Atheists Can't Justify Using Reason

[@kappasphere]

What I think is stupid about the question "if evolution is true, how can you trust in the infallibility of human reason" is that it's extremely easy to demonstrate that human reasoning isn't infallible, so that part is just what you'd expect if evolution is true. What science does is try its best to work around the biases that are introduced by the reasoning being done by human brains that evolved for survival instead of truth.

[@calebr7199]

Yes! I always find that this is missing from discussions about this argument. It is not a question of philosophy, it is an empirical fact that human reasoning is inherently flawed. So much psychological research shows this. The question should be, would you expect human reasoning to be systematically flawed on theism, or naturalistic atheism?

[@RustyWalker]

@@calebr7199 But ... the magic apple!! The Fall!!! That's what did it!! /s

[@justmakesomethingdope]

I strongly disagree. Every major breakthrough in science taught in primary schools, had a biased beginning…. Especially the theory of evolution.

[@higa8029]

I think the main point of the argument is that an account of human beings merely on the standpoint of evolution leads to skepticism of evolution itself since it’s a theory derived by rationality.

[@rsvp87]

I don't think that captures the challenge accurately. The question isn't if human reasoning is infallible, it's if our fallible reasoning is happening within a coherent structure that points at an overarching truth. Science is itself a manifestation of human reason, so we would still have to account for how it maps onto reality. None of this is even really a defeater of evolution because we can say that we've evolved to be rational because the structure of the universe is rational and therefore survival and truth are aligned. But then we have to account for that rational universal structure, which brings us back to God hypotheses.

[@Cian097]

If we boil water to make tea, we also get steam. If we accept that we have evolved to select for survivability and not truth, can't observance of truth be something that is a by product of that, an epiphenomenal occurrence. A species can observe falling from the window of a tall building kills them and so evolve to have a healthy fear of heights, but if it evolve observing rainbows in skies after a rainfall, that has no immediate bearing on their survival but it's still something that's noticed.

[@japexican007]

And what exactly is truth in a construct VR world made by random chance over time, by VR I mean humans and rocks are mere collections of energy just instantiated a certain way thus it’s a VR world in the sense that everything is just energy rearranged for you to traverse in this universe

[@rahilrahman266]

You want to claim its a byproduct? Prove it.

[@Cian097]

@@rahilrahman266 @rahilrahman266 not saying I actually believe that personally, just asking the question and playing the socratic game. And besides my point is more really that I'm rejecting that saying we evolved to adapt to for survivability means we did so at the expense of truth, trying to point out that not everything we observe is necessarily borne from it being useful to survival and that alone. Trying to point out that it's silly to think that evolving solely to adapt for survivability is silly. We boil the kettle solely to make tea, but we get steam, so is the steam real when we orientated ourselves around the goal of making tea?

[@danpetru]

that is an important observation but it doesn't change the outcome of the discussion. It's basically similar to what the guest said about Hew Price's(?) proposition: that you define truth in a more modest way, related to the human experience rather than in terms of Absolute. What the two point out is that even in the case that we all regard something as being true (like the examples you gave) doesn't make it true in an absolute sense, rather it says that: it is so strongly reinforced by evolution that we regard is as selfevident. I like the nuance you bring in that if there is no bias there is no reason to be untruthful. But the problem i see with it, is that if we multiply the selection of 'truth' over 100ts and 100ts of generations there is likely to always be a bias about anything.

[@rahilrahman266]

@Cian097 if you want to eliminate the elimination of truth by traditional understanding of evolution and want to imply that truth can be a byproduct of evolution, you have meet your logics demand or if you want to convince us then answer our logics demand, which is which feature of evolution demands our being able to deduce true objective reality!

[@Davidcurtisdrums]

As a Christian, it’s thrilling to hear two non Christians explain the presuppositional argument for God’s existence as well as most theologians would, and giving it the respect it deserves. Awesome conversation.

[@piage84]

The presuppositional argument doesn't deserve any respect. It's probably the silliest argument for god after the evergreen "look at the tree"

[@vladtheemailer3223]

It's not something to be respected.

[@timandmonica]

@Davidcurtisdrums Yeah, that must be unusual! When I think of what you call "the presuppositional argument for God’s existence", I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I've only seen Christian apologists and philosophers use this argument, but I've honestly never heard a theologian use it. Who are the people you thought of when you wrote that?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Davidcurtisdrums Terrible mistakes like the so-called ‘presuppositional argument’ are the result of too many people indulging in banal word games rather than investigating evidence.

[@Davidcurtisdrums]

@@timandmonica There’s been variations of it in different theological traditions, but the most notable is Cornelius Van Til. More recently the biggest proponents of it are Jeff Durbin, James White, and the guy who influenced them, Greg Bahnsen. If you want, there’s a debate between Bahnsen and Gordon Stein on KZbin about God’s existence and the presuppositional argument is used extremely effectively. :)

[@Kaylos29]

Going through the solutions to the problem of induction in epistemology, I cannot escape the feeling that the arguments or proofs were arguments for a God of a different sort. Some had very similar structures and even the term sinning epistimologically seems to take on a strange religious fervor. "If absolute truth belongs to anyone in the world, it certainly does not belong to the man or party that claims to possess it." - Albert Camus

[@mobatyoutube]

We know people's reasoning is fallible. For example, we have strong evidence that people's reasoning is subject to cognitive biases. Believing in evolution, and believing the process of evolution selects for survival as opposed to truth, the fact that people's reasoning is fallible makes sense. Believing in God, and believing that God guarantees people's reasoning, the fact that people's reasoning is fallible does not make sense.

[@ultracrepiderian]

Which thiest believes god grants perfect reasoning 😂? He obviously doesn't otherwise atheists like u wouldn't exist ✌️

[@ultracrepiderian]

Which thiest believes god grants perfect reasoning 😂? He obviously doesn't otherwise atheists like u wouldn't exist ✌️

[@ultracrepiderian]

Which thiest believes god grants perfect reasoning 😂? He obviously doesn't otherwise atheists like u wouldn't exist ✌️

[@ultracrepiderian]

Which thiest believes god grants perfect reasoning 😂?

[@pathologicalfriar]

Hey there, I wanted to offer a couple thoughts in response to your comment. 1. I’m not aware of any theist who would argue that God guarantees us infallible reasoning. I think God (who I’m defining as a maximally great being) could reasonably create finite beings that are limited in their reasoning faculties just as they are limited in other ways. 2. I don’t think naturalism would solve the problem. I think if theism is true, the possibility that we can reason toward truth (despite fallible faculties) is more likely. If naturalism is true, the possibility that reason may not even exist comes into play, as it would just be a system of guesses/interpretations of chemical reactions (which wouldn’t be necessarily trustworthy because they aren’t necessarily aimed at the production of true belief) to external stimuli. And assuming naturalism, this system of self-admittedly fallible guessing/interpretation is what you would use to arrive at the conclusion that naturalism best explains our logical fallibility. So I don’t think it would solve the whole circular problem. Hopefully I’m not too broad or vague here. Curious to hear your thoughts, have a nice day!

[@HDMFanatic]

The thing is "truth" is always going to be the case regardless of whether there's a mind to discover the truth. Ultimately it doesn't matter if our brains are developed around "seeking truth" or not. We make observations and try to discern the nature of the world and the universe as a whole based on those observations. Even if we can't trust human intellect, it's literally all we have, whether it can fully understand the truths of the universe or not.

[@alena-qu9vj]

No, human intellect is by far not all we have, its even not making us human - as the transfering of this intellect into the AI proves. Its our emotions what distinguishes us from a mechanical robot, and - as neuroscience proved long ago - those emotions are superior to our intellect - meaning its the very emotions which controll our brain without the brain being able to reflect it.

[@HDMFanatic]

@@alena-qu9vj Emotions are irrelevant to seeking truth though. Edit: Emotions are often irrational, so they're not sufficient for the justification of truth claims.

[@JoBo301]

Just because it is all we have, there is no evidence it would ever recognise truth and therefore we cannot trust our intellects.

[@Factsmatter2000]

@@HDMFanatic Emotions are often irrational. Which is one of the reasons, why our reasoning is often wrong because it is influenced by our emotions. The other reason is that we experience our world through our brains. Everything we experience is created by our brain. Our observations are created and interpreted by our brains. If our brains are not created/designed to work rational, then you can not trust the results and experiences your brain creates. Does that mean that our brains are designed/created. Not necessarily. It just means that if our brains come about random processes than you cannot trust anything your brain produces to be true.

[@HDMFanatic]

@@Factsmatter2000 I completely agree with you.

[@OrthoBro7516]

Wouldn't Price's argument therefore be self-defeating ( if truth is deflationary so is his argument)?

[@Bewareofthewolves]

Could you explain Price’s argument? I didn’t fully catch it from this clip. And what is anti-realism? Thanks

[@darklights.burner]

The day ppl stop talking about Alex's moustache is the day he shaves it. 😂😂😂😂😂

[@michaelnewsham1412]

If you walk off a cliff, and If you fall down, your brain is not giving you truth.

[@MerryMindLife]

Why is that? Interesting idea, but is it fully consistent?

[@davidmccoy6888]

Reason evolbed to survive, not to find trueth. This is a miopic mistatement. Truth is nessary for survival. We can learn our congitive biases and compensate for them. There is no paradox or contradiction--only a flawed method of investigation.

[@andyk5768]

As a tool, reason is optimized for survival. Fine. That doesn't preclude me from using it for a task other than survival though. A hammer is not the optimal tool for opening a package, but you can absolutely open a package with a hammer, and you can absolutely use reason to find truth.

