Street Epistemology: Wally (2) | Investigating Faith
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- San Antonio, Texas
Recorded: 9 April 2015
Uploaded: 10 April 2015
Twitter: / magnabosco
Facebook: / magnabosco210
IMPORTANT LINKS BELOW!
Wally happened by so we picked up our discussion on faith after a bit of friendly chit-chat. The conversation ends with Wally agreeing to investigate how the faith he uses is any different than the faith someone else might use for non-religious means.
Related Talks:
tinyurl.com/PL-...
Mistakes:
Please let me know if you notice any mistakes so that I can address them here for self-improvement.
NOTE: I may have used the abbreviation 'SE' and/or misspelled 'Str_eet Epi_stem_ology' on purpose to help searchers find the best examples of this method.
MY FAVORITES
~
My Favs 2017: tinyurl.com/PL-...
My Favs 2016: tinyurl.com/PL-...
My Favs 2015: tinyurl.com/PL-...
My Favs 2014: tinyurl.com/PL-...
DIG DEEPER
~
Critiques: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Interviews: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Others: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Presentations: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Quick-Clips: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Random: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Tutorials: tinyurl.com/PL-...
CAPTIONED (contact me to help create more)
~
Dutch: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Finnish: tinyurl.com/PL-...
French: tinyurl.com/PL-...
German: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Greek: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Norwegian: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Persian: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Portuguese: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Spanish: tinyurl.com/PL-...
CATEGORIES (grouped videos)
~
Atheists: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Elderly: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Chi Alpha: tinyurl.com/PL-...
CRU: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Karma: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Relativism: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Spiritual: tinyurl.com/PL-...
RESOURCES (meet others using and learning this approach)
~
SE Website: tinyurl.com/SE-...
Facebook Group: tinyurl.com/SE-...
Facebook Page: tinyurl.com/SE-...
Read the Book: Peter Boghossian: 'A Manual for Creating Atheists'
tinyurl.com/SE-...
Get the App: Peter Boghossian: 'Atheos' (Android and iOS)
tinyurl.com/SE-...
RETIRED (Unlisted [no longer Public] videos, likely for good reason)
~
Retired 2017: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Retired 2016: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Retired 2015: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Retired 2014: tinyurl.com/PL-...
Retired 2013: tinyurl.com/PL-...
TECHNICAL
~
Video captured using Go-Pro
Video edited using PowerDirector
The views addressed here are mine and mine alone, and are not necessarily shared by members of my family and friends.
This is really great stuff. A good question might have been,"Wally, would you prefer if the suicide bomber applied skepticism to his beliefs? Instead of having them in a separate category exempt from criticism?"
thats good!
One thing that comes through time and time again with the religious believers is what Dan Dennett calls "belief in belief". They think it's important to "believe in" something. They'll frequently even say things like, "You've got to believe in something or you've got nothing." That to me is the real sheep dip of religion, convincing people that faith is a virtue.
Wally seems like a good dude. I feel I know people like him, with his reasoning - including my past self. On the surface he may not be curious or doubtful, rationalizing that he's assisting you on your personal journey to God. But I think under the surface he's struggling with the dissonance and looking to understand it from another view. This was a great video with some revelatory moments. Thanks Anthony.
+cloudofthought Wow. I really hope you are correct. Thanks for sharing your insights.
I thought the exact same thing, especially about knowing people with really similar ways of thinking (like my formal self, like you)
Really old comment lol but I think you may be true. I don't believe that's ALWAYS the case by any means but it often can be - many atheists' deconversion stories have some aspect of them saying that while they still believed they would put up a very secure front when in reality they had secret doubts that they struggled with
He is so freaking comfortable with his own cognitive dissonance, it's just baffling to me. For example at 3:21 and 8:30 he agrees that his faith is exempt from any skepticism and later he describes himself as a very skeptical person ( 19:57 ) which throws Anthony off understandably.
Or when he says that he would be skeptical about man made things and catches the fact that the bible is entirely man made ( starting 5:19 ) But there is instantly a circular justification "it was breathed through god" -> not even this throws him off. This level of comfort with cognitive dissonance is scary. His logic unit might be beyond repair.
Thulyblu Can you say compartmentalized? Which leads me to think, whatever God Wally is hoping exists, he doesn't base his self-worth or personal identity on it.
@7:20 I'd like to know what Wally thinks believing (hoping) God is real stands for? And for someone who claims not to be wishy washy.... Wally is.
+Thulyblu ''beyond repair'' LOL!
