, the world would be so much better.
I encourage everyone to pause the video and read the scrolling comments in the rhombus on the left in the first few seconds of the video.
Did they just fall in nerd like?
+Rumer Priestly
Cool thank you!
My screen's too tiny!
+James Whitman The comments were appropriate/relevant, informed and civilized
In other words they *strongly* contrasted from the usual RUclips banter
Great video! philosophy encourages me to think about things I'd never think about and it really affected my life! I've always been someone to question everything but philosophy somehow puts it in order 😊 the philosophy playlist is my absoulte favorite (even though the others are not far behind!) keep up the great work!
So he argued it was morally wrong to believe in a trivial thing without evidence but it's fine with a momentous one? How does that make sense?
He's not arguing anything. He's describing what other people believe, and asks you to consider, not necessarily concede.
I meant William James.
+Joe Kennedy Yes, momentous, as in, the choice you make, the act of belief itself, will mean a significant improvement in your life, when the opportunity is unique, when what is at stake is very significant (like your child's life, or your immortal soul), and the decision is irreversable.
There are some good argument's against James' thesis, including the common belief in Philosophy that belief is not actually a choice, troubles with the definition of truth, and the fact that no one has perfect information.
If something like a child's life is at stake, then shouldn't you be making your decisions based on fact and reasoning? If you make a bad trivial decision it doesn't really matter. If it's important, that is when it is most necessary to think logically.
Joe Kennedy Logic does not come into it, because perfect information is not available. Once you enter the realm of statistics and measurements, logic goes out the window.
Secondly, remember, this discussion is presupposing that there is no evidence to support the belief, and also, don't forget, the conspiracy theory case is presented as a problem with this model of epistemology, not a feature. It was designed as a defence of theism, and it does an alright job at that, but it casts too broad a net and winds up defending some things that we would rather not have.
I'm 22 and I will be taking the SAT again shortly as my scores have expired, and I am attempting to go back to school. I started watching Crash Course as a way to catch up on some stuff before college, but I feel like I've learned more in these videos than I did in highschool. I'm sure that's not the reality of it, but regardless I really appreciate this channel and all the content you guys put out.
Who else is here during COVID trying to figure out wtf is wrong with their neighborsssss?!?!??! -_-
Did you use the Next Door app?
Why? wtf is wrong with your neighborsssss?!?!??!
No im just interested in philosophy
Looking straight at you flat earthers.
best thing said ? philosophy is a skill that can't be used to change your believes, but a tool to argue about them smartly.
I really think that you should give some assignments or questions to do till your next video comes out... that will help a lot
+Omkar Chavan
Challenge questions like PBS spacetime does!
Agreed!
Of course our discussions here count as practice with the concepts presented.
+Greg Jensen Yes, but it would be nice if they provided specific exercises to serve as a potential guide for some for some of these discussions.
+Max Spiegel
yes. the sort of thing one pays for (in North America). Perhaps a premium content for patrons?
So this was made six years ago and it's more relevant than ever.
Popular hysterias are all the rage these days.
Inconceivable! Hanks arguments on likelihood of Pop Quiz should have been in Princess Bride.
One thing I will say about philosophy is that not everything can be argued. Somethings are beyond our understanding and we are still learning so much more about humanity and where we came from. Religion can't be argued because it's based on faith and a belief system.
I do have a few questions in regards to Darwinism. "If we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys no longer evolving into humans. Has evolution just stopped? Also, if people are evolving everyday than why haven't we taken on a new form, like monkeys to humans? I say if your asking these questions then why still believe in Darwinism?
Why is it ok to believe a momentous option instead of a trivial one? If it doesn't affect your life significantly then go for it, do whatever you want. A momentous option, that can radically affect your life (and by extension others') shouldn't be chosen without the evidence to back it up.
+Joaquin Pirotto Interestingly enough, Life of Pi (whose argument, I do not agree with) argues for the existence of God by calling religious belief trivial, and saying it's ok to believe trivialities. It also makes the mistake of ignoring agnosticism.
+Utkarsh Bansal Also I find it puzzling that momentous options include "for the better" only when something that could change your life dramatically for the better is just as likely to make it worse most of the time.
William Lewis Agreed. A better definition would be something that can have a major effect on your life, in any way.
Utkarsh Bansal I haven't seen the movie but religion is only trivial so long as there aren't any crusades, inquisition or terrorism. Oly when people can transcend their fundamentalism is it a trivial option.
+Utkarsh Bansal I don't see the dichotomy of belief or lack of belief as a problem. What other possibility is there? Agnosticism would simply be a lack of belief, but openness to the possibility of believing should you find a reason to do so.
I am willing to bet that the next episode is Pascal's Wager.
Hahahaha.
+Ryan O'Grady I had the same thought, my friend
+Kimberly Waggoner I mean he said Gamble you way into believing in God. That is the only argument either way that deals with gambling or... wagers.