[@buglepong]

not all truths are necessary for survival, possibly even some lies are necessary

[@Nuclearburrit0]

​@@buglepongmaybe, but enough truths ARE necessary for survival that it's consistent with our reasoning being pretty good, though not perfect, at finding truths.

[@rahilrahman266]

​@@Nuclearburrit0prove your claim.

[@rahilrahman266]

Truth is necessary for survival?? Prove it.

[@AlexPBenton]

Which is a more vicious circle, acknowledging that your reasoning may be faulty, or asserting that you are guaranteed to be true because of an assumption that you’ve made?

[@feedthewhale4266]

@AlexPBenton I would see that viewpoint in its generalised form as a fallacy. We have to operate on the basis of certainty to take action in the world. A materialist or a theist can claim that they are being epistemological humble, but then they have to abandon that view take a view on things in the real world. Fence sitting doesn't produce actions.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@feedthewhale4266 " I would see that viewpoint in its generalised form as a fallacy. We have to operate on the basis of certainty to take action in the world." I don't think so...many decisions of import are made with a great deal of uncertainty. Consider...deciding to buy a house, deciding to go to college, choosing a career, choosing a mate...the list is almost endless of the things people decide to do without being certain of the outcome. Not being certain doesn't have to lead to fence sitting...it just means someone has faith. The materialist may admit his reasoning isn't always certain and so too can the theist. But both may still make decisions on the best information.

[@chad969]

@@feedthewhale4266 "We have to operate on the basis of certainty to take action in the world" Why do you think that?

[@feedthewhale4266]

@chad969 I think what I meant to say might be more eloquently rephrased as we need to take a view on a question to act on it. Sitting on the fence does not produce action.

[@feedthewhale4266]

Functionally speaking, there is no such thing as a true agnostic. Like you say, you either have to take a view that theism is true or materialism or some other worldview/cosmology is true.

[@Bewareofthewolves]

Christian here. Good conversation! I really appreciate your honesty - a breath of fresh air, actually.

[@JarekKrawczyk]

But even though in evolutionary model there is selection for survivability, survivability depends on having mostly true perception of reality, and being carefull about things that are potentially dangerous, which couses fenomenon of assigning agency to movement behind us making as think that it is dangerous agent and not moving branches in the wind.

[@JoBo301]

But there is no survival - all living things die so it is not something that evolution would select

[@JarekKrawczyk]

@Randomytname1 Well, not all sensory information is false. Humans sensory information is certainly incomplete (dogs can smell and hear more, but not all the spectrum, dogs don't see as well as people), but the interface that our brain and created by brain mind can create, gives as good enough picture of reality for basic the survival. If the interface would "tell us" that there is a cliff, where there is no cliff, when we are walking, this would be a problem. If the mind creates false impression that there is a predator behind the tree, and I run, it sucks a bit, but it makes me more alert and allows me survive better, when there is a real predator. So if the number of false alarms is balanced, in the end it is a Plus. Now, from the evolutionary point of view, giving us a thinking brain as is does, it gives us massive advantage when it comes to survivability, but there is always a little bit of price. The balance is positive so far, though there is the pollution, global warming, and the arsenal of A and H bombs, and people like Kim, Vlad, Donald, end so on.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

​@Randomytname1yes buy most of the time it at least has to have a grsin of truth to it

[@rahilrahman266]

You sure made a lot of claims, prove them.

[@rahilrahman266]

You sure made a lot of claims, prove them.

[@landon5105]

The video in which Alex stated TAG better than a presupper.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

It’s not even the full tag argument. The full TAG argument shows precisely why Christianity is superior to atheism and why the latter is ultimately self refuting

[@andreywonttell4016]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Haven't you read the Bible? The Christian God can lie. So if you believe in the Christian God, you have no basis for truth either. Perhaps during the fall, Yahweh played a joke on humanity and made them divorced from the truth. Moreover, we de facto know that our thinking is full of errors and distortions.

[@Bayhuntr]

And just a note, whenever somebody says “God” the weak link in this discussion is that that always comes from man, it never comes from a God. there is never godly wisdom, it is always men’s Wisdom dressed up as gods. Now the day either of these two men bring a God onto the show then it won’t be hearsay, from a man.

[@bokchoiman]

Muslims have solved this by claiming that the Quran is the unedited word of God.

[@sosimple3585]

What we really need is no men and two or more gods on the show to discuss who's wisest.

[@Bayhuntr]

@@sosimple3585 Maybe Thor and Aphrodite. Think of the views it would get.

[@sosimple3585]

@@Bayhuntr Yes! Then on to a rotating cast of pairings...Quetzlcoatl and Vishnu, Odin and Zeus...

[@rahilrahman266]

And when someone says a black hole, its also from man and not a black hole.

[@FortYeah]

In the end, the main question that remains is : Is it the arms and the shoulders of the guy that seem too big, or his head that looks too small ?

[@Maurus200]

Theists like to say a perfect God is our foundation for reason/truth. Theists also say that they are imperfect. This of course causes a problem because it means their logic is imperfect and subject to error. That includes the belief that a perfect God is the foundation for logic. In a world where physics is the foundation it will clearly produce imperfect beings. We get around this by only calling high confidence items "truth" while still expressing that we could be wrong. This also implies that we cannot know anything with 100% confidence thus breaking the cycle.

[@Factsmatter2000]

There is a fundamental problem with using science to disprove the believe in God. Science is based on a couple assumptions: 1. You can think rational and that the laws of logic are correct. 2. Laws of nature exist. If you remove these assumptions from science, then science collapses. Physics becomes random data, which has no meaning and it becomes impossible to predict anything. It becomes impossible to state that if you press the breaks in your car, the car will decelerate instead on accelerate. The justification for these assumptions has been since the beginning of modern science in the 15/16 century that the world was created by a reasonable and rational God. Roughly 70 years ago the theistic bias in science has been replaced with an atheistic bias in science. Atheist have up to today failed to explain why these assumptions are correct. Some of the have just given up to try to explain them, because you cannot explain how these assumptions are true based on natural processes. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that atheism is correct.

[@ExpertContrarian]

@@Factsmatter2000That’s literally not what science is or does

[@Factsmatter2000]

@@ExpertContrarian What is science then?

[@ExpertContrarian]

@@Factsmatter2000 science is not the assumption that natural laws exist. The natural laws were created and described through observation and experimentation from the scientific method

[@Factsmatter2000]

@@ExpertContrarian I suggest that you read a history book on the history of science. The reason somebody started to look for laws of nature is because they assume they would exist. This is the reason, why science was developed by Christians in Europe and not in China, despite that the Chinese had a lot of good inventions. The scientific method was original invented to study and understand the Bible. And then it was applied by natural scientist to the natural world because they expected to find laws of nature. The next question is why do laws of nature exist? They don't need to exist. They came into being shortly after the Big Bang. And theoretically there should be chaos and not order through laws of nature.

[@MrAdamo]

Animals are goal oriented creatures. Survivability is a goal. To reach a goal, you must take a path. More paths to survivability are also paths to truth than paths to survivability that are not paths to truth. This means that more often than not, what is true also makes you survive. So more often than not, people believe true things. Sometimes we don’t.

[@jffrysith4365]

1:06 I don't think we evolved to "know" 2 + 2 = 4 to begin with. The reason we "know" 2 + 2 = 4 was because it was drilled into you in primary school. We can create a math system where 2 + 2 = 3. I mean a simple one would be take the field of real numbers but redefine addition such that if 3 is used, replace it with 4 and if 4 is used, replace it with 3, and do the same for multiplication, subtraction and division.

[@deecee10000]

@@jffrysith4365 Did you know other species are able to add and use a number system? It's just a fact I'm throwing out there. I'm not here to knock any of what you wrote.

[@RanEncounter]

​@@rithinsiby2653 You missed the point. It is quite easy for a mathematician to make a mathematical ring where 2 + 2 = 3. Just because the mathematical ring you are familiar with gives the answer of 4 does not mean it is in all mathematical rings the same. Also in your example you are using 4 as you learned before and not the internal logic of mathematical systems that have 2 + 2 = 3. By that logic you would still have 3 mangoes. By the logic we teach in school you would have 4. I don't think you thought your example through.

[@RanEncounter]

@@rithinsiby2653 "no, here you are still..." Nope. Not just the symbolism but even the understanding of what is four and what is three in your mind. "I could argue..." Correct but that does not change the understanding in your mind both systems are valid in understanding the abstract reality. "In fact that how different..." Incorrect. You can have different logics that are not bijective to our learned standard logic and yet have 2 + 2 = 3. These you cannot map 1:1 onto the system that we have learned from school. Thus it would produce a different kind of thinking patterns and thus you would find different kinds of mathematical truths. Your mind would just use a different logical system to come to conclusions. It would be logically valid and you would see the world in a different mathematical lense.

[@RanEncounter]

@@rithinsiby2653 So you did not actually tackle my points and instead just handwaved them away. Why? Mathematical truths are very different with different frames of reference. The way we show something to be real or a fact is by mathematics and science. That is why the mathematical lense matters and your understanding of reality changes when changing the mathematical lense you look through. This is a fact. "...so even when you state theae statements you have presupposed what I am telling you." This is not the case as I explained. I know higher mathematical concepts and the logic behind why we chose the logical rules that we use now are hard to understand for a layman, but atleast you should be intellectually honest when talking about these things. I am not presupposing what you are telling me at all when I explain to you what the rules of logic in mathematics and changing them means.