4 years ago. it's not baffling. it's a comforting.
people keep using this term "cognitive dissonance" i do not think it means what you think it means.
@@HarryNicNicholas What do you think it means?
These are BY FAR the most interesting videos in the Great Debate community right now. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. Glad to hear it. Can you direct me to this 'Great Debate' group? Is ths Facebook, Google+, Reddit? I would love to check it out.
+IRLeif +Anthony Magnabosco
If you watch and comment on (and especially if you produce) RUclips videos on these big questions (Is there a God? What is morality? Why is there something rather than nothing? Did the universe have a beginning?), then you're in the Great Debate community. There's no group that I'm aware of, though there probably should be one!
Anthony, my favorite part of this one was when you asked him not just what percent certain he was of his belief, But what percent important is it to him that he believe in things that are actually true. I think this new question is an even better starting question to use… Most people will probably say it's important whether things are true or not, Which then leads the discussion to how do we tell if things are true or not (which is very different then discussing help fervently someone believes them). Great videos
GodVlogger I pray that you can finally find satisfaction with your wife and your children. God knows you and wants youbto accept his unboundful love. In Jesus name amen.
Bingo
I really admire your patience, Anthony. I enjoy discussing religion and faith with theists - I was chatting with a Jehovah's Witness for over an hour this afternoon - but I would have ripped my hair out talking to this guy. I certainly don't think he was a bad person, but he didn't seem particularly interesting, just deluded, wilfully ignorant and a bit smug.
I guess he was an interesting subject, though, seeing as he said he was sure he was right about his beliefs based purely on faith, which I find to be totally ridiculous as I think that religious faith is pretty much the definition of wilful ignorance.
I'm looking forward to watching your other videos. Cheers.
Nilguiri Yes. I’m not alone in what I was thinking about this guy!
Another compliment I want to send to Wally is I think he's a very chill guy. He knows he's talking to someone who does not agree with him, but he never gets frustrated or angry, or never raises his voice any. I think Wally's a respectful guy.
That’s a very good observation. Thanks for watching.
"Yet that faith would guide that same individual... getting ready to detonate that bomb and kill innocent people."
"We live in a crazy world." *wide grin*
That just floored me. How can he be both so cavalier toward killing and so lacking in any self awareness?
Good observation.
+Andrew Beaumont
Part of it is his indoctrination by religion.
Part of it is his indoctrination by government.
In the first Wally video, when Anthony asked how reliable a belief is if you have to wait until death to see which religion is true, Wally seemed very casual about dying himself.
If a person foolishly believes in "forever", they can be very cavalier about "now".
I realize the post is years old, but he is cavalier because of the 100% indoctrinated conviction. The Xian believer thinks that other belief systems are incorrect, wrong and evil. He literally believes that muslims are following the devil, and that when they die they are going to be shocked to wake up in the Xian hell. He thinks this about anyone believing in anything other than his particular brand of Xianity. Those so indoctrinated cannot see any danger to their own irrational, fanatical beliefs. The scary fact is these people could be convinced to charge head first in to a just war, or a holy war in a heartbeat.
I hope to see you guest host on AE again. That was the best episode in a while. You and Matt make a formidable team
Many people say that they have a "personal relationship" with their god.
Maybe you might ask them to define what that relationship is and compare this to an actual one.
Are they willing to have an actual personal relationship, with someone that is an actual living human being. Using the same definition given to their "personal relationship" with their god.
I'm loving the second question (at 2:35)! I want to see that get asked more! (In your videos, and in the world in general.)
I love seeing Wally's nervous laugh. It shows that he is considering and making his own connections about how he arrived at his beliefs. It makes me feel hopeful that he will keep questioning.
I love the SE conversations you do. I usually find them relaxing.
This conversation made me so uncomfortable and had me shaking in my seat. He really doesn't seem to have the slightest problem with the suicide bomber?! He doesn't even seem to care whether his belief is true.
Joshua Berndt Thanks for watching so many of my videos. Yes, there was something about his reaction to this discovery that was a bit unnerving. I suspect it may have been a front and he just needs time to process it.
It’s always fascinatingly bizarre to me how some people continue to express the circular and question-begging assumption that we will all find out the truth to these theological and afterlife questions when and after we die. Yes, we will....or we won’t. Up to this point, there’s no good reason to assume a dead bing can “find out” anything.
With street epistemology you've been approaching people on a rational level, but religious beliefs have more of an emotional tie for people. Emotional decisions can't be argued with in a rational manner, so perhaps some other technique more designed with dealing with the emotional nature of things can be examined.