+Ryan O'Grady gosh i hate Pascal's wager, all of his religious work was all about how by nature god was illogical and could not be proved logicly and the one thing he is remembered for is an easaly dismanteled thing he wrote in the margens in his notes. it was never ment to be published because he knew it wasn't a solid argument it was added to one of his books after his death.
+Zen Unity In my opinion, believing in God/gods doesnt make sense because they arent necessary to the world that we see around us. But that is just how I view things.
While I completelly agree with Clifford's view, one could point out that 2:20 statement ("it is wrong always, and everywhere, for anyone, to belive anything upon inssuficient evidence.") might just be a belif of his which can not obtain sufficient evidence. I mean just by the nature of statement, how do you prove the "wrongness" of something all the time and everywhere ? A valid question if one aspires to be difficult :D
Part of me is happy that there is a philosophy that actually states what I have been saying for years. On the other hand, I'm a little sad it's not as original as I thought.
+highdough well be happy because this philosophy is going to take you far ahead than what you have been saying. and probably if you have been saying these for long time, then probably you can take it ahead too. probably you have great talent for this.
Same. On the upside now I don't have to feel bad for not writing that book I thought I'd have to write.
Depends on the French fries.
The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were poisoned? The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were so tasty as to be life changing? The decision wouldn't be trivial if they were so greasy as to give you a heart attack? Butterfly effect?
James just creates his own criteria for a belief he knows is unsound in an attempt to retain it anyway. It’s mental gymnastics and a perfect example of backfire effect.
_Sufficient evidence_ is a vague term, and even when defined, fails to show up under the very accepted axioms of logic themselves.
This has certainly given me something to think about, regarding the philosophy of my own religious beliefs. Well done, CrashCourse! You've succeeded!
I am so glad to see this topic addressed. Wonderful work!
Wow, far less dislikes than expected o-o
Proud of the CC community right now.
Why would there be dislikes? Anti-vaxxers aren't the types of people who would watch educational videos in the first place.
You'd be surprise, SciShow got some backlash for covering vaccines if I recall.
I think some just seek it out for spiteful reasons personally.
+Ike They covered vacs so much that anti vaxers had decided to stop.
Professor Syndicate If that is the case, wonderful news!
Go on scishow, there's literally a metric ton of videos.
>Assuming sexists are automatically men.
That's sexist.
Women can't be sexist. Just like minorities can't be racist. Because privilege or something.
+No-Stalgia Goggles Sexist-ception! BWAAAAAASSSSS!
+raztubes Can't tell if you're serious or not?
+raztubes Just like only the rich can be greedy.
+raztubes Female sexists are known as Feminazis.
Really cool debate you brought up here. Thanks Crash Course Philosophy!
this is now one of my favorite episodes.
“Stay in or go out is a good example, you have to do either”
*stands in the middle of the doorway
That's staying in, as you are still constrained by the limits of the structure, just a specific part of the perimeter structure. You might also be wasting energy used to heat or cool the place. :)
"choosing" to believe something is ridiculous. to believe something is to be convinced that something is true, and that happens by the application of reason to evidence.
they are not "choosing to believe", they are believing in belief.
MrPonitron schizophrenic nonsense. internally inconsistent word salad.
MrPonitron says the one that just did the text equivalent of histrionic screaming. i have 60k subscribers and have dealt with much worse, thousands of times. dont flatter yourself by pretending you can evoke so much as a blink.
MrPonitron what indication is there that i am not 100% serious? none. is that your stock response for when you have absolutely no retort?
the irony (again) of someone that spewed philosophical gobbledegook to see if he could get away with it, making out it is the other party that is taking the piss.
They are choosing to believe in belief then?
+Volound Calling total skepticism "philosophical gobbledegook" really makes you lose all credibility,
What a hit piece. As there is such a concept as inference, there is also the semblance of inference, i.e. by extension
Define sufficient evidence for a belief. I cant reproduce every necessary science experiment up to this point. generally we cant expect everyone to do that.
We are a society of specialization and as such are often forced to blindly believe what "experts" from other fields say or what sounds reasonable. Some amount of faith is necessary i guess.
Love the subject, keep up the good work Jon!
+mathias helseth Hank.
Its Hank, John is his brother xD
+mathias helseth
1. It's spelled John.
2. This is his brother, Hank.
+Mark Vadeika Who also happens to spell his name with an H :D
Great trolling skills. Also great to see how un-ironic everyone is in helping him
William James' argument sounds suspiciously like Special Pleading to me - he seems to acknowledge Clifford's take on Epistemic Responsibility, but then constructs **an argument to make his belief in a God the exception to it.
**...and not a solid argument, IMO: I'll agree that choosing to buy in or not to religious belief is a potentially monumental one, but 1) I have a beef with his live vs. dead option (he and many others can totally see holding a belief in a god to be appealing, while others don't as much, especially when you're assuming said god to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent - I for one cannot accept such a prospect); 2) the argument regarding forced vs. unforced doesn't wash with me, either - you _can_ choose to withhold judgement on whether to believe or not. He sets up a false dichotomy here.
+Paul Madryga Isn't the choice not to choose also a choice?
