Ozy is a person I could listen to for hours and hours. A softy spoken and seemingly very pleasant man. I just love when he gets slightly annoyed and shows little reaction, but then delivers the most delicate retort, with intellectual power that stops the 'opponent ' in his tracks.
Woot! Great to see Ozy again, feels like it's been a while. Unfortunate with the audio issues, but I can deal with it for this excellent (and long overdue) conversation! :) Thanks for posting.
I've mirrored the video, with the audio synching corrected, on my own channel (with Matt's permission, of course). So, you can watch it there if you've not yet seen it. Cheers, - Ozy
I really enjoyed listening to you two go back and forth on this topic. I've been watching Matt for years now but I'm aware that I'm susceptible to echo chambers and I don't want to just parrot something because I heard Matt say it. I'm trying to understand this subject the best I can and I think Ozy makes a lot of valid points. This is the 3rd time watching to this video and I try to catch things I may have missed or misunderstood.
Hey Matt, since you do this all the time one trick you might try is to have both parties record the debate/interview and have them send you the file after the debate is over. that way you can use a program like Audacity to create a much cleaner mix. I am surprised this isn't common with the youtube crowd. Love your work by the way.
1:03:00 Recently I "came out" to some of my family and friends on my atheism and had some discussions about the existence of god where I spoke of the "argument from ignorance." Thinking similarly to Matt's wife on how the phrase might be offensive, to lead up to letting the person know what it is, I try to explain first what it means and that it's not meant to be personal. It didn't always work, my brother (staunch conservative evangelical Christian) immediately told me he was offended I'd call him ignorant (which also means he wasn't listening to what I had to say).
You could call it 'appeal to the lack of contrary evidence'. But honestly, it's not the name they oppose. They will find reasons not to listen what you have to say. I'm sorry, but sometimes that's the case. But it usually get's better within a year.
Personally I don't have time for people like that, who are so defensive they can't have a reasonable discussion without getting their feels hurt. Family or not.
LukeSumIpsePatremTe I'd say his view is negative. A few weeks ago I was watching TV at my Mom's (he's in his late 50's and lives with my Mom, that's another story lol) and there was something on the news about a BLM protest and he came out of his man cave and looked at the TV and yelled "Get a job!" What would that be?
@36:25 The last thirty or so minutes of the, "Is God Necessary for Morality?" Craig-Kagan debate is one of my favorites. It was interesting to watch Craig feel his way through a casual discussion on the fly.
a lot of people say that was one of the few debates Craig may have decisively "lost" - so to speak- given how well Kagan does against him. I really need to watch it to see how it plays out.
Kagan was incredibly successful at challenging and breaking down Craig's arguments. As is rarely the case with Craig, he often seemed to be reduced to fumbling about.
After the Craig-Kagan debate, I experience a very rare sense of serenity.....maybe because I felt as if, for one, Craig reacted as if he knew Kagan's arguments were better. No doubt Craig's humility was short lived, but it was nice while it lasted.
I have a suspicion that Craig was a little embarrassed at presenting his arguments. He respects Kagan as a powerhouse philosopher and knew he would see the schoolboy flaws in his argument. Craig has been around for too long to not see the flaws in his own arguments. I think Craig presents them not because they are good, but because it will do the job and it's the best he's got.
Two greats conversing, LOVE IT... I must admit, I got real excited when Matt said that he's currently working on a debate with William Lane Craig.. If that happens, I HOPE theres a dialog segment between the two...
SUGGESTION: If you debate WLC, rather than begin your rebuttal trying to defuse his schtick of how you didn't address A, B, C, & D, preempt him. End your opening statement by predicting what WLC is going to likely say how you didn't address A - D. Don't present it as an absolute, "this is going to happen," of course, but point out how you've seen it in the past from some and that it isn't your job to do that yet. Etc. There may be problems with this I'm not seeing, however in my mind it would seem to short circuit a tactic before it gets used against you. Responding to it after the fact could look like you're trying to catch up after he outpaced you? Maybe? Food for thought only. Thanks for this interview and all of your other presentations.
33:20 Cognitive dissonance is one of the big reasons I watch debates. I want to feel cognitive dissonance, and observe it in other people. Maybe you can call it an addiction. ;) Ozy is such a fixture in the great debate. He's a great person to learn from if you can stand the verbosity.
You want to feel cognitive dissonance? This is one the the problems I have with popular atheism. People describe what they feel _should_ be their position because it sounds more credible, instead of describing their actual position even if it sounds less credible. *No body* likes to be wrong or hold two competing positions that are in conflict with each other. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to test your beliefs by watching these debates, I just don't think that's anyone's intentions. I think people watch these debates for the opposite reason, to confirm or strengthen what they already believe. And if they happen to be persuaded, it is accident. Just because it's right what you believe now, it doesn't mean those beliefs are grounded in good reasons. Or how you got to those beliefs were from a credible method of reasoning. I know for myself I stopped believing in God for reasons I wish were more credible. I suspect some atheists think the reason why Christians falsely believe that God exist is because they aren't willing to test their beliefs because they hate being wrong. That is just nonsense imo.
truckcompany Sometimes I don't mind being wrong. It only means I have to adjust my beliefs to be more in line with the facts. Not that hard in my opinion. Yet on some topics I never feel quite right. Like some existential topics. I almost always feel cognitive dissonance for existential topics.
