Greg Koukl: How to Respond to a Hardcore Agnostic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, "How do you respond to hardcore agnostics who are radically skeptical of all religion and unwilling to make a decision?"
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time - (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: www.str.org/br....
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
I totally agree!
Enjoyed this very much. I've got nothing against agnostics but I think he's right. Cleverish indeed.
Agnostic are more rational than believer
We cant know if there is a god exist or not we all have limited minds bilogical capabilities so how can we know
I love seeing the Plato book in the background.. one of the first (if not the first) to bring up the morale argument 😅 (against protagoras)
Not exactly David.... if you ask an atheist "do you believe in God", they're response would be "No, I dont believe in God. The key word BELIEVE. Belief is an attitude of accpetance. They have a belief that there is no god. Therefore , they have a belief.
He said agnostic. because he knows there is no such thing as an atheist.
This is absolutely false. If an atheist says I don't believe in god, he is not saying I believe there is no god. There is a huge difference between these statements. The latter of these is no different from having a religion. The former is only saying that they cannot have and attitude of acceptance towards the idea that god exists because there is no evidence for it and they cannot believe anything without evidence.
To believe (in a religious context) is to claim that you are completely and utterly sure of something. If you read the god delusion by richard dawkins, he claims that it is highly unlikely that there is a god, but he specifically states that it is indeed possible that there is a god. Thus, he's not saying that he "believes" that there is not god.
Atheists don't "believe" anything, they have varying amounts of evidence for or against anything and thus they assign estimated probabilities to ideas and concepts being either true or untrue. The idea of "believing" anything with little or no evidence simply makes no sense to them.
helix427 'Atheists' don't 'believe' anything....'
Do you believe that?
OK, let me rephrase that. Someone who always thinks in purely logical terms doesn't "believe" anything in the way I have just described it. The so called new atheists all put forth this line of thinking, whether explicitly or implicitly, so I guess in that sense the statement I made is true.
Technically atheists don't "believe" any religion, or any untestable metaphysical claims. They can very well "believe" ideas and concepts or technical claims about the world so long as these do not religious or metaphysical in nature, because doing that would disqualify them from being atheists.
helix427 So professed 'atheists' don't believe in the laws of logic? Laws of physics, math, science or even atheism?! Materialism is self-refuting because it fails it's own test.
Everyone believes in and puts faith in things all day. It takes faith for them to believe that only material things exist. They DO NOT live like they believe only the material exists. Nobody does. The thoughts you're having right now cannot be tested, yet you believe they're real. What makes you believe that those thoughts mean the same thing now as they did 5 minutes ago?
Do you BELIEVE the sun will be "up or down"
Very insightful and practical stuff. Skeptics themselves could learn from this info.
Your teachings are amazing!!!!! I'm taking notes.
I think its ridiculous to think that the most extreme skepticism would lead one to believe that a man died 2000 years ago and then rose from the dead. I also don't think the base claims undergirding that claim are much better either. At a base default level, the truth claims of Christianity are not much better than any other religion which is why agnostics exist in the first place.
So what are you saying, my friend?
What in the world is a "radical skeptic?" A person is unconvinced until they become convinced. What does 'extreme unconvinced' look like? And hardcore agnostic... "I'm not just unsure, I'm incredibly unsure!!"
I think a rad skep is close to a God hating pagan. Because they know they, like us all, will be judged someday when Christ returns.
Amen. Nice insight.
Glory to God.
Good points as always, Greg!
Also, why don't people come to Jesus? We read: "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." -John 3:19
Excellent video!
Great analysis. Thanks for breaking it down. This can be used in so many arguments and situations.
You're welcome! We're glad we could be of help.
Note: there is no such thing as sitting on a fence. One cannot believe in something and not believe it at the same time.
Agnosticism simply means not to know something, or be able to.
When agnosticism is applied to belief, or lack thereof, there are 4 categories:
1. agnostic atheism
2. agnostic theism
3. gnostic atheism
4. gnostic theism
The first 2 are on honest foundations.
The second 2 confuse belief with knowledge.
One can still be an agnostic atheist without being an antitheist.
Rejection of religious claims is not a statement that there is no willful intelligence behind reality.
But the onus of a claim ALWAYS resides with those who claim: "There is a God", or: "There is no God."
Thanks for the reply John. A couple of thoughts; first, my point was not that he automatically knows what he is talking about simply in light of his degree. My point was that he is studied in this stuff and travels around the world giving talks on it every week. There would have to be good evidence to suggest he doesn't get the meaning of "agnostic". This is part of his entire career.