[@RanEncounter]

@@rithinsiby2653 "suppose if we take you true then this could mean if I changed my mathematical system my facts about world should automatically changed,..." Not exactly. The logic how you come to conclusions would change and mathematical facts would change. "...simply put you have to prove any mathematical system would work in the description of world,..." This is incorrect as only mathematical systems that are compatible with reality would be sufficient as science discards the systems that do not work with reality. Again your logic of coming to conclusions would change (thus the way you understand things would change too) and the mathematical facts would change. "i know higher scientific knowledge is hard for a layman but you should be intellectually honest." So you made a strawman argument and tore it down to try to be intellectually honest. What are you doing? Of course science will discard the incompatible systems, but it will not discard the compatible ones and there are many. These are the viable mathematical lenses to look at reality I am talking about. Why do I have to point out to you extremely basic scientific facts?

[@Caleb-lu3zl]

logic is the underlying element of all branches of philosophy, and while it is possible to create a circular loop by having your Ontology undermine your Epistemology, it's more to do with the way you frame it, or define it. Logic is the study of reasoning, and reasoning is noticeably viable. Yes, humans have evolved to make snap judgments in the interest of safety, but that doesn't negate reasoning on the whole.

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

“HERMES: Have you, Socrates, never mocked anyone? ¶ SOCRATES: [with dignity] If, on occasion, I make fun of someone, it is because I hope he will help me to seek a truth that neither he nor I yet knows. I do not mock from on high, as you do. I want only to goad my fellow mortal into helping me look beyond that which is easy to see. ¶ HERMES: But what in the world is easy to see? What things are the easiest to see, Socrates? ¶ SOCRATES: [Shrugs.] Those that are before our eyes. ¶ HERMES: And what is before your eyes at this moment? ¶ SOCRATES: You are. ¶ HERMES: Are you sure? ¶ SOCRATES: Are you going to start asking me how I can be sure of whatever I say? And then, whatever reason I give, are you going to ask how I can be sure of that? ¶ HERMES: No. Do you think I have come here to play hackneyed debating tricks? ¶ SOCRATES: Very well: obviously I can’t be sure of anything. But I don’t want to be. I can think of nothing more boring-no offence meant, wise Apollo-than to attain the state of being perfectly secure in one’s beliefs, which some people seem to yearn for. I see no use for it-other than to provide a semblance of an argument when one doesn’t have a real one. Fortunately that mental state has nothing to do with what I do yearn for, which is to discover the truth of how the world is, and why-and, even more, of how it should be. ¶ HERMES: Congratulations, Socrates, on your epistemological wisdom. The knowledge that you seek-objective knowledge-is hard to come by, but attainable. That mental state that you do not seek-justified belief-is sought by many people, especially priests and philosophers. But, in truth, beliefs cannot be justified, except in relation to other beliefs, and even then only fallibly. So the quest for their justification can lead only to an infinite regress-each step of which would itself be subject to error. ¶ SOCRATES: Again, I know this. ¶ HERMES: Indeed. And, as you have rightly remarked, it doesn’t count as a ‘revelation’ if I tell you what you already know. Yet-notice that that remark is precisely what people who seek justified belief do not agree with. ¶ SOCRATES: What? I’m sorry, but that was too convoluted a comment for my allegedly wise mind to comprehend. Please explain what I am to notice about those people who seek ‘justified belief’. ¶ HERMES: Merely this. Suppose they just happen to be aware of the explanation of something. You and I would say that they know it. But to them, no matter how good an explanation it is, and no matter how true and important and useful it may be, they still do not consider it to be knowledge. It is only if a god then comes along and reassures them that it is true (or if they imagine such a god or other authority) that they count it as knowledge. So, to them it does count as a revelation if the authority tells them what they are already fully aware of. ¶ SOCRATES: I see that. And I see that they are foolish, because, for all they know, the ‘authority’ [gestures at HERMES] may be toying with them. Or trying to teach them some important lesson. Or they may be misunderstanding the authority. Or they may be mistaken in their belief that it is an authority- ¶ HERMES: Yes. So the thing they call ‘knowledge’, namely justified belief, is a chimera. It is unattainable to humans except in the form of self-deception; it is unnecessary for any good purpose; and it is undesired by the wisest among mortals. ¶ - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ (Ch.10: A Dream of Socrates)

[@alena-qu9vj]

"The knowledge that you seek-objective knowledge-is hard to come by, but attainable." Hehe. Said Hermes, the Trickster. And didnt explain how is an objective knowledge attainable to our subjective minds.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

@@alena-qu9vj Hermes Psychopompos is also a psychopomp in Greek mythology, a "soul guide" that escorts the souls of the deceased to the afterlife. The dialog could be interpreted as an elaborate "you'll see it when you get there" by Hermes.

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

@@alena-qu9vj , “Appearances are deceptive. Yet we have a great deal of knowledge about the vast and unfamiliar reality that causes them, and of the elegant, universal laws that govern that reality. This knowledge consists of explanations: assertions about what is out there beyond the appearances, and how it behaves. For most of the history of our species, we had almost no success in creating such knowledge. Where does it come from? Empiricism said that we derive it from sensory experience. This is false. The real source of our theories is conjecture, and the real source of our knowledge is conjecture alternating with criticism. We create theories by rearranging, combining, altering and adding to existing ideas with the intention of improving upon them. The role of experiment and observation is to choose between existing theories, not to be the source of new ones. We interpret experiences through explanatory theories, but true explanations are not obvious. Fallibilism entails not looking to authorities but instead acknowledging that we may always be mistaken, and trying to correct errors. We do so by seeking good explanations-explanations that are hard to vary in the sense that changing the details would ruin the explanation. This, not experimental testing, was the decisive factor in the scientific revolution, and also in the unique, rapid, sustained progress in other fields that have participated in the Enlightenment. That was a rebellion against authority which, unlike most such rebellions, tried not to seek authoritative justifications for theories, but instead set up a tradition of criticism. Some of the resulting ideas have enormous reach: they explain more than what they were originally designed to. The reach of an explanation is an intrinsic attribute of it, not an assumption that we make about it as empiricism and inductivism claim.” - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ (summary of Ch.1: The Reach of Explanations)

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@JerehmiaBoaz Hermes migt be a Psychopompos, but he is a Trickster and double-faced lier above all, manipulating words masterfully to create his own reality. Never believe anything he wants you to believe.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I am sorry I am not able to work my way throuhg your long not organized post, partly because my bad English too. But anyway, all our knowledge here is and only can be subjective, because perceived and interpreted by subjects. No amount or sum of subjective opinions makes up for some objective knowledge. There is always some fragile consensus conforming to the and changing with the actual time and power. Objectivity is not of this material world.

[@firemelon7296]

The link given to the "full episode" is from a different conversation.

[@lucaswild6533]

Because trust is anchored to reliability. We trust reliable sources and distrust unreliable ones. Our minds model proxies for our experienced reality and have been trained by trial and error by which we have discovered that, without exception, what is true once under exactly the same conditions is always true, and what is false once under exactly the same conditions is always false. This is the very definition of reliable. So we are not trusting our minds, but instead degree of reliability of our experience of how the universe works.

[@BioChemistryWizard]

Ehhh I am sorry quantum physics when you know the math is so so so so so far abstracted from any kind of evolutionary reality of reliability that it really doesnt make any sense why its even intelligible unless you have some kind of truth node in you.

[@lucaswild6533]

@BioChemistryWizard You don't need a "truth node" - just outcomes that match predictions, GPS being the most accessible and tangible case when it comes to something even as famously difficult to wrestle with as quantum theories.

[@feedthewhale4266]

@lucaswild6533 The issue with that thesis is that it ignores the effect that our being is framed by some kind of narrative. The narrative informs how we filter and interpret empirical experience, we cherry pick the data points to suit what our narrative calls for. A materialistic worldview is therefore no different to a theistic, in that both will cherry pick and interpret empirical data differently.

[@lucaswild6533]

​@@feedthewhale4266 I agree. Theists must always differ to the narrative of their chosen god/s - narratives that vary diverge wildly from chosen god to chosen god. Materialist/empiricists must defer to the narrative foisted on them by the reality they observe (whether that narrative benefits them personally or not), and - lo and behold - these narratives all turn out converge. I might be cherry picking, but at least I know that the cherries I pick were grown in observable and quantifiable soil, on an observable and quantifiable planet, in an observable and quantifiable universe. Cherries picked from the imaginations of minds of ancient - or sometimes not so ancient - human beings are just not to my liking. Each to their own. But the theistic claim that I have no business picking cherries at all - which is what my original comment was pointing out - is nothing more than hubris.

[@MerryMindLife]

​@@feedthewhale4266Yeah, materialism would lead to nihilism, as you supposedly know everything is material, but at the same you are incapable of knowing truth because you are just a clump of cells, like a rock, that does a couple of nonsensical things. The materialistic view essentially does away with everything, morality and so and so forth, but the religious view has trouble also avoiding seeing people as a clump of cells, and even if they are more than that, it would seem they are just the patterns of the universe, like laws of nature being continuously expressed

[@a.i.l1074]

There's a similar but possibly nastier problem if you think that materialism implies determinism. It's plausible that evolution could be broadly truth-directed, I can think of false beliefs which would get you killed, but why trust your beliefs if they're just the result of particles following physical laws playing out in front of you?

[@Detson404]

Same under theism, btw, if god knows anything then he also knows what you’ll do tomorrow. Doesn’t matter. My computer is determined but can still produce the right answer. If you’re asking how we know that we know that we know, that chain just goes on forever until you terminate in some “well i just do,” same under theism.