Loved the canny canine cognition comparisons... Now I will try to construct the proposition that a theist's belief is analogous to a dog not only thinking that there is food (god) in the bowl but that it enjoyed eating the meal and is now feeling replete.
This is good. Ozymandias is great (and Canadian!), Matt Dillahunty is great (though he clearly needs a new mic). Something tells me I'm going to enjoy this discussion.
It's basically about following the scientific process (or similar honest process) or not following it. This discussion reminds be of one discussion I once had with a person who believed in ghosts. He said "It is possible science will some day prove ghosts" and I tried to convince him by saying "even if science proved ghosts tomorrow, it will not prove YOUR ghosts TODAY". He never understood my point. My point was: if he skips investigating his experiences then it doesn't matter what the science says about ghosts in general (even today). And people do crazier things than that: they skip investigating their experiences if pseudoscience tells TODAY their experiences might be valid. The ghost hunters claim their experiences are true because they think they felt something unexplained/great/big. They tend to skip real investigation because of emotional reasons but THEY claim the ghost experience is measurable in "the physical plane" (but they still manage to fail the testing phase) while the "God experience" should be measurable only inside the brain? It would be nice to know how you translate this "God-in-the-brain" emotional experience to scientific/logical arguments in a debate. In science you have objective measurements of reality and scientific theories (A (all observations) to B (generic theory)) but in religion you have strong subjective experiences and cherry picking (B (emotional "I want" state) to A (cherry-picked positive "proof")). The religious experience and "proof" is illogical by default and any debate will probably result in emotional doublespeak. The logical guy will probably spend 10 to 100 times more time trying to respond to those emotional responses. The pro-God arguments today seem to be completely based on emotional responses, ignorance, cherry picking and operant conditioning. This is why it happens only inside the brain because there is nothing external to measure. Believers uses the Faith word because "it feels like" they will do just OK with the "B to A" reasoning. There "seem to be" reasons for clinging to "proofs" ("miracles" etc.) but their set of beliefs does not hold water because they have skipped the other A to B reasonings. You will probably never address their missing A to B reasonings during a debate. A debate already starts to go wrong when it starts by "Is there a God" (only one holistic Christian God) when the discussion (to the believer) is actually about some personal god and subset of qualities attached to such specific personal god (emotional/"moral" qualities, B to A). So you would need some type of "Define you god" checklist (and get the responses from the theist) to actually have a reasonable discussion with an illogical wishy-washy theist. On top of that you would need a set of courses on the scientific process before you can actually convince a believer. If you are a theist you will see your God in the "can something come out of nothing" question (God is more probable than "just a spark"). If you are a conspiracy theorist you will see the JFK killer in the bushes (assassin is more probable than no assassin). In both cases a believer sees something in the noise where there is nothing to be seen. This is how a believing brain works and no amount of logical arguments will change this process.
I'm not familiar with Jeremy Beahan, but I'm going to look him up. Do you have any links to anything he's done that you'd recommend I view, hear, or read? And if I may offer a minor corrective, I don't actually see myself as an atheist activist. That is, I don't agitate on behalf of atheism itself, but on behalf of skepticism, critical thinking, rationality, and scientific values. So, I guess I'm an atheist and an activist (of sorts), but not an activist for atheism. Atheism, as I see it, tends to be a consequence of embracing the values I listed above. Thanks for the compliment. Cheers, - Ozy
Great discussion. At 1:24:53 I'm confused, is he saying you can't test the reliability of your memory? But of course you can, people do it all the time.
Please edit this or just one of you redo it entirely but make it 1/3 the length. It is just to mind numbing to listen to the whole thing and will make many tune out.
I've mirrored this interview and corrected the audio sync problem. You'll find it on my channel. It's unedited, however. Hope this helps. Cheers, - Ozy
A psychologist would not say it's a cognitive bias which employs theologians to use arguments as a form of persuasion, they would point to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is, basically, the internal mechanism (an internal self-deception, if you will) causing one to ignore (often unconsciously) evidence and/or completely discount facts/evidence. E.g., evidence A clearly shows X to be the case (DNA evidence is often given in this example); yet, a person (the police or prosecutor) may say, "Well, X must be wrong because Y is what's true (Y is guilty)-"because I just know it." What follows is numerous ideas and/or excuses given to show X is still true-and regardless of the facts in evidence. (Ref. About 14 min. in.)