+John M Well, not in conventional Christian terms. If you don't profess positive belief in God than you are in sin, as whatever skeptical reasons you have for doubting or waiting to choose comes second to faith, which is by its very nature an irrational choice, or leap. If you choose not to choose, then you haven't chosen God. This is why James saw it as a forced choice.
Nate Saint Ours
Oh I see. That doesn't seem like very nuanced thinking.
Faith is not built upon thought, nuanced or otherwise.
+John M
It's like the ham and chees, or peanut butter choice though, except the question is "do you choose the peanut butter" so "I refuse to choose a sandwich" is still no.
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
Free Will by Rush is an amazing philosophical document!
exception for god is special pleading
+chaseshaw22 There is only one exception: The Mongols.
+Erik Žiak (tramstefanikova) lol
+chaseshaw22 James wasn't actually making an exception specifically for belief in God. He also applied it to the belief that there is such a thing as truth, and that we can discover it. That the laws of nature apply uniformly across space and time. That right and wrong exist. That one will be able to put up with one's potential spouse. Etc.
+Erik Žiak (tramstefanikova) Even an autistic person can tell when Ghengis Khan is giving them the stink-eye!
+Erik Žiak (tramstefanikova) That's the only exception i will only accept.
What will happen when there's a vaccine for autism?
There won't be. Autism is present at birth. It's not contagious and can't be contracted
Autism is a genetic disease.
+Robbie Markwick i.imgur.com/eyl9jeF.jpg
+idklolzors autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused from a genetic difference at birth. The only cure for autism is eugenics, and autistic people are avidly against a cure because autism is so intrinsically a part of ourselves that we cannot separate it and do not want to. So yeah, the only way to cure autism would be to slowly wipe out all autistic people from the gene pool, which just, no. Our lives are just as valuable as any allistic person and that'd be horrible.
+Robbie Markwick "That's the joke."
At the beginning of this series I thought it was gonna be a sort of history of philosophers, like Sophie's World. Instead, it's mostly about ideas and arguments; much better than I imagined:) No disrespect to Sophie's World btw
+Gijs Klaassen wow that brings back some memories. I remember reading that book in highschool to do better in my philosophy class. I really liked the book as a basic source of information, but I remember I got bit bored with the story by the end of it. Did you have the same "problem" with it or just me? Nevertheless, I still liked it :)
+Juan I mostly got bored due to the variation in storytelling and informative reading; it's a long read. The story however ended as one of my first mindfucks:p
_"But a sexist's beliefs, even if they're never overtly stated, tend to show through in the ways they interact with women and speak with them."_
The irony makes a great case in how beliefs can't be private; good job!
This is my favorite crash course so far!
I completely agree!
Same :D
The forced and unforced argument was actually a pretty good one. Most likely your going to be in a situation where each side has little to no evidence to support them at some point. If it's is a forced situation where you have to believe one or the other, then you have no choice but to believe in a side with little to no evidence. Usually in these kinds of situations though, it's best not to put much commitment into whichever belief you choose.
+stormyCodex it's possible to just not choose a side until you see sufficient evidence to justify one
+Malcolm Kealey Re watch the video. A forced belief is like when you choose have to choose whether or not to believe in God. You can't fallback to the sidelines because doing so is automatically not believing in God until you make your decision.
+stormyCodex Without evidence however, it's very difficult to justify a belief in a particular religion. If you have no evidence, all religions that are equally complex are equally likely--it's about as likely that the Christian god exists as that Thor and Odin exist. Since there are an infinite number of possible religions that are equally complex to Christianity, and they're all equally likely, the probability that a particular religion is right must be zero.
+Saposhiente Yeah, I know I said the exact same thing to someone else on the last video. I was trying to say that there are situations where you have no choice, but to make a decision without evidence, because of forced beliefs.
stormyCodex I don't really agree with the idea of forced beliefs. I think a better approach is to assign probabilities to various states of the world. For example, if you flip a coin, Newtonian physics has already dictated how it will land, but I don't choose to believe that it's heads until I see it land. As an athiest, I think it's entirely possible that a God exists--for example, if the universe is a computer simulation as some argue, then the creators of the simulation would be gods--but I don't believe that a loving god is more probable than an unloving god, and so the possible existence of a god doesn't factor into my decisions at all.
I'd never heard William James' counter argument to epistemic responsibility, but I find it really interesting. I have one question that I don't think he answered (or at least I didn't see it answered in the video): WHY are Live, Forced, Momentous beliefs grounds for exception to epistemic responsibility? We could just as easily argue that, because these are some of our most important and most personal beliefs, that we should DEFINITELY test them.
For a belief to be 'live', as I understand it, requires us to already have tested it to a degree, even to the degree that our minds/judgement can be trusted. It being both forced and momentous only means we are not able to forever postpone or be on the fence because that is a decision on its own. So you are literally forced to make a decision on insufficient evidence, then you are allowed to go with your gut. If I understand the video correctly, hope it helps. If anyone has different understanding please.