[@a.i.l1074]

@@Detson404 The most common Christian view is compatibalist, but I find open theism more convincing. So no, I don't think God knows what I'll do tomorrow. I like the computer point, let me think about it. Nah, on theism it terminates in a rational and creative mind who may be compelled to grant genuine consciousness and free will, so we have a chance of knowing the fact of the matter. On materialist determinism, it terminates in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Detson404 The answer that your computer produces is right only in the frame of the human paradigma. Human / theist's conscioussnes can transcend it and produce universally right answers. Hear me saying "conscioussnes", not mind or reason.

[@AyoOdimayo]

Talk to Jay Dyer about this

[@Wholly_Fool]

Just talk to Jay Dyer

[@EsausHeel]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Begin without the Lord, and you are in viscous circular reasoning. Break out of the circle and give glory to your Maker.

[@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten]

But you can't justify reason under a belief in god either, because you would need to prove first that he exists. Which you can only do by reasoning, which is something you can only trust if you already know god exists.

[@JoBo301]

Is that a true statement?

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

No need to prove God for this to work, God is discovered also through revelation so that breaks the problem. Revelation is above our normal faculties it comes to put us in our place. Moreover as a philosophical thought experiment you could just grant his existence, then see everything works and makes sense if he exists, then conclude okay I'll believe in God in that case. Empiricism isn't necessary. Although helpful after revelation.

[@navigator687]

You don’t even understand the problem

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

@@VirginMostPowerfull revelation isn’t reliable. People have revelations attesting to the truth of various mutually exclusive things.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

@@Emperorhirohito19272 Revelation is reliable on a subjective level, that's all that matters for this to work. But even on an objective level God is widely present in revelations, we only differ in our understanding of his intimacy or his person. Which is why Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc all ultimately worship the one God who we understand differently but it is God. For Hindus I'd be more precise as they're not technically monotheistic but their ultimate worship is to one deity.

[@fearitselfpinball8912]

“It’s not that an atheistic view implies this, it’s that a materialistic view implies this”. Key statement. Science (as the method) + materialism (as the totality of reality) are compelling in combination. Taken together they suggest perhaps that ‘all the truth there is’ can be established on a rigorously clear basis (and by a near-singular method). It’s rigorous (as we prefer). However the extreme constraints of this view: that _really_ all the truth there is concerns exclusively the existence of objects (as it were) delivers but is also troublingly incomplete. Inevitably being a realist about all sorts of apparently necessary (to ordinary life) categories becomes deeply problematic: Truth, morality (including justice), meaning, etc. The difficulties of being in this position are not reduced in any way by the relative merit or lack of merit of any other view.

[@GaiusIncognitus]

Why is it that mathematicians can accept incompleteness, but philosophers can't?

[@grantwhitley6857]

Kinda the whole point of philosophy to keep digging until you find the answers to your questions. Not that there is incompleteness but rather a view that hasn’t been taken yet

[@juanausensi499]

Mathematicians have robust set of axioms. Philosophers, on the other hand, can say whatever they feel it.

[@dantedemello]

there are times you can prove math to be uncomputable but you must do the math to find out it can’t be computed

[@rickmossop3733]

@@juanausensi499 No they can't. They have to support their statements with logical arguments.

[@juanausensi499]

@@rickmossop3733 In theory, yes.

[@chekitatheanimatedskeptic6314]

I wouldn't say this materialistic ontology "undermines" our epistemology, it's more like it humbles our epistemology. One of the reasons why we understand to a degree how fallible our reason, knowledge and ways of obtaining both are fragile is exactly because we evolved our ontology to this point of understanding our origins. This is exactly one of the reasons a good scientific mind proposes temporary solutions, but working and to our knowledge "correct" solutions, to explain things rather than planting a rigid nail of truth/fact and knowledge at everything like dogma and theology. There they will say exactly how things are and will never dare to change them in the face of any possible corrections, because their epistemology is even more flawed due to their ontology (god did it, god is).

[@alena-qu9vj]

Are you sure you know what theology means and does? It is a "science" about the IMMATERIAL, about the ideal (not material) reality. And ideas are not changing by definition. Dogma is something else of course, but it is a matter of a Church, not of a theology itself. Of course a theologist can be dogmatic, as so many materialistic scientists are also - but this is we - people, not the ideas.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

How does God know that what he believes is actually true?

[@Factsmatter2000]

Because God does not believe that something is true. God is truth.

[@Alex_Vlass]

Reddit is around the corner to the left.

[@piage84]

​@Randomytname1ok,so by definition I'm rational. So there you go. No need for god for me to be rational

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

​@piage84 God is the greatest conceivable being and therfore it follows that since being truthful is a great making property ,God will posses it. You are not rational simply because you say so being a human by definition you are not a purely rational creature

[@Alex_Vlass]

@@piage84 You are a rational being, but that doesn’t guarantee you will act rationally. God isn’t only by definition truthful, he is. Definitions are meaningless if they don’t hold any bearing to reality which we know by divine revelation.

[@tedarcher9120]

We can't know the truth, but we can get closer and closer to it by employing complex systems that depend on our model of the truth to test it

[@JoBo301]

is that a true statement?

[@tedarcher9120]

@@JoBo301 only if it works

[@JoBo301]

@@tedarcher9120 how do you know if it truly works?

[@tedarcher9120]

@@JoBo301 if it produces expected results

[@JoBo301]

@@tedarcher9120 is that true? If so what was your source for truth?

[@360.Tapestry]

this is why our understanding of physics falls apart when pushed to extreme levels

[@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115]

Our reason has in fact evolved for survivability, not for truth; but, for most of time, the most useful believe is the true believe, though it is not always. That's why its important to base your philosophy on empirical evidence as much as possible, and avoid too much metaphisical reasoning; because, as hume said, our weak reason has narrow limits. And i think the distinction between self-underminig versus self-reinforcing is not necessarily a bad thing for naturalists. A self undermining epistemology could rely much more on its rigorous selection of truths than a self-reinforcing epistemology like grounding our reason in God.

[@kiroshakir7935]

Didn't you use the same cognitive faculties in question to come to the conclusion that the most useful belief is a true belief Besides evolution doesn't entail the most optimal outcome at all times

[@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115]

@@kiroshakir7935 we can know that a great amount of our believes (the most useful believes for evolution) are true believes through empirical evidence, which is not dependent on our reason. Einstein used much reasoning to come to his theory of relativity, but in the end we have empirical evidence that shows his reasoning (or an important part of it) was correct. We have, for example, a photo(!) of a black hole, we know clocks change their measurement depending on their velocity and gravitational field, etc.

[@olubunmiolumuyiwa]

Just as the other guy said; since you claim reason isn't meant to discern truth, but instead utility, by your own logic, your whole statement isn't actually true nor the fact of reality, but rather useful to your own aims and goals. What you said undermines the truth of itself, whereas the alternative reinforces the truth of itself.

[@kiroshakir7935]

@@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115 "We can know that a great amount of our beliefs are true beliefs through empirical evidence, which is not dependent on our reason." No. Beliefs based on empirical evidence aren't independent from abstract reasoning. For example: "Metal expands when it's heated." Is empirical observation enough for us to form our belief in this proposition? Absolutely not. You can't accept such propositions as true without generalizing from one case to all.(inductive reasoning)You also need your cognitive faculties to be able to even recognize metal itself for the experiment to take place.

[@JoBo301]

But there is no survival - all living things die so it is not something that evolution would select

[@Jacobk-g7r]

3:54 what we know isn’t dictated by us it is shared by the unfolding of relatives over time and time is the current of the dimensions entangling. That might sound stupid but it’s simple. Our current perspectives start from something and expand so it’s not that we know anything but share with the thing to see. So we don’t know, we share with the knowing that all is possible and that helps us find or explore aka shine a light into the dark deep potential. It’s like hope, it’s not that you believe in hope but share with it so that it helps guide you through. It’s with you when you share with it, like god and the things we associate with god or other gods. My interpretation of god is not a singular but a sharing because how would we be free if it dictated or knew. I think god understands and freely shares, not because it always ends up back to it but because we all are free and it’s like finding our own connections and coming home. Almost like Valhalla, you don’t know you’re there until you understand and then you can share Valhalla with others. God of war sigrun hidden lowlight lore helps to understand what i mean. It’s why “i am” makes so much sense but nobody understands until they are.

[@valmid5069]

*“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals”* -Christian Minister Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[@IshmaelPrice]

Sure but religion is a rival with secular philosophy. Seems like religion makes people very bigoted and secular philosophy has led to most of the moral progress over the last 200 years.

[@TrakeM118]

Read the two core books of the Bible, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and then tell me about how religion is wisom and values. If you don't believe the core books of the Bible are Deuteronomy and Leviticus then give christians power and see what books they turn to when deciding what the laws will be.

[@Maurus200]

@@TrakeM118 You are working too hard. Science has already found that those laws came from other civilizations rather than God. Not only does it disprove a claim in the Bible it also shows how the facts of science will invade even the values of the Bible.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

​@@TrakeM118you clearly have not spent a minute looking at what those books are viewed as from a Christian standpoint. The laws of the old testament are not universal moral codes . They are not even "laws" how we mean by the word law but judicial wisdom. Jesus when asked about the question of divorce as why Moses allowed it replied by saying "due to hardness of man's heart". The laws are ment to soften the heart of men to a point were Jesus revealed its most optional form

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@valmid5069 Religion gives the illusion of wisdom. A bit like philosophy. How can ‘religion’ be called wisdom when its practitioners invariably persecute one another the minute they attain real power?