Depends on the dog, I think. My dog definitely does discriminate what she would attempt to taste and eat. She'll go nowhere near anything that's rotten, and won't try anything that's clearly inedible to us like a toy or a bolt or nail. Perhaps my dog is simply more intelligent than other dogs, who knows.
At around 1:14:40 Ozy starts to use an analogy in which he uses the term "THAT it is" in a way which seems odd and possibly misleading to me. Maybe someone can explain it to me. Matt and Ozy are talking about what warrants belief and Ozy uses the analogy of a Gorilla walking into a room and "[seeing] a table" but not "seeing THAT it is a table". I've listen to the exchange a few times (roughly 1:14:00 thru 1:18:00) and it seems like he's equivocating "[seeing] that it is" with "[cognitive] inferential practices". Ozy explains the latter at 1:17:00. But that seems different than a dog "seeing THAT it is a table". More specifically, it seems that OZy means to say that cognitive inferential practices is equivalent to "knowing" that one is seeing a table -- a more reflective exercise that can recognize the inferences that we have made. To me that seems different than simply knowing "THAT" something is x. Did Ozy simply oversimplify in the heat of the moment or am I missing something? Maybe his emphasis should have been "SEE that he sees that it is a table" (I think Ozy was intentionally trying to avoid the word "know"). Isn't seeing "THAT" something is x is, in part, recognizing on some level the form and one (or more) of the functions of an object is consistent with x? This is why a Gorilla see THAT it is a twin cam engine. But a dog, through an unconscious inferential process, can see THAT it is a table or THAT it is its leash in its owner's hand even if it doesn't know what to call it. The dog just doesn't see/know/recognize that it sees that it is a leash, i.e., it can't represent the state of affairs to itself. Does this make any sense?
Good question, Kenneth Amis, The distinction I was making was one made famous by Bertrand Russell and now widely recognized within epistemology, namely the difference between what is termed 'propositional knowledge (ie: knowledge THAT such and such is the case) as opposed to knowledge by direct ACQUAINTANCE, where one has experienced something first-hand. For instance, I have knowledge or know THAT Angelina Jolie is a woman, even though I didn't acquire this knowledge by direct acquaintance. We all know of (or are aware of) things without direct acquaintance. In fact, most of what we know or are aware of is propositional knowledge (knowledge THAT such and such is the case) which we never acquired by direct experience. This capacity for propositional knowledge affords us the ability to explicitly represent (to ourselves and others) some state of affairs and thereby make explicit deductive inferences from them. This reflexive capacity to represent our mental states and experiences to ourselves is widely understood to be a feature of our capacity for language in general. Indeed, one of the ways that linguists and philosophers of language distinguish between language and communication is in terms of the capacity to appreciate and express propositional knowledge and not being limited to knowledge by acquaintance alone. Now, in the case of the dog and gorilla examples, I was trying to argue that when they see a table, they have mental experiences that occasion a visual experience within them that affords them knowledge (by acquaintance) of an object in the world. Now, when a dog or gorilla see a table they know they are looking at a specific thing and they don't confuse that with, say, a car or spaghetti. So, a gorilla or dog distinguish between those different objects and thus can be rightly said to believe and know what they are seeing and act appropriately (they may try to eat the spaghetti, but not the table or the car), but what they cannot do is think to themselves, 'Cars are not spaghetti', even though they clearly understand that cars are not spaghetti. They can distinguish cars from spaghetti, but they can't think the thought "Cars aren't spaghetti.'. The latter thought requires a representational capacity they don't appear to have. So, we can legitimately ascribe the belief 'My dog bowl is full' to the dog, without assuming that the dog ever actually thinks to itself 'My dog bowl is full'. It can believe it's dog bowl is full and know it's full (because it can plainly see it's bowl is full) but it can't represent to itself the proposition, 'My dog bowl is full.' and so can't infer certain other propositions from that, such as, 'If my dog bowl is full, there must exist a dog bowl.' This is simply to point out that we, by virtue of our capacity for language, have a reflexive ability to represent to ourselves (and others) things that we know by acquaintance, and this capacity for propositional knowledge/awareness affords us the ability to explicitly draw inferences we otherwise would not be able to draw if we were limited only to a capacity for knowledge/awareness by acquaintance. I hope this helps somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy
Thanks. That helps. So can a computer be programmed with the ability to infer propositional knowledge from sensory input? Or is that the next step in AI? Will computers then be warranted in inferring a God?
No offense Matt, but even the most basic video editing software allows you to adjust the audio and video timelines to correct desync issues. Not fixing the audio is doing a disservice to your loyal viewers and yourself. It makes it seem like you didn't really care about this video and will definitely hurt your viewership. If you tried to fix it, and for some reason couldn't, then I apologize for my comment.
I tried. Other people tried...to varying degrees of success. Audio/video in a stream isn't the same as audio/video from a camera and audio recorder. I posted it because the content was too important for me to not post it. But, if you think I just don't care, that's fine.
