The fact that we are not geared for truth but survival is absolutely demonstrated by the fact that people have irrational beliefs that are beneficial like the belief in the supernatural and an adherence to a religion. Without a doubt it is more beneficial to be a part of the "in" group that is the dominant religion of the society you live in. It takes education and training in critical thinking to understand that such beliefs are irrational. Which is why so few people that are raised in a religious environment ever end up examining those ingrained beliefs and come to the conclusion that they are not warranted.
I think there's a difference between things that are verifiable, and things that aren't, and would argue that it is more advantageous to have a true belief about verifiable things. Non verifiable things, such as the supernatural, that cannot be shown to be true or false are very hard to pin down with regards to how we actually accept them. Are we prone to believing them because they are useful, or because we know that it is true that believing them is useful? Either way, I think there is a hierarchy at work here. First is truth/falsity, and when that cannot be derived, usefulness becomes a secondary driver. If we accept that we live in a world where there is such a thing as truth, I don't think that there are situations in which truth is obtainable, that would be more successfully "survived" without knowledge of that truth, than with it.
@@bengreen171 Truths are statements about reality, not reality itself. Anything that cannot be verified is probably not worthy of consideration and you shouldn't be making true or false claims about it. I really don't understand what theists mean when they talk about "the truth". Saying: "Jesus is the truth" is as meaningless as saying "an apple is true". A more meaningful sentence goes something like: "It is true that I have an apple in my bag", or "Everything Jesus spoke was true". What does it mean to say: "Melania is love" or "Donald is truth". Pretty meaningless really.
All these apologist/presups are just trying to convince themselves of their absurd beliefs. 'I couldn't do anything without god, so god exists'...just a bunch of arguments from incredulity really ....'I believe in this, and I can't be wrong, therefore I'm right' 🤷🏻♂️
uh-oh Plantinga's coming to destroy materialism and he has an army of witches with him - He's a big feller - if only we could somehow make the entrance smaller so he can't get in.... I've got it! FOLD THE DOOR! FOLD the DOOR!...fold ...the..door!....fold...door......
Haven't heard response yet, so maybe this comes up in the video, but: it drives me up the wall how people say that evolution selects for survival instead of truth, which ... does not mean we can't use what we've inherited in order to search for truth, regardless what it's adaptive for. Something inherited from evolution can be used for a different function than the one which was adaptive for the organism in some other context.
Fire isn't meant to make a car move, but fire can be used by a combustion engine to make it move. The instrumental aspects of some object don't really have a connection to some fundamental aspect of reality. A truth recognition machine like a car is what it is because it's parts add up to that in our perception. It's circular, but that's how it works. That's why the evolutionary argument against materialism is quite shallow. It's like saying ice cream can't be real because milk isn't ice cream, or an ocean can't be real because H2O isn't an ocean. It's putting the cart before the horse by assuming something like milk must have some latent ice cream nature in order to be turned into ice cream.
Any person that ask "Is atheism true" has already lost the debate. Atheism is neither true of false. Anyone saying so is a moron just like non-stamp collecting is neither true nor false. It is a badly formulated question
'Is atheism true' is just more shifting the burden of proof from 'the arguers' who have this belief in a god and are just trying to convince themselves they're right. I think they all know they're full of shit.
@@davids11131113 It goes beyond shifting the burden of proof too a complete lack of understanding as too what Atheism is. It shows that the individual saying such things does not have the most basic understanding of their opponents position, which demonstrates their ignorance. Not only for someone to enter a debate without such minimal understanding; but for someone like Hernendez to continually debate prominent atheists and still not know the basics behind their opponents arguments shows either dishonesty or a level of intelligence not worthy of debate.
I’ll use Ray Comfort as an example, he’s had it explained hundreds of times that ‘Atheism is not a claim, it is the position on their claim ‘Bible god exists’ , the ‘atheism’ position is ‘I do not accept ‘god exists’ as true’ he KNOWS he’s a dishonest fuck and I don’t believe he’s just confused at all.
My position is they DO know the Atheist position, and these guys make quite a good living from the gullible I know Ray Comfort is quite well off running his street philosopher nonsense and website, many Christians out there looking for someone to justify their beliefs for them as ‘god’ has to fit into an ever smaller box these days.
I love how Christians always try to minimize the amazing complexity of the human brain, if there is no god. Somehow their belief in a soul makes it somehow more complex or capable?
If the sum of the reasoning behind the EAAN is right then God has a defeater for the reliability of his cognitive faculties, right? If this is right; seems to me the theist should take this as a reductio of the EAAN.
Eric Hernandez gets owned so much, and made look a fool so much, it is a wonder he hasn't moved on to something he might be good at.
David H Maybe roller skating?
The fact that we are not geared for truth but survival is absolutely demonstrated by the fact that people have irrational beliefs that are beneficial like the belief in the supernatural and an adherence to a religion. Without a doubt it is more beneficial to be a part of the "in" group that is the dominant religion of the society you live in.
It takes education and training in critical thinking to understand that such beliefs are irrational. Which is why so few people that are raised in a religious environment ever end up examining those ingrained beliefs and come to the conclusion that they are not warranted.
then there are those false beliefs which have virtually no impact on survival, like a flat earth or a geocentric system.