[@anarios-ryd]

Link to full episode is incorrect

[@soggytoast111]

I'm not really getting this one. You don't just "believe that 2+2=4", it is constantly demonstrated to you throughout your daily life. How could a belief that "2+2=5" persist if you constantly observed that you are left with four things when two groups of two came together? As far as the evolution example, we believe in evolution because it is consistent with the way that we experience life. We know that everything eventually dies, and only living things can reproduce to pass on their traits to offspring. Even if you believe that evolution is a process that favors "survival" over "truth", isn't the ability to evaluate how the world works - living, dying, having babies to pass on traits, etc. - consistent with survival? If an animal was so stupid that all of their predictions about how the world was supposed to work turned out to be wrong, wouldn't that animal have a hard time surviving?

[@Raynouille]

I agree with you. Having a failable reasoning doesn't matter in pure calculus methodology. Facts don't care with what we would like, they certainly don't care about our feelings. Facts are just that, facts. They are observable. If I can observe that jumping from a ten story building is dangerous, having a failable reasoning or a correct reasoning doesn't matter, I just won't take that chance. I obviously am writing this comment instead of sleeping so if it doesn't make sense, its perfectly normal.

[@RickPayton-r9d]

I see this throughout theological arguments, the chicken & egg type problem, here referred to as circularity. Philosophy (which tends to get stuck in thousand-year-old problems) considers all fundamental things as binary. Things exist or don't exist. There is conscious humans and other life which is not. There is non-life then, kaboom, life. Modern science shows that nature isn't concerned with this categorization. Quantum mechanics get hazy about exists/not-exists. Abiogenesis points strongly to a life going from 0 to 1, merging growth of functionality, connectedness and complexity along a continuum. Solms demonstrates that consciousness in mammals varies in degree not quality. Why assume that reason is a binary?

[@mark69985]

Yes. The chicken and the egg likely co-evolved.

[@PaulRezaei]

I appreciate the honesty 👏. I would like to have seen them talk about why we should trust our reasoning ability if we believe we don’t have any control over our own thoughts.

[@JosephDiveley]

I believe I deserve a better life. The world denied my claim because the world doesn't care about us at all. So I am stuck doing the best I can with what I have to work with.

[@huh2275]

"A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is just getting it's shoes on" - Jonathan Swift (Christian, satirist, and author of Gulliver's Travels, 1600's) "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" - Arthur Schopenhauer "If you want to be wrong then follow the masses" - Socrates “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities” -Ayn Rand

[@rahilrahman266]

Whats this gotta do with anything??

[@davidarvingumazon5024]

Minority and Individuality is False Equivalence Fallacy. Equating minority and individuality can be problematic because it ignores the distinct experiences and challenges faced by minority groups.

[@thebelmont1995]

Ironically all these are against Christianity not for it. Lol.

[@BlueSquareInWhiteCircle]

For something to be ontologicly acknowledged it must be epistemologicly attested. -To recognize the existence of something depends on the ability to conceive or recognize it. For something to be epistemologicly acknowledged it must be ontologicly attested. -To claim knowledge of something, that thing must have some form of existence, whether material, conceptual, abstract, or hypothetical. You perceive something by means of perception. The validity of perceiving and the validity of perception cannot be ascertained without each other. You cannot perceive without perception, but what is perception without the act of perceiving. Ontology and epistemology are two sides of the same coin.

[@Detson404]

Something can be ontologically real without me knowing it. Similarly, I can believe that something is real but be wrong. Seems simple enough.

[@daanmollema6366]

No, what you've described is entirely epistemological and in no way ontological. The contrast isn't between the percieving and the percieved, it's between the percieved and the unnegotiable truth that _is_. And the argument discussed here is that there is no guarantee, except from divine, that we can ever contact the ontological with our perception.

[@BlueSquareInWhiteCircle]

@@Detson404 Many things are ontologically real without us knowing it and we can believe something to be real that is not. For something to be addressed as ontologically real in a "meaningful sense" it must be experienced as real in some shape or form however seemingly removed. Say there existed "Gobeldigue" but it was detached from everything else that exists. "Gobeldigue" might be ontologically real from Gods perspective, but never of relevance to the workings of the universe or touch upon any layer of the reality humans exist within, off limits and outside the potential of studying, understanding or provide any sort of information or meaning and because of it's isolation as a non relevant phenomenon. We can never learn that "Gobeldigue" exists and if we did it would not be knowledge we could use in any way. This phenomenon would be of utmost uselessness and obsucre and although ontological real in a strict sense it's "onological status" would not carry any weight, an island so to speak floating in space detached from the rest of existence. But to take this one step further even though isolated from everything if God exists it is still connects to God and thus still has some relevance in this regard as created by something connected to the rest. Thus from a theological perspective something like a detached "Gobeldigue" cannot exist if God's nature were to be defined in this way because of it's own definition having an entry point from God given the presupposition that God would be the entry point of everything that exists, something disconnected existing in this framework is impossible. Further for example; A person born blind might not see colors, thus colors are not real in an imminent sense. However the people in their life navigate by colors as a meaningful category to them. When listening to a movie different colors mentioned carry different meaning to sighted people like feelings, experiences and implied properties or an untold story that adds an extra layer of information. Although the experience of seeing color here is meaningless to someone blind, how sighted people create movies, talk about watching movies and relate to movies makes colors an experienced reality in a narrative sense as well as connecting to other available sensory associations. In addition colors have a history in many fields throughout human civilizations that make them categories of information and content even if one were unable to experience colors by sight. Although colors in a sighted sense are unreal they still are real in narrative (fictional, history or one's own life) or other associations like touch, smell, taste and sound associated with colors.

[@BlueSquareInWhiteCircle]

@@daanmollema6366 The "Unnegotiable truth that _is_" is a value declaration but is no different from the perceived in nature. Ontology can be argued in the abstract, but it is only abstract because it is a temporal/spatial separation from the experiential and only holds value when it intersects with the experiential. For example "the afterlife" is only relevant(from Latin relevare; to lessen, lighten, to help - - implying a transaction or convergence, what is relevant must "touch") because it is tangent of experiental phenomenon of life and death. Abstract terms or ideas have only a reason to exist in so far they are in some manner connected to the human experience at the minimum in a loose sense. When we contemplate beyond our imminent experience the subject matter grows as follows in abstract-ness because it becomes removed from direct memory and experience and instead built upon extrapolation of diluted ideas or principles which although "abstract" or removed still have their origin from memory and experience. The abstract-ness of ontology is merely an illusion from the lack of "contact". Abstract ontology is an extension of experiential ontology

[@BrianForTheWin]

Yes, evolution selects traits beneficial for survivability and not truth per se, but obviously being able to discern what is true about the world (i.e. whether there’s a predator in the bush, the fire is hot, or that plant is poisonous) is going to be the most essential part of being able to survive… so in that sense evolution absolutely does select for rationality and truth knowing.

[@JoBo301]

But there is no survival - all living things die so it is not something that evolution would select

[@Igelme]

False positives and a negativity bias are way more useful for survival than truths. "There might be a predator in this bush, let me find out". "There is always a predator in this bush, regardless of what evidence tells me".

[@cevcena6692]

You're only speaking in extreme generalities. It is generally the case that evolution would select for Truth sensitivity, but it is not always the case. Since it is not always the case, and we cannot know of all the ways that evolution did not select for Truth sensitivity, then we cannot fully trust our own rationality. Ex. We're biologically biased towards certain things like group think, or seeing colors. Useful things that aren't helping for knowing what is true

[@buglepong]

evolution doesnt select for survival per se, but breeding before death. you only have to be given specifically sufficient true information, not generally true information.

[@edwinsolis5710]

Evolution is perfectly fine with “True enough” instead of “Absolutely true”-our own eyes abscribe to this. Our brains literally cast what is essentially an illusion to account for the things that we don’t see when we blink. We can’t even see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only the “visible light spectrum (380 to 700 nanometers frequency)” We are way more limited than we think, and we are reliant more on faith than you’d like to believe.

[@jffrysith4365]

I don't understand, does the problem change if we change the problem from "why can we trust reason if we're atheist" to "why can't we trust reason if we're religious"? Like it's not like reason is a god-instructed practice that was divined by him. Regardless of whether a god exists (unless the god is completely unknown and did divine reason on a select few people), reason is fallible. Even worse, it's well known the reason is quite fallible, first off, we notice we have to make an assumption to even start (that is that the first axiom is true.) and generally a single axiom isn't a very powerful system (cannot define even addition) So we have to assume even more axioms are true. Next we construct a system of 9 axioms (ZFC) that we can prove is not simultaneously consistent and complete (Godel because ZFC is powerful enough to define addition). We know it's not complete, which is better for reason (because we can't prove continuum hypothesis), however we also can prove that it's unprovable that it's consistent if it's consistent. So we'll never know if ZFC is consistent. The worst part is that this is true in any logic system (capable of addition). So my point is we can definitely not "trust" reason to be guaranteed effective, so you may ask, why do we trust reason? Because we don't need a 100% guarantee it's correct. What we need is it to be correct everytime we test it. So far, we've yet to find an inconsistency in ZFC. That's kinda crazy if it's inconsistent. We just somehow missed wherever the inconsistency lies. Also, every model we make of the world using it just so happens to work (or when the model is taken to an expert, there's a reason why it fails.) I mean, engineers (the people building complex tools over the world) usually use a known incorrect model (estimates) to make the numbers easier to use. It doesn't need to be perfect, just reasonably accurate.