For a belief to be 'live', as I understand it, requires us to already have tested it to a degree, even to the degree that our minds/judgement can be trusted. It being both forced and momentous only means we are not able to forever postpone or be on the fence because that is a decision on its own. So you are literally forced to make a decision on insufficient evidence, then you are allowed to go with your gut. If I understand the video correctly, hope it helps. If anyone has different understanding please.
Oh thank you. Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. In my understanding though, the amount of evidence doesn't seem to be a factor in Williams' model. That's why it works for both God (which is difficult to prove one way or another) and the Anti-Vaxxer movement (which has some definite evidence against it).
When Leon Wieseltier was on The Colbert Report he said something I thought worth writing down: "A democratic society, an open society, places an extraordinary intellectual responsibility on ordinary men and women, because we are governed by what we think, we are governed by our opinions. So the content of our opinions, and the quality of our opinions, and the quality of the formation of our opinions, basically determines the character of our society."
I'm a biologist. I have a Master's degree from an extremely highly-ranked medical university. I have worked for a total of six years--and still currently work--in labs that develop and test vaccines. I have also received vaccines not generally available to the public (for work-related reasons), even though I know those vaccines have a higher incidence of serious adverse effects. And I have even taken part in the receiving end of a vaccine clinical trial, when the safety of a investigational vaccine was tested *on* me.
In order to get along with friends and family members who are anti-Vaxxers, I've done my best not to be around or initiate conversations on the subject.
Well, damn, W. K. Clifford. . . . there goes my easy life . . .
Jenny McCarthy made me autistic.
That was pretty dope! Wish I'd heard of this channel earlier. Subscribed.
You won't regret it :)
Great video! I have a Phd in philosophy, but I still learned quite a bit from it. I hadn't heard of James triple classification.
+CrashCourse I'm not quite sure I understand James' argument. I get the definitions of live, forced, and momentous. After defining these, though, you just repeat his conclusion, that if it checks those boxes, it's justified. But surely there's some reasoning? As stated, it hardly seems like a defensible position.
"Live" - It seems reasonable to me to postulate that for any belief, it's possible to assemble social and other mental pressures such that for at least some people, it's an option they could entertain.
"Forced" - Likewise, it seems like you could do a bit of belief algebra and rephrase literally any choice as A or not A and then you've got to choose one.
"Momentous" - This actually does restrict the discourse, but if anything, it's going to Clifford's point. On the one hand, this argument doesn't justify my right to think I'll like green apple gum, because who even cares. On the other hand, it justifies my belief that if I don't kill my neighbors, the King will kill me and my family. I could almost see Clifford saying "well fine, you can hold unjustified beliefs, but not if they're momentous."
I'm sure I'm missing something, but how does this argument work?
+GeterPoldstein I'm making a guess here, but maybe the reasoning goes like this. Believing in god is something I can see myself doing and since I only have the option of believing in god or not, I have to choose one of them. However, if I say that the belief is trivial, than it doesn't matter and I would withhold from making a belief until I had proof.
For example, if I am deciding whether or not watching football is good use of my time, before I have actually watched a game and without knowing anything about it, it would be a live, forced and trivial belief. It would be live because I can see myself enjoying the game from my experiences with other sports like soccer and baseball etc; it would be forced because I can decide either that it is a good use of my time or that is a waste of my time. However, since it is a trivial issue, the best course of action is to watch a game to see if it is worth my time or not.
With other issues, however, it can be nearly impossible to get enough evidence and having the wrong belief can have dangerous consequences. For example, if I am in a narrow alley and I see a large person with a knife start walking towards you. You have the option of believing he is dangerous or not. It is a live decision because you have to compare the current situation with previous knowledge. It is forced because you have to decide whether or not he is dangerous, you do not have to option to withhold judgment. It is also monumental because having the wrong belief can result in you getting injured or killed. Like the previous situation, you have very little evidence regarding the issue; however, this time around you cannot wait around to collect the evidence. In this case, it is reasonable to believe that the guy coming towards you is dangerous even though you don't have proof because that belief might be most be the best option for you.
The argument for believing in god can be expressed similarly. I can see myself believing in god maybe due to past experiences, family members etc. I can choose to believe in him or not believe in him. Since the cost of not believing in god could be eternity in hell, it is reasonable to believe in god regardless of the lack of evidence. The only time I could gather evidence whether or not god is real would be after I die and by that time it would be too late.
The above argument is not solid though. I might argue that it is not momentous since as long as I am a "moral" person, if there is a god, I will get into heaven. Furthermore, I could argue that it is not a forced argument since I have the option of rejecting both options. I might also say that believing in god is not something I can see myself doing and therefore not believe in him. However, if you have noticed, in each case, I have argued against one of the basic assumptions about the belief i.e., it is a live, forced and momentous belief.