Paul Wilkins I half agree. Some people really will dismiss anything and everything. But religious people are still just that, people. People that would see honesty as a good thing and do recognize bad reasoning when pointing it out.
Religious people aren't that different from non-religious people. They just fell for some of the evolutionairy properties we have that has helped us survive in the past (seeing agency even if there is none, etc). And hell, I know I do at times as well. But if you recognize the problem and can adjust yourself, then I don't see that as a problem.
This way of talking to people is specifically to trigger that moment of realization. So I do think it works for most, if not all, *honest* religious people. And in this case I mean honest towards themselves
Paul Wilkins To borrow from the Atheist Experience, it's not always the person you're talking to whose mind will be changed. Sometimes, it's a believer observing the discussion and hearing things they might say being said by someone else. When they're not the one being asked the questions, their defenses are down and they're more receptive to the idea that the arguments are complete gibberish. The audience, rather than the participants, are the targets. While these videos help all of us do this better, the greater service is creating archetypal iterations of poor religious "logic" that religious believers can more easily view as the poor logic that it is.
And planting a seed can grow over time.
I really appreciate your tone and tact. I have been struggling with those things and this is a great example of how to get the most out of these conversations.
Thanks!!
Great job Anthony, I thought you almost had converted him a couple times! He is a tough cookie who obviously won't let go (yet) because of the extremely popular comfort-factor.
If you want advice, I'd suggest have a short sentence or two after you talk about the comfort factor that says life is amazing, beautiful, awe-inspiring etc etc without the idea of God. It would give them something soft to grasp/consider as an alternative instead of what they hear as 'You should stop being weak and get over being comfortable. Right now.' Give them a pillow to land on when you give them such a big blow :P
Love your interviews! Keep up the good and frequent work!
Trent Sickle "convert"
okBryan
It was a joke ;)
I am aware it is hilarious and common for religious apologetics to talk about 'converting' to Atheism, like that is even a thing.
Hello, everyone! Hello, Anthony! Great talk!
This was addressed in many of the other comments here, but I just wanted to say that I really loved the idea of a second scale you introduced at around 2:00 to measure how much Wally wants to believe true things.
I’ve had the opportunity to watch many of your other conversations and I kind of have the feeling that some people do want to hold on to their beliefs, even if they’re not true. This might not even be clear to them, but they could be valuing their belief because of confort, hope, group belonging, self-identification, feeling of safety, an explanation for the unknown/filling the gaps of knowledge, a moral or ethics system of values, and so forth, and I think these could be powerful reasons.
An SE might take for granted that people do want to believe true things and only ask that passingly, but maybe a good number of people have other reasons for holding on to their belief, and be intimidated by an unnuanced/direct question like “Do you want to believe in true things?”
With a scale of 0 to 100, however, much like what happens with the normal, confidence-your-belief-is-true scale, the interlocutor might feel that there would be no right or wrong answer and be willing to explore that a bit more openly.
Something like “On a scale from 0 to 100, how much does it make a difference that God really exists, with 100 being if God wasn’t there, I’d drop the belief altogether, and 0 if God didn’t exist, I’d still keep the belief because I have other (maybe even better) reasons to remain commited to it. …I wouldn’t need for the existence of God to be provable to take something good out of the belief.”
I understand it really really might sound silly that people would want to believe something that is not true, but if those alternative reasons are strong (and I have a feeling they many times could be) and aren’t unpacked, the IL will probably not think about them and the autopilot kicks in.
The focus on this second, how-much-does-it-being-true-make-a-difference scale might help with some conversations that reach a dead-end when the interlocutor, confronted with the unreliability of faith, etc, admits that it’s not reliable but still wants to hold on to the belief.
The second conversation with Maheep is, I think, a great example of an ocurrence of this sort of dead-end, where he admits faith is unreliable, but still wants to hold on to the belief -- for reasons that aren’t made clear in the talk. The conversation with Sarah and Kyle might also be an example, in some way. I’d have to watch it one more time to be sure. And also of course the conversations with Wally. In fact, he quickly admits he’s not at the 100% spot on the second scale.
I’ve lately been thinking and being more alert to this type of belief foundation and I believe there might be a bit of an unexplored area here.
As a sidenote, I live in Portugal and for me, as a skeptic, the sort of themes I come into contact with more often ‒ or at least those I’m more interested in ‒ are pseudosciences, alternative medicine, as well as more “spiritual” New Age topics like Reiki, positive thinking/magic thoughts, everything happens for a reason, etc, so my opinion here might be influenced by that, of course.