[@forgetaboutit1069]

Interesting they have a photo of CS Lewis but never actually discuss him or what he said. But I can’t help but think of this quote of CS Lewis they may be onto: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

[@nitsujism]

CS Lewis wasn't much of a thinker. There's an obvious flaw in his logic. If the brain is just material and its thoughts are flawed as he claims then believing in God could be the result of flawed thinking and he wouldn't know...because by his own admission his thoughts would be flawed. Just the very idea that this is possible hamstrings him because it could be the case and he'd have no way of knowing.

[@forgetaboutit1069]

@@nitsujism lol, apparently you didn’t watch this video. Because the argument is made for both sides of theist and materialist but at least the theist has a reason for his circular logic where the materialist does not. To say CS Lewis isn’t much of a thinker is hilarious because Alex continually brings up Lewis’s arguments and has admiration for him. To think Lewis died over 60 years ago but his arguments still give atheists a wrinkle to argue against and never resolve is proof he as “much of a thinker”. But maybe you’re smarter than Alex and Lewis. So by all means, what’s your real name so we can look up your books to read them and see how much a thinker you truly are?

[@nitsujism]

@@forgetaboutit1069 Nowhere did you address my criticism of the CS Lewis quote you provided. Maybe you could address the argument instead of getting bent out of shape because I critiqued a quote from Lewis. Let me be more specific, the quote shows that Lewis is presenting an argument from incredulity and if what I said holds then he'd have no explanation for any circularity and in fact would by his own definition be unable to ever derive one.

[@forgetaboutit1069]

@@nitsujism are you really that thick? I asked if you even watched the video because they address that very issue and I responded to it. So let’s keep it simple; did you watch the video?

[@forgetaboutit1069]

@@nitsujism maybe your eyes are failing you but my eyes read my reply “the argument is made for both sides of theist and materialist but at least the theist has a reason for his circular logic where the materialist does not” which directly answers your claim. How does that NOT address your criticism? The only argument you made was an ad hominem on Lewis. Again, did you even watch the video? Sure doesn’t seem like you did.

[@clixsyt]

Even arguing you can’t trust intellect means you trust your intellect to make such a claim. So you undermine your own claim

[@Jacobk-g7r]

I’m gonna answer a majority of the questions right now, understand this. The brain doesn’t dictate reality, it sees the connections of potentials. All options are on the table but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to just do whatever but it kinda is. Nature freely shares, humans are a reflection of this but when we share dimensions like seeing then we end up respecting our own experiences with the crossed dimensions rather than each other and end up denying things. One above all so to speak but really we are never one always connected to the infinite so we are free to all. We can share with ourselves, all the potentials by seeing or just by living. Reflections help guide us but the chemicals and such help as well. A crossing of dimensions shares the measurements. Like a hand touching a bed and the reflection is the relatives. I hope that’s understandable but those potentials were always there just unseen or inexperienced. We reflect the dimensions or measurements in the brain where the space is relative matter and can cross them. If we dictate or search then it’s like finding one path by hanging onto something and can blind us but if we share then we see the web of relatives and it’s life. Language is beautiful because it shares to help align each other to see but after one understands enough then the language is like always saying the same things so you start to understand others without so many words. That’s like when a society is so smart they only say one thing lmao but we get lost in the assumptions and try to tell what is or isn’t. That’s why inventors dream of breakthroughs, the brain is sharing the dimensions freely from the outside dictation and more like waves crashing and sharing. So some questions about like god and infinity and what to believe in, well believe in yourself and understand others, believe in the connection to all your potentials and others have the same and respect them. The answers are staring us in the face but we aren’t reflecting honestly until something knocks us into alignment or reflection or something. I’m a visual talker so I’m seeing a lot of what I’m saying so i am sorry if it doesn’t make sense.

[@rahilrahman266]

Ang claims you'd like you make?? If so, justify it afterwards.

[@PhrontDoor]

We know that we cannot always trust human intellect -- heuristics are intrinsically fraught with miscues. But we refine our tools and knowledge bases over time and have evolved not to have a cognition that has too many flaws which would give us too faulty a model of reality. So that is why we can tenatively trust it -- it's both the product of evolution -- iteratively subjected to the harshest of prunings --as well as being self-refining by continually be subject to testing and review.

[@jmbrown7568]

Truth is entirely abstract and subjective. There is no big T truth that can satisfy anything from one observer/thinker to another. After hearing such during an early philosophy class I realized it contradicts itself if the truth is that there is no objective truth. It becomes that very circularness we would prefer to avoid.

[@jmbrown7568]

Truth, maybe, is simply dependent on what the collective agrees upon and it still doesn't represent objective reality other than to say it's more of an endless circle that continues to start and end at the same point.

[@MattSmithJ]

And there you go, making a truth claim about truth

[@99range92def]

Making a universal trutg claim without universal knowledge.

[@tionarry]

"Truth is entirely abstract and subject". Is that claim also subject?

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

The problem is that one is faced with the following dilemma: The presupposition of the existence of a deity ensures the reliability of our cognitive functions is a virtuous circle.. The presupposition that (despite evolution's natural selection be based on survival rather than truth or fact) our cognitive functions are reliable because we use them is a vicious circle. Neither is necessarily superior to the other.

[@Julian0101]

Nope, there is nothing inherent in the pressuposition of a deity that ensures the reliability of our cognitive funtions, it is made worse depending on the god. For example the belief in the chris tian god has never been about accepting rationality (it literaIIy promotes the opposite). At least we know evolution happens, so by ockham's razor the naturalistic position is superior to the other.

[@Dloin]

Evolution isnt philosophy. You can philosophy yourself in all kinds of things, but Theories like Evolution need evidence. YOu can test it. Those tests arent based on your epistemology. Many people with many epistemologies have tested it. So its not circular. Philosophers give reasons why they are right. Scientists look for facts that disprove them. Thats different. Thats like saying a debate bro is just as good as an expert in their field with actual evidence.

[@alena-qu9vj]

Experts in their fields with actual evidence - hehe. You mean experts of today or 100 - 50 - 5 years back? Experts payed by their donnors to come with a suitable expertize? Actual evidence being fighted and rejected by other experts in their field? How is it possible that the brain of the matrialists just turns into a stone of awe at hearing the magical word "science" and cannot function further?

[@Igelme]

The same reasoning faculties and very base asumptioms they said you couldn't trust also affects the scientific method as a truth seeking method. It all stems from the same cognition.

[@EdwardChopuryan]

My 2 cents regarding "belief in evolution" argument is that natural selection doesn't necessarily select FOR anything, rather it selects AGAINST certain traits, so us developing reasoning faculties wouldn't necessarily mean those were compromised. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to think that our reasoning faculties are a simple by product of the evolution which are not compromised or significantly affected by selection pressures.

[@rizdekd3912]

What I don't understand is how the other animals and even plants factor into this idea that without God, our reasoning can't be considered reliable. Because it sure seems to me that my cat thinks it knows true things about, for example, where her food dish is, where the coziest places to sleep are and who can open the door for her when she wants out. She knows things and those things work for her. How is what she knows not 'truth?' In fact even the tree uses whatever to know to grow its roots down and trunk, branches and leaves up. How is that not the tree finding truth in responding/relating to the world around it. What else should it be doing? It seems some put some different significance to truth other than 'an accurate representation of the world around us that is needed for our survival.' They usually even capitalize truth... eg Truth, as if Truth has a different connotation...a greater significance that 'just than the way the world actually is.' IF we just accept that truth is defined as an accurate enough representation of the world around us to survive and that thinking is, at its core a natural/chemical process, then why wouldn't evolution produce chemical structures that reflect the world around them and why wouldn't chemical based reasoning be reliable? They call it 'just atoms bumping into each other,' but that obviously isn't a chaotic, random process but rather a process that reflects how each particle of matter interacts with each other particle in the fabric of space/time. IF chemistry was random and chaotic, how could it support all the things in life it supports? It seems odd that the same folks who tout the argument from fine tuning...going on and on about how finely tuned the natural world is FOR life, then turn around and call that same fine tuned world random and chaotic unable to produce thinking beings. I think those two views are subtly contradictory.

[@daniallemmon5453]

Get Jay Dyer on your show

[@Alex_Vlass]

He couldn’t handle Dyer ☦️

[@YourStylesGeneric321]

@@Alex_Vlass "There is always one"

[@Detson404]

Dyer has never brought anything interesting. He just gets angry and pouty.

[@notloki3377]

@Randomytname1 typical response

[@notloki3377]

Jay Dyer... the great combination of being under 100 IQ AND proud? What a catch.

[@timrose4310]

It's simple: I know 2 + 2 = 4 because I defined math operators and number systems and symbols to work that way. Further, I defined it that way for a reason: it is useful to devise a system that enables me to make sense of the natural world. E.g. I need a way to tell you how many apples will be in a bag if it starts with 2 apples and I put 2 more in, without physically putting them in to check every time.

[@JasonJones-u9s]

So if no humans are on earth, then 2+2=4 is not true? Is it neither true nor false?

[@timrose4310]

@JasonJones-u9s Regardless of the existence of conscious minds, it would be a fact that if 2 atoms collided with 2 other atoms, then 4 atoms were involved in the collision. Therefore, 2 + 2 = 4 would be true regardless of conscious minds. However, the abstraction of objects into number theory and math only exists in conscious minds. In short, mathematical and logical reasoning hold true irregardless of conscious minds (2 objects + 2 objects yields 4 objects), but the concept "2 + 2 = 4" is only existent with minds capable of reasoning.

[@JasonJones-u9s]

@ then our concept truly depicts reality as it is. Or simply corresponds to reality Sounds like as objective truth as much as any other.