As I said, if there was an attempt to resolve the issue, then I take back my comments. I know you care, and I care about your content. That's why I hate seeing a low quality video like this on your channel. Someone just stumbling onto this video could form a very bad impression of you and your channel. I'd hate for that to happen. I absolutely love your videos and have been a long term viewer and subscriber. Keep up the good work.
DameonK: I downloaded this video and, after much fussing, was able to correct the audio (but it's imperfect in places). I've mirrored it on my own channel, if you would like to watch this video without the audio-synch problem. Cheers, - Ozy
Ahh, there are likely different "time signatures" for the video / audio. You likely have to experiment with the audio "speed" or fps of the video to sync them. I would happily assist in this, as i've done it in a handful of videos with ffmpeg and handbrake.
I bet there a reindeer somewhere with a fly agaric(super mario red mushroom ) mushroom on it nose from digging them out they love mushrooms they even drink each other urine to get unused metabolites then they literally flying by tripping balls.
59:08 _"And then hopefully they go, yeah you're right. That's just an absolutely terrible way to proceed."_ lol NO THEY DON'T. You are absolutely dreaming. What they'll do is get butthurt that you're "comparing god" to whatever subject you used to create your analogous argument. Either that or they'll simply assert that god is a special exception.
Canadian Apistevist: I'm not sure what you're asking about exactly. Matt and I alluded to prior conversations we've had, but those were never recorded, in case that's what you're asking about. We do hope to plunge into more specific issues in the future however. Cheers, - Ozy
Ozymandias is a Greek name for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. Or are you talking to me? Stephen Colbert - 'Agnostics are just atheists without balls.' (I was just messing around).
I'm not A supporter of religions. But I feel the problem with life, in general, is the fear (mind) problem. You can be so pragmatic, or so naturally and or scientifically intelligent. You can also use known philosophies. But our western fear culture, makes it difficult to see rationality. This speaker is an obvious intelligent person. I'm not sure he understands the fear question experientially.Pure knowledge gets muddled when all the particapants don't understand the impediments to love or compassion or emotions that are related to theGod question. In addition, Its impossible to prove God when one person has absolutely no interest or open to the possibility. Ill use the example, the universe has been created, science thinks its expanding. Most rational people feel there are extraterrestrials, given the shear size of the universe. Faith is the only reason for it, although ancient art and literature seem to point in the direction of the extraterrestrial argument. Debating is only appropriate when there are two known constants.
You jealous? I'm sure you can invite Slick back on to make you feel better. Keep trolling for Jesus instead of learning epistemology, it's working well for you.
Indeed you have become such. Thanks for coming on. I have leaned a lot about epistemology. Some from Ozy. However, the truth is he denies the ability to know that he knows anything to be the case. Slick is on my channel every Sunday night. He would like to engage with you in a formal debate. Not online but in person. Are you open to that?
I'm not sure Slick is capable of a formal debate. His inability to be civil; his Interruptions, his preaching, dodging questions, his childish repeating of the same question over and over... etc... And he doesn't understand simple words, like consensus.
where your compassion and humility and respect? May we ask how much you and your channel make? Release them to the public so everyone can examine them. Surely you can do your followers are willing to share your financial data?
This was a thoroughly enjoyable conversation to listen to. I am looking forward to more discussions with Ozy.
Well done Matt, for scoring such an excellent guest.
Ozy is a person I could listen to for hours and hours. A softy spoken and seemingly very pleasant man.
I just love when he gets slightly annoyed and shows little reaction, but then delivers the most delicate retort, with intellectual power that stops the 'opponent ' in his tracks.
Loved this talk!!! Loved hearing Ozy!
I always come away from a Dillahunty or Ozzy discussion feeling better informed. I appreciate hearing your conversation. Thanks!
Propably the best interview so far.
Woot! Great to see Ozy again, feels like it's been a while. Unfortunate with the audio issues, but I can deal with it for this excellent (and long overdue) conversation! :) Thanks for posting.
I've mirrored the video, with the audio synching corrected, on my own channel (with Matt's permission, of course). So, you can watch it there if you've not yet seen it.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Thank you for sharing this, Matt.
I really enjoyed listening to you two go back and forth on this topic. I've been watching Matt for years now but I'm aware that I'm susceptible to echo chambers and I don't want to just parrot something because I heard Matt say it. I'm trying to understand this subject the best I can and I think Ozy makes a lot of valid points. This is the 3rd time watching to this video and I try to catch things I may have missed or misunderstood.
I loved the interview. Thanks
Hey Matt, since you do this all the time one trick you might try is to have both parties record the debate/interview and have them send you the file after the debate is over. that way you can use a program like Audacity to create a much cleaner mix. I am surprised this isn't common with the youtube crowd.
Love your work by the way.