But I sort of feel those topics function, in SE terms, in very much the same way as religious themes.
Does this make any sense?? :P
Thanks! ;)
Also, Wally seems like a really cool guy and very open to discussing.
I'm sorry to say but I think Wally is just not a deep thinker and is proud of it.
+TheAstraeuss
And from his attitude in this video, Wally has no intentions of investing the effort required to dig any deeper.
he is a thinker. he just comes to to irrational conclusion. when wil atheist stop berating others for their believes when they are not the intrinsic problem.-----------------
@@michelledavis3484 Excuse me, but who was Anthony berating here? When will theists fulfill their burden of proof? I'm sixty years old and have been waiting for theists to fulfill their burden of proof since I was a child of eight.
Anthony's technique is passive/aggressive. you only have the burden of proof in a court of law or a debate in logic.
@@michelledavis3484 No one does not. One bears a burden of proof for any positive claim. I am sixty years old and stopped believing in ancient mythology when I was eight years old. I am still waiting for those who claim that gods exist to provide evidence that supports their claim.
"Sometimes we like to believe things that aren't necessarily true".
Try interviewing an Apple FanBoy sometime :)
The reason I got out of believing in god was that I decided to take it seriously and dig deep into its roots to find evidence and validity for it so I could be totally confident believing it. What I found made me discard not only christianity, but all religions as complete and total man made mythology. People who casually believe solely on "faith" aren't serious about their beliefs.
When applied to cults, faith requires the absence of skepticism. Faith can't exist in the same space as skepticism when it come to belief in a cult.
A very good interview, and fascinating to watch as well.
I'm wondering, what more would this interview have needed in order for you to call it 'street epistemology' instead of 'secular exchange'?
It's all subjective. Basically, I ask myself: "is it good enough to want it to come up in a search for 'street epistemology' within RUclips proper?". It's kind of funny you asked this as I am working with a few others who do this type of thing to develop some standards around what constitutes an "ideal" encounter so we have some standards as others also begin posting interventions.
Wally turns off his brain with anything he can put in the category of "faith"...he's more honest on this point than many.
People have emotional reasons to cling to their religious beliefs. It's hard to reason with people who haven't opened up about their emotional need to hold a specific belief.
Would you consider exploring this aspect in further conversations with Wally and others.
"I'm a very skeptical person" ... "You are- what!"
IKR! I LOLed. 🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆
i think this new take on the scale thing may open a new window into the mind of the believer and is a great idea. good job, man.
Anthony, your videos are shifting the way I converse. Thank you!
Just a quick suggestion; maybe avoid using the phrase 'homework assignment'. I think it holds a little bit of a teacher-student relationship vibe (+ consequently dictating a power bias) and it may make some people uncomfortable.
Perhaps try 'Would you mind looking into ... a bit more so we can discuss it next time we meet?'.
Ammar Suleman Yeah, you're probably correct. It's not the first time I've heard that complaint. I have to remind myself to use some other phrasing, like maybe "thought experiment."
How do people not get the "your faith is indistinguishable from the faith of the people that disagree with you " ( Matt Dillahunty ) argument ? I just don't get it.
I'm having a conversation with a particularly stubborn theist, and it's frustrating right now. Watching this interview really helps me feel better and hopeful.
How do you know you are not the stubborn one?
I mean this in the nicest way possible, here's an example of a guy that has never had his faith challenged.He's never been asked the question why he's only comfortable believing in his god based on faith, but nothing else in his life. It seems like (just an assumption) his friends and family are all believers and everyone around him doesn't doubt - to them it's "obviously" true" - not even worth questioning.
And it's hard to get someone like that to actually look at it rationally.
I have to say.... I like that he was willing to speak to you again and to "do his homework". Theres something really nice about that. Seems like a nice kid.... I hope he can logic his way out into the world of reason. Right now he is happy to suspend his thinking faculties in relation to a god.
Style Sisters Nyc The God of israel.
Just a thought but I wonder if you dubbed this and used Allah and the Quran where he mentions jesus and the Bible and you showed it to other Christian students would they see his precisely where his reasoning as to the validity of his belief was flawed.
I just had a thought. A street epistemologist is like a physical therapist. Religion robs people of critical thinking ( at least in the area of their beliefs) in the same way getting hurt and lying around in bed makes you lose muscle. But to gain muscle ( logic) back you have to start small and work your way up.