[@timrose4310]

@JasonJones-u9s some mathematical concepts such as addition depict reality as it is and are objectively true. I was saying the usefulness of defining the addition operator the way that we do is because it depicts reality and enables informative and accurate simulations. Other mathematical models we invent we know do not comport with reality (imaginary numbers) and yet we can still use them to derive useful and accurate predictions. Imaginary numbers are not objectively true or real, but that's okay because we acknowledge this fact and distinguish it from "real" numbers and keep it in mind as merely a tool.

[@juanausensi499]

@@JasonJones-u9s Not really. Maths comes from our intuitions about sets and classes. In the example, we are assuming that there is a set with meaning, that is 'apples in a bag'. There are apples outside the bag, but we are ignoring them. The act of defining and focusing on a set is what puts subjectivity in the issue. For example, is the question 'humans have 4 limbs" a true statement about reality? The truth of that sentence relies on our definition of 'human', 'having' and 'limb'. We could define 'limb' so it includes ears and noses. The fact that we define limbs as arms and legs is because utility. The existence of the concept of 'limb' is contingent, not objective reality. We could live our lives without that concept, and say simply that people have two legs and two arms.

[@MyNameIsThe_Sun]

This sounds so bizarre. Its like asking why do we trust empirical data? Asking why 2+2=4 makes sense is like why does gravity attract masses. You might think that the number and concept 2 is man made, but addition is essentially an operation/interaction between separate instances of like items. Even animals can tell the difference between numbers. They know when to back off if the odds are stacked against them in situations of violence.

[@wisdometricist880]

you didn't get it then

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

Yes, math began with us simply assigning names/symbols to objectively existing amounts of things. I have an objectively existing amount of fingers on one hand, an amount on the other, and an amount in total. And, it doesn't matter if you use base 10, or the Sumerian base 60, it's still the same objectively existing amount. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you measure a weight in pounds, kilos, or stone ... Any which way you do it, it still represents the exact same objectively existing weight of something. Same for objectively existing distance (km vs miles, cm vs feet, etc.), objectively existing temperature (F vs C), objectively existing speed (km/h vs mph), ... Even if our choice of how to measure a thing was somewhat subjective, what we are measuring is objective.

[@Igelme]

"But the products of my cognition seem so right for my cognition! How could this be wrong?"

[@benjoleo]

yes you can literally use the same arguments to ask why we can trust empirical data or why gravity attracts masses. That is the point

[@jamesmcbride4806]

But you’re wrong. 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of consensus among humans based on a language we invented to suit our common observations. These observations can’t possibly be based on pure objectivity because we simply don’t have access to it, and the more we learn about the universe, the more this becomes apparent. You can really think about this scientifically by removing humans from the picture entirely. Say we have a notion that 4 different objects are 2 and 2. But now we remove all humans. What are those objects and what happened to the notion of “different.” It’s all gone. Those objects are now groups of atoms, which are groups of electrons, which have properties like quantum entanglement making the relationships between them quite blurry and maybe the differences not as profound as what human observation granted them. Really all I’m saying is as subjective beings with enough commonality and intelligence to form languages, it’s inevitable that we overestimate what our observations mean, but they really mean something different without us. We bring ourselves to every observation, and even the particular state we’re in to every observation in such a way that there’s no way of knowing the meaning of it without us being involved.

[@radscorpion8]

Thank God someone finally mentioned that the theists must use circular reasoning and are no better off. The second thing that should be said, is that this whole discussion is completely irrelevant and dumb. For all we know we are brains in a vat. Or in the matrix. Or countless other possibilities raised in high school that made us go "wow" as 11 year olds. But we are supposed to outgrow that phase by understanding that there are obvious limits to our knowledge and the certainty we can have about the world, yet we continue on by simply taking certain things as axiomatically true and then building on those presuppositions. There is no other way to proceed, for an atheist or a religious person. But once you assume reason and logic are valid ways to understand the world, you can create an internally consistent system that can produce many marvelous outcomes.

[@Stinky97000]

The justification for naturalism is that it works. All the philosophy in the world can't challenge success

[@no3339]

That something works is not a justification in the strict metaphysical sense. What do you use to gauge whether something “works”? This is circular

[@piage84]

​@@no3339call it whatever you want. Justified, non justified.... It works and it's the only worldview that provides good explanation for the reality we live in. I'd rather hold to an unjustified worldview that is honest and that works rather than in one that doesn't have any explanatory power and it's based on a fictional character, but it's justified using sophistry

[@Stinky97000]

@no3339 "a strict metaphysical sense " ? This is the kind of nonsense philosophy produces. All worldview claim knowledge, naturalism is the only one that can demonstrate anything

[@no3339]

@@piage84 an epistemically unjustified worldview is self-defeating. You have no way of assessing whether anything “works” or not.

[@Manzikirt1]

@@no3339 Yes we do, because it works, that's the assessment.

[@stunningkruger]

all arguments augment reality but with every attempt to justify your reasoning you will just defy your reasoning

[@dorkmania]

0:06 To paraphrase Hitch, because of their ability to produce reliable and consistent results.

[@faithalonesaves]

how do you know reliable and consistent results make something trust worthy? You are employing reason to make that leap. That is a logical fallacy. That's the exact problem. Reason must be presupposed as true for your argument to work.

[@Manzikirt1]

@@faithalonesaves "How do you know reliable and consistent results make something trust worthy?" What else would make something trust worthy? We first need to agree what it means for something to be 'true' before this conversation can even be had.

[@faithalonesaves]

@@Manzikirt1 Aristotle says truth is saying about what is, that it is, and saying about what is not, that it is not. You can not possibly have epistemic certainty that the scientific method is reliable. The Black Swan Theory is always a possibility.

[@dorkmania]

@@faithalonesaves By definition - Trust: "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something". Reason isn't an assertion of fact and doesn't have any intrinsic or inherent absolute truthiness; it's a framework or tool that is used to aid in discovery, analysis, prediction, comprehension, or other engagement with observations, inferences, hypotheses, truth-claims, or other abstract concepts or ideas. One could start with a set of unfalsifiable or faulty premises related to the existence or other qualities associated with their specific flavor of deity and reason their way to a logically valid and internally consistent moral justification for bone-cancer in infants; it's just that atheists, by no means infallible, just tend not to do that kind of thing.

[@AlexPBenton]

@@faithalonesaves The black swan fallacy only applies when you’re making, well, that exact fallacy

[@darkreflectionsstudio4506]

The question is asking for a presupposition answer instead of a scientific one. The actual question being asked "is how can we theologically/philosophically ground our/the ability to reason in the natural/atheistic worldview given evolution being true?". The simple answer is we can't, and we should not ground in the natural world view itself. There is nothing in the natural world view that presupposes our ability to reason. But there is also nothing that presupposes that there is an inability to reason. In fact, unlike the Theistic answer that simply presupposes our ability to reason based on god wanting it so and grounds it there, our ability is found not in the worldview itself.

[@frankpulmanns6685]

This one is exceptionally silly. We simply don't have a choice. When it comes to understanding the universe we find ourselves in, reason isn't just a tool in the box, it's the entire damned toolbox. Trying to bypass that by saying "that's because of God" requires no response other than TOAST!

[@comeintotheforest]

But why do you think that? And why can we trust that it’s true?

[@danielholder7979]

I think the punch of the objection is sure we may have no other option than to accept the trustworthiness of our reason if we wish to live in this world but the question is what best ACCOUNTS for the trustworthiness of reason, granted it takes a lot of steps to get to something like God from there even more so something like the Christian God, but I find it hard to account for the trustworthiness of reason apart from some kind of appeal to something transcendental. You could conceivably still be an atheist and believe in some kind of transcendental basis for reason (maybe like a platonist) but I guess at that point a lot of people just choose to take a worldview that’s already been thought out for them (I.e. religion) that does, whether true or false, hypothetically account for the trustworthiness of reason, rather than have to build an entirely new worldview from the ground up.

[@matswessling6600]

@@comeintotheforestwhat is supposed to be true?

[@alena-qu9vj]

Your tool for understanding the universe is about as expedient for that task as is hammer for splitting the atom. The problem is not in using the reason, problem is that the said reason is so painfully primitive...

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

⁠@@alena-qu9vj how do you know that? What’s the more sophisticated tool? How do you know the conclusions you come to using that tool are true without applying reason?

[@DrMustacho]

2+2 doesn't just happen in my brain i can apply it to reality i can take 2 of something and then take another 2 and then count how much i have, i can even ask other people to do the same just to double check

[@Nuclearburrit0]

What's 2 of something?

[@DrMustacho]

@Nuclearburrit0 any objects that can be moved by hand independent of each other will suffice

[@Nuclearburrit0]

@DrMustacho not "which 2 of something". I asked "What is 2 of something". It's not as clear as you'd think.

[@DrMustacho]

@@Nuclearburrit0 something doesn't matter as long as you have 4 things

[@Nuclearburrit0]

@DrMustacho ok but that requires the number of things you have to be a meaningful concept. Which is trickier than it sounds to nail down. Like, if I have a sock, and I also have another sock. How many things is that? Like, ok, there's the two socks. But there's also the pair of socks, and don't forget the atoms inside the sock which are themselves made of stuff and for all we know it might go further. Defining "1 sock" precisely is a non-trivial task. Once you leave the abstractions of pure math, you WILL introduce subjectivity and vagueness. You can ignore a lot of complexity and precision in order to do it anyways, but in a literal sense, quantity isn't built into the universe. It may be objectively true that there is stuff in the universe, but it's not objective how you should carve that stuff into amounts which can be counted.