The last statement "if you are going to be intellectually honest", it's the key statement, because unfortunately, many people don't want to be truly intellectually honest, but only kind-of intellectually honest, or straight out dishonest (and you can see it in the comments section).
Many people don't care about truth, they believe whatever they want to believe, illuding themselves that to believe something to be true, makes it actually true..
And skeptics replying with "But Christianity has no evidence, there is no evidence for God's existence, the Bible is not reliable and it contradicts itself, it's wishful thinking, it's blind faith, etc etc etc", proves exactly Greg's point: those skeptics are either ignorant of the evidence for God or Christianity, or they believe something false about it or misunderstand it, or they think the evidence it's not satisfactory or enough or that God should make Himself more obvious (which is a logical fallacy, called "personal incredulity fallacy").
Glad if this helped, God bless!
Skeptics do not necessarily think that religious claims are false. They merely claim that the religious claims have not met their burden of proof.
Importantly, being an agnostic does not mean that there is a 50/50 chance of theism being correct or incorrect. It does NOT mean being a fence-sitter.
Agnostic simply means not knowing for certain. Just as we are all agnostic about there being life on Mars. We don't KNOW either way if there is life on Mars, so we are agnostic about knowledge of life on Mars since there is little compelling evidence to think that there is life there.
Agnostic=don't know.
they can know for certain though
@@respectingthewordpodcast how
@@tunacan6166 all the universe is proof of a creator.
@@respectingthewordpodcast how ???
@@tunacan6166 how what?? Please speak English
How did Greg proselytize agnostics in this video? What particularly did he say that gave you that impression?
Yes we are very skeptical of 2000 year old claims of miracles and resurrections written down 40-90 years after the events by anonymous authors who spoke a different language than the actual eye witnesses would and are at best 4th hand accounts. Question: why aren’t you????
Agnostic asks questions they are logical rational they are skeptical okkk
Very true!
I like Brumbies myself. :)
Your opinions of their level skepticism dont make them wrong or you right just cause you feel differently you discredit any points they do make to justify your own it seems
I don't think he is making that claim. He is just making truth claims based on facts devoid of claims based on one's feelings. I pray i have not made anyone feel uneasy.
Most arguments/debates are just 2 people talking past each other, each with different definitions of logic. Unless you can actually agree on what constitutes logic, you are both wasting your time.
I've met plenty of people with a college education that don't know what they're talking about. Simply going to school doesn't make you smart. You actually have to learn while you are there. If you are really listening to what he is saying its clear he is confusing terms. Have you ever met a "hardcore" agnostic who dismisses all religion completely? Because if you have then you are actually talking to an atheist.
It’s amazing how many people think this type of skepticism makes them “erudite”. LOL.
To be fair I think you can say that there are unfalsifiable concepts like a deistic God that you cannot know.
But of course, as with Russels teapot, you can act as if they don’t exist while acknowledging the possibility it may exist
He has a Masters in apologetics and a Masters in the philosophy of religion. He also travels the world giving talks about all of this stuff. He knows exactly what the definition of agnostic is.
He’s a guy that found a niche he could slide into to make a living with via social media, books, etc. He’s following a Jordan Peterson blueprint of never taking a hard stance when in debate. Always a “well what if you..” or a “well what if we look at a different scenario..” He isn’t changing anyone’s mind. Just selling books and getting click money.
@@RedHotBillyPeppers h ttps://ruclips.net/video/n-_mLT0OZ8E/видео.html
Remove the space after the "h". Here is Koukl taking a hard stance on Jesus being the only way. I can pull up unlimited videos of him doing this in interviews across various media outlets. So no, you don't know Koukl.
This is a circular answer.
Second, he is not confusing terms, you are confusing his point. I have met a hardcore agnostic that dismisses all religion completely. Some dismiss it by saying its impossible to know religions claims, therefore, any religious claim is dismissed. Other agnostics simply say that they themselves don't know the answers (yet). In either case, Koukl is not mistaken on the meaning of agnosticism.
Good argument, my friend.
Word salads spoken forcefully do not make any more sense than if babbled by babies.
What is the result of a skeptic being skeptical of his skepticism? Does that result in anything other than a deeper and more profound skepticism? Inviting skeptics to be more skeptical creates a more consistent skeptic. And I don't think that Greg is talking about a hardcore skeptic at all (in the technical sense of the word). When someone finally says "You can't know about 'x'" you have reached the end of their skepticism. Skepticism ultimately is the admission and expression of doubt.