1:03:00 Recently I "came out" to some of my family and friends on my atheism and had some discussions about the existence of god where I spoke of the "argument from ignorance." Thinking similarly to Matt's wife on how the phrase might be offensive, to lead up to letting the person know what it is, I try to explain first what it means and that it's not meant to be personal. It didn't always work, my brother (staunch conservative evangelical Christian) immediately told me he was offended I'd call him ignorant (which also means he wasn't listening to what I had to say).
What is your brother's view on political correctness?
You could call it 'appeal to the lack of contrary evidence'. But honestly, it's not the name they oppose. They will find reasons not to listen what you have to say. I'm sorry, but sometimes that's the case. But it usually get's better within a year.
Personally I don't have time for people like that, who are so defensive they can't have a reasonable discussion without getting their feels hurt. Family or not.
LukeSumIpsePatremTe I'd say his view is negative. A few weeks ago I was watching TV at my Mom's (he's in his late 50's and lives with my Mom, that's another story lol) and there was something on the news about a BLM protest and he came out of his man cave and looked at the TV and yelled "Get a job!" What would that be?
LukeSumIpsePatremTe On the other hand, our "discussions" are even-handed and we get along fine otherwise.
Ozymandias Ramses II is awesome. . .excellent mind and thinker.
After watching this video, I just can't stop master debating!
excellent conversation
Ozy is great!
@36:25 The last thirty or so minutes of the, "Is God Necessary for Morality?" Craig-Kagan debate is one of my favorites. It was interesting to watch Craig feel his way through a casual discussion on the fly.
a lot of people say that was one of the few debates Craig may have decisively "lost" - so to speak- given how well Kagan does against him. I really need to watch it to see how it plays out.
Kagan was incredibly successful at challenging and breaking down Craig's arguments. As is rarely the case with Craig, he often seemed to be reduced to fumbling about.
After the Craig-Kagan debate, I experience a very rare sense of serenity.....maybe because I felt as if, for one, Craig reacted as if he knew Kagan's arguments were better. No doubt Craig's humility was short lived, but it was nice while it lasted.
I have a suspicion that Craig was a little embarrassed at presenting his arguments. He respects Kagan as a powerhouse philosopher and knew he would see the schoolboy flaws in his argument. Craig has been around for too long to not see the flaws in his own arguments. I think Craig presents them not because they are good, but because it will do the job and it's the best he's got.
Truck....I think I agree. He seemed shaky from the get go. I think that and the format made Craig realize be couldn't win.
great video. Very informative.
Two greats conversing, LOVE IT... I must admit, I got real excited when Matt said that he's currently working on a debate with William Lane Craig.. If that happens, I HOPE theres a dialog segment between the two...
SUGGESTION: If you debate WLC, rather than begin your rebuttal trying to defuse his schtick of how you didn't address A, B, C, & D, preempt him. End your opening statement by predicting what WLC is going to likely say how you didn't address A - D. Don't present it as an absolute, "this is going to happen," of course, but point out how you've seen it in the past from some and that it isn't your job to do that yet. Etc.
There may be problems with this I'm not seeing, however in my mind it would seem to short circuit a tactic before it gets used against you. Responding to it after the fact could look like you're trying to catch up after he outpaced you? Maybe? Food for thought only.
Thanks for this interview and all of your other presentations.
Would love a conversation between you and TheraminTrees
Brilliant stuff. . .. Thanking you.
33:20 Cognitive dissonance is one of the big reasons I watch debates. I want to feel cognitive dissonance, and observe it in other people. Maybe you can call it an addiction. ;)
Ozy is such a fixture in the great debate. He's a great person to learn from if you can stand the verbosity.
You want to feel cognitive dissonance?
This is one the the problems I have with popular atheism. People describe what they feel _should_ be their position because it sounds more credible, instead of describing their actual position even if it sounds less credible.
*No body* likes to be wrong or hold two competing positions that are in conflict with each other. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to test your beliefs by watching these debates, I just don't think that's anyone's intentions. I think people watch these debates for the opposite reason, to confirm or strengthen what they already believe. And if they happen to be persuaded, it is accident.
Just because it's right what you believe now, it doesn't mean those beliefs are grounded in good reasons. Or how you got to those beliefs were from a credible method of reasoning. I know for myself I stopped believing in God for reasons I wish were more credible.
I suspect some atheists think the reason why Christians falsely believe that God exist is because they aren't willing to test their beliefs because they hate being wrong. That is just nonsense imo.
truckcompany Sometimes I don't mind being wrong. It only means I have to adjust my beliefs to be more in line with the facts. Not that hard in my opinion. Yet on some topics I never feel quite right. Like some existential topics. I almost always feel cognitive dissonance for existential topics.
Thank you!
Ozy was long winded in explaining how much more long winded that he was than Matt.
Touché. LOL
Cheers,
- Ozy
Loved the canny canine cognition comparisons... Now I will try to construct the proposition that a theist's belief is analogous to a dog not only thinking that there is food (god) in the bowl but that it enjoyed eating the meal and is now feeling replete.