I would also argue that using this same sort of logic for anti-vaccination beliefs is not correct. For one, I would say that the belief that vaccines cause autism is more of a trivial one since, while not desirable, autism is not something that will make your life unbeareable. Moreover, it is possible to gather evidence about this belief (tons and tons of it). It is not entirely a forced choice since I have three options: believe that I should vaccinate my kids, believe that I should not vaccinate my kids or believe that I should wait and educate myself more before I vaccinate my kids. The problem with these types of arguments is not that the argument structure is invalid, it is because people try to shoehorn issues into 3 of these boxes when they kind of fall in-between.
TLDR: It is not wrong to believe in something if it is live, forced and momentous if you cannot gather evidence for or against the belief. It does not necessarily make it right however, and if this sort of argument is used to believe in something despite evidence showing otherwise, then it is wrong to hold that belief. The issue with the argument isn't the structure of the argument itself, it is the people making it.
"Imagine a modern day sexist at an American university." You don't have to imagine anything, just take look at any Gender Studies course, where sexism is actually taught.
+Angel Angelov lets also imagine that u actually know what u are talking about and have actually read about it, besides ofc what u read from ur men''s rights act groups who tend to pick and chose information about the feminism moment
+Angel Angelov
Actually you can't be sexist against men- like it's basically impossible.
kappa
+ze diias Or maybe (s)he's saying that exactly because they've read about these courses?
Also, you can pretty much add racism as well.
KNR
sorry can u be more clear? idk if u are saying that +Angel Angelov is right or wrong about this
This ^^^
I think the biggest problem with James's rebuttal, other than that it leads to allowing false beliefs that harm people, is in that last category of momentous vs trivial. These provide a bucket for options that can greatly benefit you and a bucket for options that are pretty unimpactful, but it doesn't even consider that an option could greatly harm you (or others around you). Just because a belief could potentially make you feel happier doesn't mean it won't also harm people around you; and if it does more harm than good, then its benefit to you is irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure you haven't read his other essay on "cash value" which goes into detail exactly what you are saying. And to add I think you are confusing belief with choice, even though belief does influence choice, in this case they are separate matters. And don't forget, James agrees with Clifford, he also agrees to follow the evidence.
ambient0902
James disagrees with Clifford in that he thinks there are certain beliefs which don't require evidence, while Clifford does not. And no, I haven't read his other essay; can you please link me to it (or at least let me know its name to search)? And I'm not confusing belief with choice. Beliefs don't just influence choices, they fully inform them. No one acts on the world as it is, we all only act on the world we believe in. That makes false beliefs just as dangerous as any choices made because of them.
IceMetalPunk "Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results" by William James. To briefly sum up, he argued for choices that "insures" people from future disaster or was better for long-term planning. And yes, you are right- they disagree on that point, that belief needs justification (evidence).
I agree that belief does influence choice, but only to the degree of how the individual deems the belief is held, monumentally or trivial. Some beliefs dont matter if there is an objective or goal at the end. An example would be a racist that sells goods to a colored person, he hates the person but it doesn't impede the transaction from happening (a trivial matter).
A flaw with Clifford's beliefs informing choices is that people can have contradictory beliefs and be aware of them. Suppose a Japanese-american during WW2 and he fights against the Japanese and Axis powers. Assuming he actually had a choice whether to fight against his nationality, to what degree was that choice influenced by belief? The choices we make may be decided by factors other than belief, and not to deny Clifford's argument, but to me James makes a more compelling argument when it comes to choices.
And lastly, I don't think he argued about monumental vs trivial, just that choices can be monumental or trivial. I think I said this point but tacked it rather strangely at the end of my first post. He agrees with Clifford that we should use evidence to support our choices.
You are responsible for your beliefs, everyone needs to constantly hold their's up to the light of this idea
having autism is better than being DEAD. roll up your sleeve!
Ummm...for whom? You obliviously neither HAVE autism or have the on going care in your world of someone who does. This is a highly ignorant and careless statement.
Hvens Fury
really?
you're going to edumacate me?
GoFuckYourself
Humm, I have autism, I believe it's actually better than being dead. Thank you
KingTesticus From the looks of your self- identifying vulgarity, I appears youre past the point of educating. Only the ignorant assume that there is one choice of out come for all soul with similar issues. Many people know that peace awaits them after this life and look forward to the day the are done here. This is not necessarily the same for everyone.
i have autism, and it is better than being dead, ad i believe people with more extreme autism would think the same they dont feel the upset
The things I don't like about the boat analogy:
- We never know everything about everything, so even if you have a perfect-condition newly built boat, you still cannot always guarantee that it will reach its intended destination safely, you cannot predict the future.
- He's taking a situation which is likely to have a bad consequence and ONLY bad consequences and using it as an analogy against religious beliefs, which often have good consequences, such as helping people turn away from alcoholism or practice tolerance, generosity, and other virtues.
- There's no hard and fast measure of how much evidence is sufficient evidence. I mean, it's said he convinces himself the ship is still good, so he must have some reasons to trust it even though there are reasons for doubt. Everyone has to decide for his or her self what is or is not sufficient evidence.
Well you are forgetting that it did have positive possible outcomes. If the ship owner sailed without restoring his ship, he saved money and time. The negative outcome is that he could possibly kill people.