Jackson Jose Young Kimberly Taylor Elizabeth
Greg Koukl--you are the kind of person who pretends to be smart. Your job is keep Christians from walking away. First, skepticism is not a point of view-it is a reaction. And being skeptical is not the problem-you are. You are skeptical of anything you don’t believe at first. Since you present no evidence for God, and then you expect someone to believe in God just because you say he’s real, and if they don’t you have to go after their skepticism rather than doing your job of presenting evidence. Now, you would say next that there’s lots of evidence for God, however, you just say it but don’t present it. Any evidence that theists try to present is anecdotal, arguments from ignorance, feelings, thoughts, and of course the Bible-none of these things are evidence. If I tried to get you to believe in a different religion using your tactics-you would be skeptical of it. Then I should say that you don’t even understand your own skepticism-sound familiar? You can’t draw a conclusion from a presupposition like you do when you simply assume that there is a god and then try to tune up someone’s perspective so that they will share your misconception.
Bottom line--it doesn’t matter what a skeptic, agnostic, or atheist thinks, feels or believes-you should be able to present evidence for your god regardless. If your god is so real, then it shouldn’t be so hard to prove him now should it? The fact that God needs books and preachers and desperate apologists like yourself to speak for him, and he cannot speak for himself, ever, is pretty good evidence that he does not exist. And you would say the same thing about any other god. So stop going after the skeptics and go after yourself and ask yourself: “how come I can’t prove God?”
Just have faith, man. Look at the stars and the moon and life on Earth and say "did this all happen by chance? Nah, God done it."
I dismiss most things that have no evidence. How do you confront someone who evaluates reality with the use of science and testable hypotheses? I suppose you offer them verifiable evidence to back up your claims. I suppose you offer them more than anecdotal assumptions based on filtered and manipulated texts.
Can a thing exist without us knowing the evidence of its existence?
How did you come to the conclusion that every Christian that proselytizes his theology hasn't thoroughly examined his own basis for belief?
You're agnostic regarding which rugby team is the best? goodness gracious.
Greg, have you ever argued someone into the kingdom?
I would say no, but he has argued them closer to Christ.
Paul did. I think Acts 17 is a good example.
@@heidingai5378 So Greg is Paul?
@@moracehann5857 From whose perspective?
I feel sorry for these lost souls
I truly do.
Know you don’t you feel perfectly fine going to heaven while we burn in hell just over belief
@ShapeShifter1800 so change your beliefs (repent) come to Christ and you will escape His coming wrath and judement. I was alot like you and truly surrendered to Christ and His teachings. Best decision ever. I hope to see you in heaven someday my friend.
you don't respond, Romans 1. you live out your life reflecting the way Christ live and that can move their heart or cannot
Empty talking from proffessional believer , saying nothing .
What did he actually say though? What do you mean by professional believer? We all believe something. I just happen to believe Christ saved me from my lying, stealing, lusting, hating, criticizing and on and on. I pray Christ saves you as well my friend.
This is just meaningless word play. Sorry, Greg
Can you explain your comment?
There are so many things wrong with this guys point of view, I'm sure I'm going to miss things.
As a skeptic, skepticism is a pragmatic necessity of life, and it does not need to be justified! *As long as I want to accept things that are true, and not accept things that are false, skepticism is required*. Without skepticism, I accept everything by default, and believe everything, and will likely believe false things. I reject theistic claims because I have no way to know if they are true.
As for the idea that I'm convinced that religious claims are false, that's not true at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of religions should also be falsifiable, if you want me to even consider accept them.
To the "have you weigh the evidence?" I say: Yes, I have. Nothing presented to me so far as come anywhere close to even beginning to meet the burden of proof that religious claims have. More specifically, I don't need to weight anything again the religious claims, because the evidence for them is so poor.
The above said, I'm reasonably sure that there are no deities, just like I am sure there is no Bigfoot, but I'll change my mind of somebody can present evidence. I can defend the anti-theist point of view if need be...
Regarding my view of materialism/naturalism. When somebody can present to me a way to actually know that something other than nature exists, I cannot justify accepting it. It may be possible, but at the moment, I have no way to know.
Isn't a person who doesn't believes anything at all, a atheist?
An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods because they see no evidence for such. Theists are unable to present evidence because there isn’t any, so they have do their best at manufacturing evidence. Usually just arguments from ignorance and thinking the Bible is somehow evidence, when it isn’t.