Watching these videos what stands out to me is how there is that line, that place where a reasonable person, comes to where they admit doubt. I have some friends, one an orthodox Jew, who believe in their god but acknowledge their doubt (because they have no evidence in support of their belief.) I can get that. But to belief something and be comfortable saying they have no doubt because they have faith is, in my way of thinking, inconceivable to me. And, troubling to think we are surrounded by people who would say the same thing this fellow says. We have certainly taken one step back from the Age of Enlightenment and have at least one foot in the Dark Ages. And this guy does seem like a sweet person.
Phillip, it is scary that we are heading backwards and the centuries of enlightenment are under real threat. I have watched many of these videos now, and wonder, statistically how many people hold such fanatical (but extremely polite) views, not certain how else to write it. I am rather hoping that it is a very small minority, certainly in the UK (I am from Scotland) people appear to be much more self-critical.
The very depressing thing about these interviewees seems to be that they are a college and young. Why are they not taught critical thinking and philosophy. My son is at University and recently proclaimed to be atheist (we are Muslim); through that challenge and all these years, i have come to the realisation that all religions are no more than blind faith, designed to control people using, probably, our evolutionary need to tell social stories and desperation to find explanations.
Through work of people like Anthony, perhaps the seeds are being sown to change.
One final thought: oftentimes (actually almost every time) it is almost impossible for people to admit they are wrong in public. But in private that may reflect and adjust their reliance on faith. So i am optimistic.
"You're not in that group" Timeless.
great video Anthony! (even though it's old) and I'm from the suburbs that are close to Chicago
Do the people you have these conversations with know about and watch themselves on your videos?
semidemiurge Good question. I wonder how they would feel, watching themselves saying the things they said from the "outside".
I hope they see it. It's mostly when looking back on your own answers that you start finding problems with them. Would be awesome to see some feedback from some of the people anthony has interviewed. Hell, even if it was just something negative, it shows that the interaction had 'some' impact
I hope Wally see this video, and realize the illogicality (if that's a word) in his reasoning.
wally is a good sport, most theists would become aggressive when their faith is challenged. just two civilised adults conversing. :)
At 31:00 we see the true issue with Wally's view. He says that even though others may use faith to believe things like Sasquatch, his use of faith is better/more correct because it's about his god. Faith as a tool is only flawed for other people who don't use it for the Christian god.
I honestly don't know how you combat that thinking. It's a way to say that even though the method of finding truth is flawed, because my view is so important, it isn't flawed in this case. Follow that with Wally saying his view on god gets exempt from skepticism, it shows he is unwilling to acknowledge he is being bias in his views. If Wally's were to commit the same atrocities the Islam in the example earlier in the video committed, he would be able to say that it was wrong for the other person to commit the bombing but he (Wally) would be justified in the exact same actions. The flaw in faith only exists for other people than me.
Bottom line: his best reason is the promise of eternal life. He's ripe to be made to do just about anything if you can just manage to attach that promise to it. Give me money, hate that group, oppose this law......because God and heaven!
uhoh...you know the SE session is going downhill when Anthony starts doing more of the talking than the subject, and the subject is smiling and holding his tongue! :)
Man all that beeping and clacking from industrial equipment is annoying. Do you need a boom mic?
Why is Pascal's wager such a convincing argument? How people can't see through it straight away is beyond me.
+Luca Di Bon
It only seems convincing because it is based upon a god that has jealous, vindictive and retributive (all human) characteristics. If god was truly all merciful, understanding and omniscient, Pascal's premise would collapse under it own derision.
I noticed a couple times in these exchanges Wally seems to get to something that sounds like doubt when he says that we'll only really know if he's right after we're dead or if Jesus comes back.
That's confusing to me, since he seems to recognize that he doesn't know if his belief is true, despite being ostensibly 100% confident that it's true.
Maybe it would have been worthwhile to ask him if there's a difference between "knowing" and "believing" or "knowledge" and "faith", and what that means to him if so. What's the difference between being 100% certain in his "faith" and "knowing" that it's true? I suspect his answer to that might have gotten to something interesting.
my assessment ....he smart enough to understand the logic presented by anthony ....he's just being stubborn ....plain and simple.
ian philip
His whole life revolves around religion. Family, probably friends. He was indoctrinated so early, he doesn't even question it. And don't forget, if you hanging from a branch, don't release it, until you have another one to hold on to.
I could not have resisted asking "why would god care if people believe in him or not" in response to "maybe god wants true believers".
For me it's the most obviously incorrect belief 99% of religious people have in common no matter what sect/faith they belong too.