+Rachael Lefler
This is called rationalizing. The analogy given was that the owner had reason to believe (aka evidence) that the boat was unsafe but talks himself out of that belief due to socioeconomic pressures. True the future is not predictable. That's why making decisions based on beliefs with no evidence, or even belief against good evidence, is posited (by Clifford) as morally wrong in any event.
Place yourself on such a boat. You return from the voyage without incident. You discover later that maintenance was severely lacking and the owner of the boat knew it even to the point that he didn't think it would make the trip but sent you all out anyway. How would you feel? Simply lucky? This actually still happens today in automotive (GM/Toyota/VW recently) and aviation industries. Human error is acceptable, willful blindness is not.
Now consider religion. Do you really think there are only good consequences from belief in God and/or following a religion? Do you believe it necessary to believe in God to turn away from self destructive behaviors or generally be tolerant and altruistic? There is no evidence for these beliefs - none. And a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Religious leaders are aware of a severe lack of maintenance and upkeep or refitting required for modern social seas. And they KNOW it and they've convinced themselves (for economic reasons) that religion will keep you safe and they send you on your way. And thank you for your business.
For me the only way belief without evidence is not amoral is if it's Live, Forced, and TRIVIAL. Momentous beliefs have momentous consequences.
"Do you really think there are only good consequences from belief in God and/or following a religion? Do you believe it necessary to believe in God to turn away from self destructive behaviors or generally be tolerant and altruistic?"
That's not what I said.
But you can't argue that there are no good consequences, or that all it is is brainwashing and conniving without benefiting MOST of the people who find an honest and virtuous house of worship.
"For me the only way belief without evidence is not amoral is if it's Live, Forced, and TRIVIAL. Momentous beliefs have momentous consequences."
You could argue that belief in God is more trivial than they usually make it out to be, because it technically only matters much once you're dead, since the Bible says you can neither test God nor always expect God to grant you favors or protect you from suffering. Unless you mesh it with politics, which unfortunately happens way too much since we're a social animal, that's when it has momentous consequences. But not so much in a society where there is religious freedom and no official state religion, there's no real non-personal effects caused by you believing in whatever.
In the time and place these ideas were written religion had a lot more political sway, so it mattered more what you believed in as an individual.
4:36 I study with Harry Potter, y'all
i love what your media company is doing and i see the underlying message. and im interested in learning more about it and how i might help in a meaningful way
The problem with the last argument is that the choice to believe in god is not momentous. Any benefits that could be gained from such a belief could also be gained without it. He fooled himself into thinking it was momentous because he wanted it to be true.
+SchiferlED can you please elaborate how it is not momentous? i am a non-believer myself but can't deny the evidence i see every day - faith has been pretty momentous for the faithful ones. can you make an argument to support your claim?
+SchiferlED Actually, if you 'properly' believe in god, you also believe in a hereafter. Going to heaven instead of hell is, at least if it's all really there, a pretty sweet deal. Of course, the existence of heaven and hell is in itself an unbiased belief, but if you believe in god you also must believe in heaven and hell. This makes it a loop of momentousness, where believe in one makes the other momentous.
There are other, less physical rewards for believing in god, such as comfort. You'll have to ask people that believe in god for more of those, though.
+SchiferlED Well, not momentous to this life, but to the next, if you believe in that.
+SchiferlED What are you talking about? The choice to believe in God is potentially the same as choosing eternal bliss. If that's not a momentous option, I'm not sure what is.
But does it need to be momentous for others to be true? Even fooling yourself does not make the argument wrong.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that, in Clifford's time, the smallpox vaccine had a 10% fatality rate. Much better than the fatality rate during an actual outbreak, but still, you could see why it would be tempting to freeload and rely on herd immunity.
Of course, as the measles comeback proves, herd immunity is a very fragile thing, with only a tiny number of people who can take advantage of it. Those spots need to be reserved for kids with conditions like leukemia, who actually _are_ endangered by vaccines.
Preach!
+aperson22222 While it wasn't as safe as the modern vaccines it was safer than the previous technology which was crushing up smallpox sores and blowing them up people's noses (around %3.) So %10 is a bit too high a guess, I believe it was more like %1 in his case.
+aperson22222 As i have said Many times "A person's Freedom ends, Where My safety Begins" IF your freedoms put me, or my family in danger. Your freedom to do what puts my family in danger ENDS
naihanchin Kempo Technically from a legal standpoint this is the idea for why a lot of possible choices are crimes. This is a big reason why we have laws regarding harassment, "hate" crimes, and restraining orders.
Cedric Kulacz My comment was limited to anti Vaxx ..But can apply to many things..Guns, safe cars, speed limits, safe buildings ..the old saying was" You may have a right to free speech but you can't yell fire in a Movie theater..;)
Shouldn't we ask the question "what constitutes 'evidence' and why?"
That's a difficult question. Anything less than infallible justification is simply subjective, and could open the door to any number of definitions. If justification could mean anything, is it truly justification anymore?