The justification for "hardcore" agnosticism or atheism is quite obvious to me, and to anyone else who wasn't raised in a religious household. To us, all religions are equally absurd and illogical. Theists, on the other hand, are biased in favor of their own religion, but believe all believers in other faiths are wrong. To me,"faith" is the operative word. How is it any more logical to have faith in one god over another? It isn't. Religion is a worldwide phenomenon that has existed in human cultures for many thousands of years. There have been countless followers of countless faiths, many of whom have killed and died for that faith, because they were "sure" that they were going to heaven or someplace similar. If history had gone differently, Chistians would be worshipping Zeus right now, and would believe in him just as wholeheartedly as they believe in Jesus. Religion obviously fills some sort psychological need in humans. The god or gods that are worshipped are irrelevant. I think we all have a fundamental need for mythology and ritual, to explain who we are and where we're going, and that that need is particularly strong in theists. Perhaps we agnostics and atheists simply recognize this as a psychological rather than a spiritual need.
I'd have to say your first statement is false because you used the word 'anyone'. There are many many people not raised with a religious worldview who later come to accept a religious worldview.
To address the issue of bias: everyone has a bias. The materialist has a bias that presupposes the impossibility of the non-material. The theist, at least the Christian theist, has a bias that accepts the material and the possibility of the immaterial. So truly, the beginning bias of the theist is more open or fair, if you will.
For faith, I'd have to ask what you mean by that, as Christianity has a specific meaning for that word which is different from the secular meaning.
Your statement that 'if history had gone differently...' is only accurate in one sense: Christianity is based on historic reality. So, the statement 'if history had gone differently [Christianity would be different]' is roughly equivalent to saying 'if reality were different Christianity would be different', and I grant that, though I'm not certain that really advances any point.
From a materialistic standpoint, I cannot understand your concluding statements. Materialistic atheism presupposes a Darwinian macro-evolutionary process, a process which ensures through unguided genetic variation survival of the fittest and that which is most beneficial to the species. So with this worldview, Darwinian evolution ensured that human beings ended up with a psychological or physiological need that is not only unnecessary but false?
Anyway, all the best.
NiaruCentaurus 'Materialistic atheism presupposes a Darwinian macro-evolutionary process, a process which ensures through unguided genetic variation survival of the fittest and that which is most beneficial to the species. So with this worldview, Darwinian evolution ensured that human beings ended up with a psychological or physiological need that is not only unnecessary but false?'
It is not presupposed, there is evidence for evolutionary processes. Atheism and materialism are not required to accept or understand these principles. The only reason to not accept the theory of evolution, a theory more established than gravity and germ theory, is personal bias.
Evolutionary theory can easily answer why we end up with false beliefs. A social group has a greater survival rate than an individual, a shared belief helps to form a bond between individuals in a group, a false belief therefore aides survival. This informs us that we need a method of acquiring knowledge that helps to remove bias, hence the scientific method is important for acquiring knowledge.
your argument is so nonsensical and lazy in that it is not thought out.
bottom line i think agnostic and atheist are lazy if they looked and thought it out they would worship Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the only true God.
and the only way to heaven. the evidence that leads to faith in Him is insurmountable
*****
You think all agnostics and atheists are lazy? Not one has done the legwork and found the evidence for God lacking?
Intrigued as to why you think that is so.
+4bsfun, what parts of the original argument do you find nonsensical? What facts or ideas do you identify which comprise "insurmountable" evidence in support of a deity, particular Jesus Christ?
I don't think this guy really knows the definition of Agnostic. His description is more in line with Atheists. While an agnostic person wont really believe in a religion they don't just out right deny them like he is claiming either, they believe one of the religions could be possible but require more proof before they are willing to put in the effort of following one. Its more a question of faith then skepticism.
Total non-sequitur demonstrating a lack of understanding of metaphysics and epistemology.
Can you explain your comment?
This guy is delusional. He describes the different forms of agnostic behaviour and throws in the term "evidence" and runs to next point. What evidence ? If you mean that story called the bible written 60 or so years AD based on hear say and vague recollections AT BEST.. End of discussion. That books first writing (genesis) speaks of how god created the earth and universe and man ?? Yet its proven beyond any doubt and accepted by vatican that big bang and evolution HAPPENED !! Shut the book !!!!
Go and prey on the vague and uneducated, and leave our kids alone to make their own mind up.