I am fond of asking "Why would a god be jealous? Doesn't Occam's razor suggest that it is the priests who are jealous, and they then tell you that your god is jealous because it's a great way to keep your attendance and tithes from going to another priest?".
This is one of the most level, amicable, enjoyable ones I have watched...and the most terrifying. I just don't get it. Guess I never will.
I've just started learning about street epistemology and watching these videos. Faith comes up a lot, and it seems to me that in many cases faith is a directive that these people give to themselves. They require themselves to believe, no matter what. Or do they have faith because their god requires them to have faith? If so then how can their belief in that god be the result of faith?
Susan Robinson Good questions! Are you in the Private Street Epistemology Facebook Group yet?
Anthony Magnabosco I sent a request to join the private group but I don't think I've been approved yet.
Susan Robinson Sorry to hear that. We're pretty cautious on who we allow to join the private group for atheists only. There's a second group now that allows people regardless of their views on any beliefs. Any case, please private message me on Facebook and we will get it figured out.
Perhaps it is because we are both Marines, but I give him big credit for being willing to go home and research something and to have the desire/openness to talk about his religion. Odd how he doesn't see the problem in applying faith in such an inconsistent manner. Perhaps he will come back and understand the point you are making a little better.
ripcurl711711 Marine or not, I commend and admire Wally on his willingness to research how his religious faith is any different than "secular" faith.
ripcurl711711 I think there's something to the military background. He maintains a steady smile while he speaks, and seems to look past Anthony, perhaps over his head (Anthony could better speak to this), and he's wearing sunglasses. These are all defensive. A smile is a means of asserting that one is unconcerned, but a couple times we see that smile turn pensive and introspective when there is no easy pat response to offer. Looking beyond a person avoids eye contact, which helps reduce the likelihood of being intimidated (intimidation can be internal, perceived due to internal conflicts caused by external forces). Dark sunglasses hide the eyes, making it difficult for the other party to observe cues to his state of mind. I do understand that it's Texas and sunny, and he might be a super cheerful guy like he kind of seems to be, and his gaze might just be a camera angle issue. They're thoughts, anyway.
I'd wager to say that if he were to see Wally in the future and Wally had been shaken, he wouldn't be wearing sunglasses.
The shades also made reading Paul harder until his stance got very defensive and he started trying to anticipate the questions. I think, if these were all done without sunglasses, there would be a little less circular reasoning because they'd know their eyes were betraying them once they started realizing their words didn't make sense. It's too easy to blurt things out when you don't have to worry about people seeing your involuntary eye movements that would let the listener know they didn't really believe what they were saying.
Randy Wanat I actually just met with Wally a third time yesterday. Same dark sunglasses and hat, same cryptic smiles. Thanks for your comments, and be sure to read the video description field of our third encounter, which should be uploaded soon.
Anthony Magnabosco I think I may have misread his head position. It might be less looking past and more jutting the chin forward defiantly as a sign of confidence. I also would be interested in seeing him without a backpack, so his arms aren't given an was way to be kept cocked. Perhaps a sitting discussion would be more conducive to that.
Absolutely doesn't care about what's true, and he even acknowledges it. I can't relate to that mindset even a little bit.
When asked if the faith in bigfoot, nessy etc. was the same as the faith he had in god, he deflected by saying that they are not equivalent because the faith in god holds much more importance. The first thing that comes to mind, for me, is that if a god based belief is so much more important, and has much more implications in your life, wouldn't you want to scrutinize that belief even more thoroughly, to ensure that you are correct?
But, you were saying you found that asking people about whether faith is a reliable pathway to truth is not effective?
Anthony Magnabosco: I'm a little disappointed though because I was planning to use that as my ace in the hole, if you will. Is it ineffective because it gets them to put their guards up? I have to confess, btw, that I have not read "A Manual...Atheists" yet.
This is somewhat scary. He admits his faith and the Muslim going to bed are the same and he's perfectly ok with it. This 'little' process is going to make you a strong believer? I hope he watches himself in this. Great questions Anthony!
This is a lot like watching a member of the Manson Family talk.
bob tompkins sadly ...not far off.
Hope Wally has watched this..
I haven't seen Wally 3 yet..
But I will.
Has Wally ever read the Bible cover to cover? What does he do with all the contradictions in the Bible or the fact it is impossible to create a coherent timeline for Jesus with what is written in the Bible?
This is revelating. And maybe you should ask him that since our own truth is the most important thing, maybe he just believes his reality, whether it is "true" or not, is a better reality to follow. We all have filters to get through life, and sometimes you need that filter to get through life, even if it is not true.