Matt, I have a suggestion. Why don't you make a video recommending books you think might be hepful.
I've learnt so much about cup belief.
This is good. Ozymandias is great (and Canadian!), Matt Dillahunty is great (though he clearly needs a new mic). Something tells me I'm going to enjoy this discussion.
Ozy,
I'm just curious what makes you subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth over something like the pragmatic theory of truth ?
It's basically about following the scientific process (or similar honest process) or not following it.
This discussion reminds be of one discussion I once had with a person who believed in ghosts. He said "It is possible science will some day prove ghosts" and I tried to convince him by saying "even if science proved ghosts tomorrow, it will not prove YOUR ghosts TODAY". He never understood my point.
My point was: if he skips investigating his experiences then it doesn't matter what the science says about ghosts in general (even today). And people do crazier things than that: they skip investigating their experiences if pseudoscience tells TODAY their experiences might be valid.
The ghost hunters claim their experiences are true because they think they felt something unexplained/great/big. They tend to skip real investigation because of emotional reasons but THEY claim the ghost experience is measurable in "the physical plane" (but they still manage to fail the testing phase) while the "God experience" should be measurable only inside the brain?
It would be nice to know how you translate this "God-in-the-brain" emotional experience to scientific/logical arguments in a debate. In science you have objective measurements of reality and scientific theories (A (all observations) to B (generic theory)) but in religion you have strong subjective experiences and cherry picking (B (emotional "I want" state) to A (cherry-picked positive "proof")). The religious experience and "proof" is illogical by default and any debate will probably result in emotional doublespeak. The logical guy will probably spend 10 to 100 times more time trying to respond to those emotional responses.
The pro-God arguments today seem to be completely based on emotional responses, ignorance, cherry picking and operant conditioning. This is why it happens only inside the brain because there is nothing external to measure. Believers uses the Faith word because "it feels like" they will do just OK with the "B to A" reasoning. There "seem to be" reasons for clinging to "proofs" ("miracles" etc.) but their set of beliefs does not hold water because they have skipped the other A to B reasonings. You will probably never address their missing A to B reasonings during a debate.
A debate already starts to go wrong when it starts by "Is there a God" (only one holistic Christian God) when the discussion (to the believer) is actually about some personal god and subset of qualities attached to such specific personal god (emotional/"moral" qualities, B to A). So you would need some type of "Define you god" checklist (and get the responses from the theist) to actually have a reasonable discussion with an illogical wishy-washy theist. On top of that you would need a set of courses on the scientific process before you can actually convince a believer.
If you are a theist you will see your God in the "can something come out of nothing" question (God is more probable than "just a spark"). If you are a conspiracy theorist you will see the JFK killer in the bushes (assassin is more probable than no assassin). In both cases a believer sees something in the noise where there is nothing to be seen. This is how a believing brain works and no amount of logical arguments will change this process.
Matt, Ozy, and Jeremy Beahan are my favourite atheist activists.
I'm not familiar with Jeremy Beahan, but I'm going to look him up. Do you have any links to anything he's done that you'd recommend I view, hear, or read?
And if I may offer a minor corrective, I don't actually see myself as an atheist activist. That is, I don't agitate on behalf of atheism itself, but on behalf of skepticism, critical thinking, rationality, and scientific values. So, I guess I'm an atheist and an activist (of sorts), but not an activist for atheism. Atheism, as I see it, tends to be a consequence of embracing the values I listed above.
Thanks for the compliment.
Cheers,
- Ozy
and what about Sam Harris?
Great discussion. At 1:24:53 I'm confused, is he saying you can't test the reliability of your memory? But of course you can, people do it all the time.
Literally quote minding him lol. He then goes on to say 'without...'.
I didn't agree with everything said here, but Ozzy & Matt are pretty nice guys.
Please edit this or just one of you redo it entirely but make it 1/3 the length. It is just to mind numbing to listen to the whole thing and will make many tune out.
I've mirrored this interview and corrected the audio sync problem. You'll find it on my channel. It's unedited, however.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
- Ozy
every word is spelled correctly. but your right I was typing fast. what is your opinion on how the humans was made to reproduce ??
A psychologist would not say it's a cognitive bias which employs theologians to use arguments as a form of persuasion, they would point to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is, basically, the internal mechanism (an internal self-deception, if you will) causing one to ignore (often unconsciously) evidence and/or completely discount facts/evidence. E.g., evidence A clearly shows X to be the case (DNA evidence is often given in this example); yet, a person (the police or prosecutor) may say, "Well, X must be wrong because Y is what's true (Y is guilty)-"because I just know it." What follows is numerous ideas and/or excuses given to show X is still true-and regardless of the facts in evidence. (Ref. About 14 min. in.)
I'm not entirely sure that dogs do have a concept of "inedible." They'll damn well give it a try whether it's edible or not.