KEvron
@@KEvronista
In general true beliefs are far more beneficial to survival than false beliefs are. So Plantinga is wrong.
I think there's a difference between things that are verifiable, and things that aren't, and would argue that it is more advantageous to have a true belief about verifiable things. Non verifiable things, such as the supernatural, that cannot be shown to be true or false are very hard to pin down with regards to how we actually accept them. Are we prone to believing them because they are useful, or because we know that it is true that believing them is useful?
Either way, I think there is a hierarchy at work here. First is truth/falsity, and when that cannot be derived, usefulness becomes a secondary driver.
If we accept that we live in a world where there is such a thing as truth, I don't think that there are situations in which truth is obtainable, that would be more successfully "survived" without knowledge of that truth, than with it.
@@jtveg
oh, i'm not defending plantinga. just elaborating on the capacity of an environment of false belief to undermine critical thinking.
KEvron
@@bengreen171
Truths are statements about reality, not reality itself. Anything that cannot be verified is probably not worthy of consideration and you shouldn't be making true or false claims about it.
I really don't understand what theists mean when they talk about "the truth". Saying: "Jesus is the truth" is as meaningless as saying "an apple is true". A more meaningful sentence goes something like: "It is true that I have an apple in my bag", or "Everything Jesus spoke was true".
What does it mean to say: "Melania is love" or "Donald is truth". Pretty meaningless really.
Our brains are God. Thank you Dr. Leary.
Stephen Hawley nothing we no of is more complex or capable of creation that the human brain.
Jerry Penna it seems to me that we have the answer to the question who or what created god.
"Say 'if atheism is true' one more goddamn time. I double dare you!"
All these apologist/presups are just trying to convince themselves of their absurd beliefs. 'I couldn't do anything without god, so god exists'...just a bunch of arguments from incredulity really ....'I believe in this, and I can't be wrong, therefore I'm right' 🤷🏻♂️
uh-oh Plantinga's coming to destroy materialism and he has an army of witches with him - He's a big feller - if only we could somehow make the entrance smaller so he can't get in....
I've got it!
FOLD THE DOOR! FOLD the DOOR!...fold ...the..door!....fold...door......
Eric's analogies are malformed.
"If your brains is nothing more than something like your nails and teeth, then . . ." Really? Is that all your brain is?
Eric fails at every turn. It's so weird how Eric is presented with demonstrable empirical evidence, then still denies it.
Eric Hernandez is proof that evolution and naturalism are true.
Has anyone heard anything lately from my good boy Gary?
Haven't heard response yet, so maybe this comes up in the video, but: it drives me up the wall how people say that evolution selects for survival instead of truth, which ... does not mean we can't use what we've inherited in order to search for truth, regardless what it's adaptive for. Something inherited from evolution can be used for a different function than the one which was adaptive for the organism in some other context.
Your example is spot on. Evolution didn't design our hands for creating IPhone's, but we can use our hands to build IPhones.
Fire isn't meant to make a car move, but fire can be used by a combustion engine to make it move. The instrumental aspects of some object don't really have a connection to some fundamental aspect of reality. A truth recognition machine like a car is what it is because it's parts add up to that in our perception. It's circular, but that's how it works. That's why the evolutionary argument against materialism is quite shallow. It's like saying ice cream can't be real because milk isn't ice cream, or an ocean can't be real because H2O isn't an ocean. It's putting the cart before the horse by assuming something like milk must have some latent ice cream nature in order to be turned into ice cream.
Any person that ask "Is atheism true" has already lost the debate. Atheism is neither true of false. Anyone saying so is a moron just like non-stamp collecting is neither true nor false. It is a badly formulated question
'Is atheism true' is just more shifting the burden of proof from 'the arguers' who have this belief in a god and are just trying to convince themselves they're right. I think they all know they're full of shit.
@@davids11131113 It goes beyond shifting the burden of proof too a complete lack of understanding as too what Atheism is. It shows that the individual saying such things does not have the most basic understanding of their opponents position, which demonstrates their ignorance. Not only for someone to enter a debate without such minimal understanding; but for someone like Hernendez to continually debate prominent atheists and still not know the basics behind their opponents arguments shows either dishonesty or a level of intelligence not worthy of debate.
I’ll use Ray Comfort as an example, he’s had it explained hundreds of times that ‘Atheism is not a claim, it is the position on their claim ‘Bible god exists’ , the ‘atheism’ position is ‘I do not accept ‘god exists’ as true’ he KNOWS he’s a dishonest fuck and I don’t believe he’s just confused at all.
My position is they DO know the Atheist position, and these guys make quite a good living from the gullible I know Ray Comfort is quite well off running his street philosopher nonsense and website, many Christians out there looking for someone to justify their beliefs for them as ‘god’ has to fit into an ever smaller box these days.
it's formed that way on purpose, as a troll. there's no shortage of bad faith in apologetics.
KEvron
I love how Christians always try to minimize the amazing complexity of the human brain, if there is no god. Somehow their belief in a soul makes it somehow more complex or capable?
That was thoroughly unentertaining.
If the sum of the reasoning behind the EAAN is right then God has a defeater for the reliability of his cognitive faculties, right? If this is right; seems to me the theist should take this as a reductio of the EAAN.