If you claim justification must be infallible, it renders nearly every belief we have unjustified, other than those that are analytic in nature, or formed from deductive arguments. This leaves us with very little ability to say that we know anything, we can't even be certain of most scientific study. As you can see, this causes a lot of issues for a lot of people, so it's not easy to find a good answer to the question.
Intent ... that is why intend is so fundamental to our legal system .... epistemic implies a moral obligation or a reasonable level of curiosity or exploration .... thus we come back to reasonable doubt or reasonable knowledge Does that help?
Wise, witty and wowsome.
Honestly, I was expecting more talk on Conspiracy theories
Same here
+James A Clouder The principle directly applies to conspiracy theories. I think it's entirely fair for him to leave that as an exercise for the student. Can you do it?
I read the title as "Epstein Responsibility"
Jeffery Epistemic didn't kill himself.
You determined that Epstein didn't kill himself with the support of compelling evidence and how it's Live, Forced and Momentous to your well being. Good Day..
100% agree
Bruh me too
0:09
48 million views? If only so many people were interested in philosophy and the pursuit of Truth.
soon my friend,soon
I like this Clifford guy. Came up with some pretty solid ideas.
His views on morality partially depend on results which is problematic.
This episode is still good, 4 years later...
I've been keeping up with this series since episode 10 caught my attention. "What makes an argument cosmological," I asked, and ever since then you have taken me--a devout monotheist--on a very fascinating roller-coaster on what it means to be a religious thinker. Of course, moderate-length-of-time listener, first-time commenter, as until now I have been humbled at how high-end the thoughts and arguments presented have been--both the ones I agree with and disagree with--and this is simply you quoting mostly people who have died hundreds of years ago! Even concepts that I thought myself familiar with, like the Problem of Evil, and the upcoming episode about Pascal's Wager, you have (and very likely will) take it a level above and beyond my previous understanding of the concept.
This episode, however, I feel that I may have something to contribute to the discussion. Repeatedly, the premise was given that religious belief must always be held without evidence--the "blind faith" described by Clifford--and is thus epistemically irresponsible. The only counter-argument given is from William James, that epistemic responsibility can somehow have exceptions, implicitly agreeing that a religious belief must inherently be without evidence.
William James is clearly the weaker philosopher here, and while I cannot blame him for at least trying to level with Clifford, who was essentially calling him an inherently bad person for his beliefs, you basically demolish his premises by pointing out that, in carving out his exception, he simultaneously justifies anti-vaxxers and marginalizes agnostics. I conclude that the more reasonable belief would be that no such magical exception to epistemic responsibility exists.
This leads me to level with W.K. Clifford myself, with a counter-argument of my own demonstrating that my own beliefs are not epistemically irresponsible. I argue that one can empirically have an experience with the divine (also known as a revelation), and use that as evidence for their beliefs. Of course, the sheer existence of atheism implies that not everybody experiences a revelation, but if you know a trusted person who does, it might be a bit of a stretch to imply that the person has lost their mind, especially if nothing else about their behavior would imply it. Such occurrences are not entirely uncommon throughout the history of religion (again, there is even a word for it), so I feel it is safe to say that I am not talking out my butt.
This does not mean that religious thinkers--or, by extension, thinkers in general--are free from epistemic responsibility. I would dare say that one who has never questioned their beliefs believes them for all the wrong reasons, and is highly susceptible to dogmatism to boot. This is not even going over the impact such a person has on others. No, one should not necessarily be afraid of having their beliefs called into question, but instead embrace knowledge! One should strive to learn more about the world and why one should or should not have whatever beliefs they might hold. Personally, all of my worldly experiences and knowledge thereof have only fortified my own beliefs.
+TazTheYellow
I hope this series eventually does a segment on personal revelation. It's incredibly persuasive when you have it, and not at all persuasive when you don't.
I don't expect that'll you'll ever return to see this, and if you do please know that I'm not specifically targeting you or your personal belief (if there is such a thing).
If pressed, I would chalk "revelation" to mis-attribution. People are aware of the christian god, and when something remarkable happens they are often lead to the conclusion that his divine intervention was the mechanism. In other times and places different gods and goddesses were substituted (god of war, goddess of fertility, etc) and no evidence presented through this very day has made those people any less right (or wrong) than people today who claim God changed their life.
Regarding whether the belief in any deity is inherently evil- ehh...this might get messy. A LOT of people (in the U.S. at least) has been introduced to the idea of transgender individuals in the last few years. Now if you (royal) subscribe to the 7 days, man and a woman version of events this might strike you as the devil's work, morally wrong, etc. Modern medical science, however, is looking into the matter and they have some ideas. Prominently, the notion that different parts of the brain and body develop at different times both before and after birth, and an influx or absence of certain hormones at any point in this process can leave an individual with a "male" body and a "female" brain. Additionally, the idea of primary and secondary characteristics existing on a spectrum (more feminine, more masculine, rather than binary male or female trait) is relatively new to the popular conscious. I'm very interested to see where this work might end up, but some people, perhaps too many, are utterly convinced that they "know" all they need to on the subject as a byproduct of their faith/belief in God, and those people wield considerably power when it comes to crafting legislation that funds research, provides legal protections, and access to certain services (hormone therapy or SRS).