Depends on the dog, I think. My dog definitely does discriminate what she would attempt to taste and eat. She'll go nowhere near anything that's rotten, and won't try anything that's clearly inedible to us like a toy or a bolt or nail.
Perhaps my dog is simply more intelligent than other dogs, who knows.
Well, damn it, right at the point where I thought I might learn something, you guys stopped.
Nice!
At around 1:14:40 Ozy starts to use an analogy in which he uses the term "THAT it is" in a way which seems odd and possibly misleading to me. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Matt and Ozy are talking about what warrants belief and Ozy uses the analogy of a Gorilla walking into a room and "[seeing] a table" but not "seeing THAT it is a table". I've listen to the exchange a few times (roughly 1:14:00 thru 1:18:00) and it seems like he's equivocating "[seeing] that it is" with "[cognitive] inferential practices". Ozy explains the latter at 1:17:00. But that seems different than a dog "seeing THAT it is a table". More specifically, it seems that OZy means to say that cognitive inferential practices is equivalent to "knowing" that one is seeing a table -- a more reflective exercise that can recognize the inferences that we have made. To me that seems different than simply knowing "THAT" something is x. Did Ozy simply oversimplify in the heat of the moment or am I missing something? Maybe his emphasis should have been "SEE that he sees that it is a table" (I think Ozy was intentionally trying to avoid the word "know").
Isn't seeing "THAT" something is x is, in part, recognizing on some level the form and one (or more) of the functions of an object is consistent with x? This is why a Gorilla see THAT it is a twin cam engine. But a dog, through an unconscious inferential process, can see THAT it is a table or THAT it is its leash in its owner's hand even if it doesn't know what to call it. The dog just doesn't see/know/recognize that it sees that it is a leash, i.e., it can't represent the state of affairs to itself.
Does this make any sense?
Good question, Kenneth Amis,
The distinction I was making was one made famous by Bertrand Russell and now widely recognized within epistemology, namely the difference between what is termed 'propositional knowledge (ie: knowledge THAT such and such is the case) as opposed to knowledge by direct ACQUAINTANCE, where one has experienced something first-hand. For instance, I have knowledge or know THAT Angelina Jolie is a woman, even though I didn't acquire this knowledge by direct acquaintance. We all know of (or are aware of) things without direct acquaintance. In fact, most of what we know or are aware of is propositional knowledge (knowledge THAT such and such is the case) which we never acquired by direct experience. This capacity for propositional knowledge affords us the ability to explicitly represent (to ourselves and others) some state of affairs and thereby make explicit deductive inferences from them. This reflexive capacity to represent our mental states and experiences to ourselves is widely understood to be a feature of our capacity for language in general. Indeed, one of the ways that linguists and philosophers of language distinguish between language and communication is in terms of the capacity to appreciate and express propositional knowledge and not being limited to knowledge by acquaintance alone.
Now, in the case of the dog and gorilla examples, I was trying to argue that when they see a table, they have mental experiences that occasion a visual experience within them that affords them knowledge (by acquaintance) of an object in the world. Now, when a dog or gorilla see a table they know they are looking at a specific thing and they don't confuse that with, say, a car or spaghetti. So, a gorilla or dog distinguish between those different objects and thus can be rightly said to believe and know what they are seeing and act appropriately (they may try to eat the spaghetti, but not the table or the car), but what they cannot do is think to themselves, 'Cars are not spaghetti', even though they clearly understand that cars are not spaghetti. They can distinguish cars from spaghetti, but they can't think the thought "Cars aren't spaghetti.'. The latter thought requires a representational capacity they don't appear to have.
So, we can legitimately ascribe the belief 'My dog bowl is full' to the dog, without assuming that the dog ever actually thinks to itself 'My dog bowl is full'. It can believe it's dog bowl is full and know it's full (because it can plainly see it's bowl is full) but it can't represent to itself the proposition, 'My dog bowl is full.' and so can't infer certain other propositions from that, such as, 'If my dog bowl is full, there must exist a dog bowl.' This is simply to point out that we, by virtue of our capacity for language, have a reflexive ability to represent to ourselves (and others) things that we know by acquaintance, and this capacity for propositional knowledge/awareness affords us the ability to explicitly draw inferences we otherwise would not be able to draw if we were limited only to a capacity for knowledge/awareness by acquaintance.
I hope this helps somewhat.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Thanks. That helps. So can a computer be programmed with the ability to infer propositional knowledge from sensory input? Or is that the next step in AI? Will computers then be warranted in inferring a God?
My interview with Ozzy was better.
Jk great vid!
LOL. Actually, RE:Think, your interview really was a good one - easily one of my favourites.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks Ozy!!
that may well be true...especially with the tech issues, but I'll take Ozy content wherever I can
Matt in the house!! Big fan!!!
Um...it's my house, of course I'm here. (Although, with a few exceptions, I tend to ignore comments) :)
interesting discussion but the time gap between video and auido is a bit irritating
No offense Matt, but even the most basic video editing software allows you to adjust the audio and video timelines to correct desync issues.