Wally's argument..ignorance is bliss...
Sad.
Wally's faith in his belief seems like someone's love of their child. It's like, no matter what happens - you will always love them. Even if someone points to all their flaws, failings and criminality, you can sort of acknowledge all of that, find reasons and still love them. One of my relatives has a grandson who is repeatedly in trouble with drugs, violence and unemployment etc - she keeps telling him, no matter what happens or what he does she will _always_ love him.
In Wally's case, I don't think he sees any flaws in the idea of unconditional love - or any conditionality in his love for his god. But there might be some conditions. This is where epistemology kind of falls back on specific apologetics for specific dogma though. In a way, he's not making a knowledge claim of anything but his own feelings. Is this a kind of apatheism?
Yay! Anthony finally got the Holy Spirit in him. 🤣
Wally should think on this "History is written by the winners"
"Goddammit Wally was right" hahah that got me
I think some believers claim 100% certainty because any less would mean they are wavering in their faith and therefore sinning against god. So even if they have a little doubt or questions, which I'm sure they do, they suppress them.
"On our deathbed and going into the next step of our lives."
No, Wallace. Dying is last step. If there is a step after that, we would not call it "life."
What if the boxes are there but are empty?
unicornicopia weird shit
hey, no fair...
you peeked.
I think it was the first chat that Wally said god doesn't give good evidence because it would take away our free will.
So in this chat, if god was annoyed by the tower of babel and changed people's languages, was that taking away the free will of those people?
Anthony: Havrnt finished the video yet but this just occurred to me. You May appreciate this question. Ask the believer, don't you wish the person going to bed planning to blow themselves up and feeling good about it valued 100% what is true, thus enabling you to convince them that they are dying for a false belief? Follow up question, then shouldn't you also prioritize 100% what is true in all instances?
Looks like basically did but I'm suggesting emphasis on the person's desire for the suicide bomber to value what is true above all else. I feel like that should be more explicit. Even though that is an extreme example.
He’s loving that Kool-Aid
Well.. I guess we ought to give Wally some credit for not doing the standard wishy washy thing about requiring evidence. He just admits that it's faith and that's it and nothing else. A lot of people try to insert their faith into the stack of evidence as though that helps bolster their case.
Wally seems like a real honest guy. Misguided, perhaps. But honest.
If Wally died and a god said that Wally is going to be tortured for 1 trillion years because the criteria to avoid that was to have believed in the Greek gods, would Wally be upset there wasn't better evidence for the existence of those gods and that criteria?
Wow. So a "skeptical" person believes not only in God but that the "Tower of Babel" was a real thing. Somehow all of our languages were made by God upset about a "tower" that was too tall...
Yet when we sent a man into space He did nothing... Just saying.
I wonder if he is totally comfortable throwing the party, and not needing to check the box...because he KNOWS the box is filled with nothing BUT his beliefs. If FAITH is all you need, you don't need God to ACTUALLY be real, just a consistent, unquestioned system for you to put his faith towards.
I find it interesting that Wally has to keep reminder the questioner faith instead of the word belief. He keeps stating faith. There is a difference between faith and belief.
One thing that annoys me about how uninterested the guy seems to be about the truth of his religion is that it supposedly influences his daily decisions.
Religions influence people when it comes to what to do with their money, who to hang out with, who to vote for, etc.
To be so uninterested in knowing if it is true is very dangerous.
I don't understand that attitude when it comes to the supposed foundation of his ethics.
You've definitely got him thinking now. Hopefully he can think criticality and overcome his indoctrination
Wow....no words.
3:20-3:30 Is fucking FASCINATING to me. If Wally is truly a skeptic, which I would believe since he's in the nutrition/wellness industry, I think he's a small leap from atheism. As someone that must evaluate truth claims based on evidence constantly in his field, surely he can make the correlation with faith claims.
C M Fascinating, indeed. At the time of this interview, Wally devalued evidence and saw faith as virtuous for his cherished God belief. Essentially, caring out an exception when it comes to believing in a God.
Having faith in myself is much more comfortable for me, than faith in an invisible, middle eastern ghost thing in an old book.
Seems Wally is just like the rest of us in that he is doing the best he can to get through the day.
What seems a problem is that he can not step back from his beliefs.