This IS a dangerous amount of power for people who feel fully justified in their ignorance.
Maybe this doesn't apply to you, and, again, I don't wish to assume that it does, but those in your position should be VERY aware that your religion DOES hurt people.
@@Lawrence330 You have no idea how keenly aware of that that I am. Incidentally, that was, in fact, the very subject of my revelation.
Hi Crash Course team! I really loved this video and would love to read more about epistemic responsibility. Were there are any books that were used in researching or writing this episode that I could look up? I was also wondering if you guys ever considered making reading lists to go with your courses or individual lessons? It's always good to cite your sources so that people can see how your train of thought in the episode was developed, and it would provide a road to further exploration if they want to learn more. Thanks!
I initially disagreed with the pop-quiz experiment, but I now realize that it's brilliant.
What happens when there's a vaccine for RUclips comments about a vaccine for autism?
+tohopes that's the thing, vaccine's cause autism .
I think the focus on God is an amazing muse for this series. At first i had a dry, nervous taste in my mouth but I like how things are moving along.
+Jared Prymont I agree, though I hope it doesn't overstay its welcome. I'd like to see them cover other topics which would be very difficult to connect directly to the topic of God.
Wow, the comment section is calmer than expected 😅
This is why Hank Green would make an awesome presenter at the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism.
next video: Pascals wager. stay tuned. lol
I agree. Lol
2:15
Well I would remind Mr. Clifford that "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
"Only" is an absolute term, i.e. if you say "only" then you must be a Sith. Just as Obi Wan could walk away from Anakin, neither joining him nor fighting him, it's possible to deal in absolutes and not be a Sith. I conclude that by Obi's own logic, he must also be a Sith.
I ask myself this question before overtime I go driving. I have no way of guaranteeing that I'll get from point A to point B unscathed, and yet I risk it anyway because I must. Does this make me an immoral person then?
One of the big issues is the idea that belief is somehow voulentary. Belief is a compulsion that results from your brain processing information. You might believe things for bad reason or make big mental exceptions to examining some beliefs rationally, but the belief itself is a compulsion. You cannot choose to believe or not to believe, you either believe or don't believe. You can choose to own your beliefs or pretend to hold different beliefs, this is however seperate from what beliefs you actually hold.
I don't recall as much God stuff from when I studied philosophy many years ago. I just remember the motorcycle maintenance.
+Brad Evans I don't mind the God stuff so much, but I hope they do episodes over, for example, symbolic logic or Venn diagrams, or otherwise secular tools used to analyze philosophical arguments.
+Brad Evans
I think thats because you did it in school and not over the internet, different rules and such.
Religion is based on emotion supported by zero evidence, so I'm glad their discussing it. Question everything!
+Star Dreamers I think back then philosophy students & bible thumpers kept to their own corners. Now the gloves are off.
Like it or not, God is there (whether as an idea or a reality).
Why can't the quiz happen on Monday or Tuesday?
I hope ethics gets as many episodes as religion
The story of the ship owner got me thinking about the origin story for the name of the band Twenty One Pilots (I was obsessed with them in high school).
Essentially, the lead singer, Tyler, read a play called All My Sons in which a man who sold parts to plane during one of the World Wars (don't remember which one) received news that a batch of his parts were faulty/flawed/likely to cause harm and the man was faced with the moral crossroads of either selling the parts anyway for the financial gain, at the risk of their malfunction, or not selling them, taking the financial blunder but doing the "safe" and "right" thing.
He decided to sell them anyway and they malfunctioned (surprise, surprise) and, as a result, twenty one pilots died. So there's a fun fact about the band story (still obsessed with them, tattoo and all, #1 fav of my whole life) and come to find out it parallels a famous philosophical parable.
Yeehaw.
"Next week gamble your way to god"
Pascals Wager calling it.
+Simon Walker (Simawesome) Safe bet.
+Simon Walker (Simawesome) Obviously.
Should be fun, of all the arguments for belief that is one of the worst and most easily trashed.
Jigkuro Yet somehow still so widely used. To the point where i get sick of talking about it.
Ali Hussain Al-Nasser Well if im wrong i lose nothing, but if you're wrong.....
Ali Hussain Al-Nasser Nothing. It was a Pascals Wager joke.
5:12 Harry Potter in the background
What about all those times when (plausible) conspiracy theories turn out to be true.....? 👀
+Alicia Gomez Withhold believe until believe is justified.
Do you know of any conspiracy that has turned out to be true in the last century within science?
+Tsuyara list25.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/ . Google is a useful tool :)
Alicia Gomez
None of them seem to be within science, so i don't get why you linked me this site?
political science and phycology are both sciences so...
Alicia Gomez
Yes, but i still don't see how that relates to the list.
You come highly recommended at my former college.