Not fixing the audio is doing a disservice to your loyal viewers and yourself. It makes it seem like you didn't really care about this video and will definitely hurt your viewership.
If you tried to fix it, and for some reason couldn't, then I apologize for my comment.
I tried. Other people tried...to varying degrees of success. Audio/video in a stream isn't the same as audio/video from a camera and audio recorder.
I posted it because the content was too important for me to not post it. But, if you think I just don't care, that's fine.
As I said, if there was an attempt to resolve the issue, then I take back my comments. I know you care, and I care about your content. That's why I hate seeing a low quality video like this on your channel. Someone just stumbling onto this video could form a very bad impression of you and your channel. I'd hate for that to happen. I absolutely love your videos and have been a long term viewer and subscriber. Keep up the good work.
me too. few things are more annoying than working hard on something and having technical problems that diminish it
DameonK: I downloaded this video and, after much fussing, was able to correct the audio (but it's imperfect in places). I've mirrored it on my own channel, if you would like to watch this video without the audio-synch problem.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ahh, there are likely different "time signatures" for the video / audio. You likely have to experiment with the audio "speed" or fps of the video to sync them. I would happily assist in this, as i've done it in a handful of videos with ffmpeg and handbrake.
I bet there a reindeer somewhere with a fly agaric(super mario red mushroom ) mushroom on it nose from digging them out they love mushrooms they even drink each other urine to get unused metabolites then they literally flying by tripping balls.
Come on, Windows 10 automatically fixed every and any audio issues I had under Windows 7. So, it's not all bad. :P
Most people experienced the exact opposite
Could you imagine the backlash if MOST people experienced it to be worse? No way.
algi Yes it would look something like what we saw. Or many people saw d.least, I'm getting the impression you never did.
59:08 _"And then hopefully they go, yeah you're right. That's just an absolutely terrible way to proceed."_
lol
NO THEY DON'T. You are absolutely dreaming.
What they'll do is get butthurt that you're "comparing god" to whatever subject you used to create your analogous argument. Either that or they'll simply assert that god is a special exception.
Nice discussion. Horrible audio levels. Horrible sync. For sponsored content, I'm expecting a little more.
Where is the first interview?
Canadian Apistevist: I'm not sure what you're asking about exactly. Matt and I alluded to prior conversations we've had, but those were never recorded, in case that's what you're asking about. We do hope to plunge into more specific issues in the future however.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Haha it's a joke Ozy. First interview would be titled "Ozymandias Ramses I"
Canadian Apistevist Haha...I guess the joke's on me then. Doh!
Cheers,
- Ozy
Isn't his name a tautology?
It is indeed.
- Ozy
Only morons use tautologies...oh, wait...
the first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
I like to think of myself as fairly quick but this one is getting by me.
How is it a tautology?
Ozymandias is a Greek name for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. Or are you talking to me?
Stephen Colbert - 'Agnostics are just atheists without balls.'
(I was just messing around).
I'm not A supporter of religions. But I feel the problem with life, in general, is the fear (mind) problem. You can be so pragmatic, or so naturally and or scientifically intelligent. You can also use known philosophies. But our western fear culture, makes it difficult to see rationality. This speaker is an obvious intelligent person. I'm not sure he understands the fear question experientially.Pure knowledge gets muddled when all the particapants don't understand the impediments to love or compassion or emotions that are related to theGod question. In addition, Its impossible to prove God when one person has absolutely no interest or open to the possibility. Ill use the example, the universe has been created, science thinks its expanding. Most rational people feel there are extraterrestrials, given the shear size of the universe. Faith is the only reason for it, although ancient art and literature seem to point in the direction of the extraterrestrial argument. Debating is only appropriate when there are two known constants.
very bad audio pls get a microphone
Praise God ...😎
Ouch. You actually had a guy on who claims to not know that he knows anything. Great. Did you make 3K off this?
You jealous? I'm sure you can invite Slick back on to make you feel better.
Keep trolling for Jesus instead of learning epistemology, it's working well for you.
By the way, am I still the most popular thing on your channel?
Indeed you have become such. Thanks for coming on.
I have leaned a lot about epistemology. Some from Ozy. However, the truth is he denies the ability to know that he knows anything to be the case.
Slick is on my channel every Sunday night. He would like to engage with you in a formal debate. Not online but in person. Are you open to that?
I'm not sure Slick is capable of a formal debate. His inability to be civil; his Interruptions, his preaching, dodging questions, his childish repeating of the same question over and over... etc...
And he doesn't understand simple words, like consensus.
where your compassion and humility and respect? May we ask how much you and your channel make? Release them to the public so everyone can examine them. Surely you can do your followers are willing to share your financial data?
This stuff gives me headache 😱
Instant click.
This so boring
Cats on the other hand...