See Andrew Beaumont's excellent comment below.
he does use faith for everyday things, it's just in automatic mode: discriminating etc. on the basis of a faith, which has no basis in reality
I honestly don't buy Wally's arguments for faith. He would rather rely entirely on faith rather than have an equal mix of faith and evidence, and yet when it comes to his diet, that's when he's skeptical (i.e. relies mostly on evidence). He then asserts that faith is a guide rather than blinders. If faith is a guide and he's not willing to pick an optimal diet based on faith, does that mean that he's going in blind when it comes to his diet, even though he asserts that he would rather be skeptical (and presumably be guided by verifiable evidence)? "Faith as a guide" is a complete contradiction.
I'm just glad that Wally is not a jihadist or whatever brand of fundamentalist is willing to be a suicide bomber (as far as I know).
Can anyone tell me what he has connected to his fingers? It looks like his back pack has straps (?) on it that he hooks his fingers into? What is that all about?
+Barbara Farthing Yes those are just the straps. It's nothing special, I sometimes do it with my backpack to keep it from sliding of or to do something with my fingers.
Sounds like he’s good with conversion via missionaries asking people to doubt their faith to become Christian but he himself wouldn’t be open to conversion.
He must know that these 2nd hand sayings like:
You've got to let the holy spirit work throuh you"
is just empty mambojambo.
33:20
It's annoying when a theist says that a person pointing out the flaws in their logic and religion are just that person's journey to becoming a believer of that religion.
I see it more like I'm asking an adult why they still believe in Santa.
I'm not doing it because I want to believe in Santa.
I'm doing it to point out the flaws in their logic, their bad evidence, and absurd belief.
You can't point out the flaws in their logic to them because their willful ignorance will not allow them to hear to it. That's why for them them faith takes priority over evidence. They don't want to believe the truth if it flies in the face of what they want to believe is true.
Edit: I agree it is annoying.
Anthony, after watching both interviews with Wally, it appears to me he thinks the reason you are doing this is because you are soul searching. You are seeking God. It doesn't cross his mind that perhaps you are doing this because you want him to seek the truth. I've met others like him. They see it as a search for god.. you're finding your way, you're seeking God, and you'll find him eventually as you travel down that road. In their mind, why else would you put forth so much effort?
summarizes part of his world-view very interestingly at about 20:10 "always have a plan to kill everybody you meet".
I think he is trolling you. He totally got it but trolling.
If god destroyed the tower of Babel because they were communicating and working together, why today, where the world is exponentially more integrated and intermixed, is he not scattering us once again?
Wally thinks he's got you hooked into his religion.
He thinks it’s okay to believe in god even though he admits it is unreasonable...bizarre
6:58, if no ones gonna know, then he doesn't know, so why is he still at 100%?
He is a walking contradiction.
Perhaps Anthony should have pushed him on this point until he got an admission he can't be at 100% or that he was wrong saying no ones gonna know.
The man is happy with his faith. He is not harming anyone. Why is it important to convince him personally to a verificationalistic epistemology with its latent mechanistic materialism and thus
nihilistic implications? Maybe that would make him less happy. Is an unattainable ”truth”quest better than happiness? Who gets to decide? Just leave the man alone.
Alrik Tyrving Why are you trying to convince me otherwise? Who gets to decide? Just leave me alone.
Anthony Magnabosco For real? You do not see the difference?
Alrik Tyrving My point is, whenever we engage with somebody, whether we are debating with them, using SE, leaving a comment on the RUclips video, or something else, It is usually because we think the other person is holding a mistaken view of reality and we want to help them. I hope you give it some thought. Cheers.
For sure. But I question that you do help. If faith in whatever religion makes someone happier and maybe a better person, why would you want to argue them out of it? Because you don´t think it is true? Is your perception of "truth" (presumably merely what is demonstrable to our cognitive faculties, which in turn could, and on naturalism probably are, totally untrustworthy), more important then well being? Well, then you are actually causing harm to people.
These are all great questions. I've addressed many of these in interviews (which you can find on my website anthonymagnabosco.com) or this great discussion I had recently that I titled "Why Are You Out Here?" that you can find on my channel. Thanks for watching.
Sorry...I didn't mean to delete our comments. Augh!
Hard to explain, but I'm scatterbrained. Lol. In the back of my head, I wasn't expecting you to reply so fast. So, when I saw your reply (I had made the "is faith a reliable pathway to truth?" suggestion before, I just don't remember which videos), I immediately thought, for some reason I was seeing an old comment, then I felt dumb for making a comment you had already refuted, so in a panic, I deleted my comment. Then I realized what I had done. My bad.
Damn. "Always have a plan to kill everybody you meet." 😶 20:10
Adorable... alway a good laugh