[@rogerkearns8094]

We can't, but (it seems to me) it's the best we've got.

[@JoBo301]

It isn't the best we've got, it is all that we have got. And there is no evidence that it would ever recognise truth.

[@richardandrespeguerosantan8761]

That's a very trivial statement

[@rogerkearns8094]

@@JoBo301 _It isn't the best we've got_ [etc.] I can agree with that.

[@rogerkearns8094]

@@richardandrespeguerosantan8761 _That's a very trivial statement_ Oh well, not to worry, eh.

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

​@@JoBo301 If you walk off the edge of a 1000' cliff, isn't it true that you'd plummet to your 💀?

[@CorelUser]

The link in the describe is totally not the same interview that's shown in the video

[@navigator687]

Atheists melting down in the comments

[@JM-zt8vq]

how they recoil when their own dogma is revealed to them

[@xensonar9652]

Where?

[@Alex_Vlass]

@@user-kz9zi7rv9p☦️

[@bayleev7494]

as an atheist, it's embarrassing watching so many people fall prey to the exact errors alex eludes to at 7:34

[@gotchathespider7850]

Weird, this is something I've been thinking about a lot myself lately, good timing on the video I guess I haven't seen the full video, but I'm gonna pose the challenge to logic that's I've been thinking about, I imagine it'll be covered but, For any logical proposition, inherent as one of it's premesis, is the idea that logic can be used to derive truth. But that becomes circular when your conclusion is that logic can be used to derive truth, the conclusion is one of the premesis, I don't think it's possible to justify this.

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

Sorry Alex but you are just FLAT OUT WRONG When you say "You dont evolve for truth" is a false dichotomy because you are suggesting that because you dont evolve for truth then you CANT know truth.... this is fallacious. You have absolutely no idea that truth is not something that just NATURALLY comes along with everything else regardless of whether you specifically evolved for it or not Take into consideration that you must still move through the world which is still governed by physics and the laws of logic, and so while you are not strictly evolving for truth, you are constantly and REPEATEDLY evolving attributes which are BASED on things which are true - If you eat that poisonous berry, you will die - If you dont run from the rustling bush you MIGHT get eaten by the predator - If your prey turns left, you MUST also turn left or you wont catch it So just like current AI systems have absolutely no idea what is true or not, they are PATTERN MATCHING algorithms that happen to land on truth more often than not because there is a degree of truth just naturally occurring as a result of living in the world If your brain did not reason consistently correct, you would not survive

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

So all I need to do, to improve my justification for confidence in my own reasoning faculties ... is to accept SpongeBob as my Eternal Hall Monitor and then imagine him writing me a permission slip to walk the halls of reason?

[@navigator687]

Aren’t you a bit too old to be a clown reddit atheist?

[@grayhamgrayhamson1466]

Laws of logic are just extremely reliable. We (all) trust them because they are reliable.

[@rahilrahman266]

Prove their reliability.

[@alena-qu9vj]

Please give an example of the reliability of the rules of logic in matters of emotions. While emotions are the real force behind everything in this (unlogical) world.

[@JD-wu5pf]

​@@rahilrahman266Show me something that is both an apple and not an apple at the same time. Show me a number that is bigger than 5 but smaller than 2. Show me a prime number with 6 divisors. If you can do that, I'll rethink my whole "laws of logic are reliable" belief and convert to your "my perfectly moral imaginary friend who is OK with genocide is the source of truth" belief.

[@shassett79]

​@@rahilrahman266They're reliable in the same way that the sunrise is. Nobody stays up at night worrying that the sun won't rise, just as nobody spends a lot of time dreading the possibility that things will suddenly stop being identical to themselves.

[@shassett79]

​@@JD-wu5pfPrecisely.

[@DyLamont-y7n]

I was homeless, did drugs, went into prison, where I got to know God, te changed my life. Now I have a home, a Wife and a lovely daughter (Jessica), and a stream of income that gets me $44, 000 Every month. Plus a new identity - a child of God. Hallelujah!!!

[@Paytondaffron]

How did you do it? Do explain please 😯 My family have been into series of sufferings lately

[@DyLamont-y7n]

All thanks to Christina Ann Tucker

[@DyLamont-y7n]

After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery. Glory to God.shalom.

[@NateMilla]

Wow 😱 I know her too Miss Christina Ann Tucker is a remarkable individual whom has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life..

[@MeganMars-x]

Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Christina Ann Tucker.

[@guysome3263]

It delivers best on what the majority of us would unanimously consider 'effective results'. Even if these effective results are just shared delusions, we statistically tend to agree on experiencing the same ones.

[@alena-qu9vj]

Shared delusions are notoriously one of the many atheistical objections towards religion. Shared delusions may lead to the worst catastrophes in history - by inducing shared delusions to the crownd elites are starting all wars. Funny thing - no materialist tends to blame reason for this, even if it is the best example that reason cannot efectively handle emotions.

[@emmanuelkatele1]

The atheist is truly in a vicious circle, the fact that he recognises that his reasoning is not evolved to produce or recognise truth but simply survival is itself a truth claim. He is essentially admitting by this that truth can never be attained, which is a vicious circular contradiction. A truth that proclaims its own nonexistence. That’s nonsense

[@rizdekd3912]

"The atheist is truly in a vicious circle, the fact that he recognises that his reasoning is not evolved to produce or recognise truth but simply survival is itself a truth claim. He is essentially admitting by this that truth can never be attained, which is a vicious circular contradiction. A truth that proclaims its own nonexistence. That’s nonsense" A few things. First, what exactly does God contribute to the soundness of the reasoning of human (and other animal) brains? Is there a difference between 'truth' for a chimpanzee or cat, for example and for a human? Why does an atheist have to recognize that a brain evolved to have aided in survival isn't also able to produce or recognize truth? This question needs be answered by you whether God exists or not. God may exist AND life including sentient life may have also arose naturally from the physical world and evolved into the various life forms we see around us. The natural world might exist eternally right along side of God's eternal existence and God may only involve itself in the spiritual aspect of existence. Second, the atheist might be right. God may not exist. What then? In that case evolved reasoning may be all that we have...all that there is. Atheists NOT believing God exists doesn't change reality. God either doesn't exist or God exists for all and the atheist just doesn't recognize it. But IF God doesn't exist, then your and other theist's reasoning that without God we cannot trust our reasoning is just as reliable/unreliable as any other reasoning, meaning that, in a reverse way, no one would have to listen to your view that we can't trust our reasoning if God doesn't exist... IF God doesn't actually exist. Try to untwist that and convince me that God exists if God doesn't exist. Third, the atheist doesn't have to conclude that truth is absolute..only that there are ways to assess whether reasoning works. And that can be done by comparing notes with others and by using their reasoning in survival situations and concluding that if it aids in survival or keeps one from injury, it may be reliable enough in other cases. Why isn't that good enough? Keep in mind, you're answering this AS IF God doesn't exist because IF God exists, and IF God is needed for reliable reasoning...then God exists for all and everyone's reasoning is equally reliable...or UNreliable per my next paragraph. But the real problem with that view is that if God exists, no one can know absolutely that their reasoning is sound. In fact, we wouldn't be able to even use survival... or any outcome for that matter at all, as a measure of the success of our reasoning since God could alter outcomes. We can't know for certain that God isn't modifying the world around us up to and including modifying our actual reasoning. We can have faith that God isn't surreptitiously affecting human thought for his own mysterious reasons, but they can't know. But we have NO objective basis for concluding our reasoning WITH God existing is reliable. We can have faith...that's it. And if one can have faith that God isn't modifying one's thinking without their knowledge, one can have faith that an evolved brain can produce truth sufficiently for social interaction and a satisfying life. What exactly does God get us regarding sound thinking and reliable reasoning? As I have shown...nothing except by faith.

[@emmanuelkatele1]

@@rizdekd3912 that’s a lot but of most of this is just fluff. I am simply making a comment to Alex’s comment which states that the atheist circle is vicious, while the theist’s circle is virtuous. Which is the ironic enough, is the truth. To state that our reasoning is not evolved to produced truth, is in itself a truthful claim derived from the reasoning mechanism which is not evolved to produce truth. Surely, you see this. Its only concern is strictly survivability. If lies are helpful in surviving, then it will pass that on. Reason under the atheist umbrella is simply unreasonable. Hence why it’s a vicious circle. But the theist circle is, as Alex states, virtuous and for this reason. The theist's position abstains from the audacity of that huge negative which denies truth altogether. The Theist need not, and does not, grant these terms. He is not committed to the view that reason is a comparatively recent development moulded by a process of selection which can select only the biologically useful. For him, reason-the reason of God-is older than Nature, and from it the orderliness of Nature, which alone enables us to know her, is derived. For him, the human mind in the act of knowing is illuminated by the Divine eternal and unchanging reason. It is set free, in the measure required, from the huge nexus of non-rational causation; free from this to be determined by the truth known. And the preliminary processes within Nature which led up to this liberation, if there were any, were designed to do so. He always assumes the validity of truth or its existence, he never denies it, like the atheist does. Which is why only the theist is the only person who can do science.

[@IshmaelPrice]

That's not the implication, the implication is simply that we're fallible and biased. We can know true things but we can be wrong about what we believe. That's the case regardless of your belief in deities. To even believe in a god or believe that a god gives you reason, you first have to employ reason, which is obviously fallible.

[@emmanuelkatele1]

@@IshmaelPrice the implication of deriving rationality from evolution is that you can only know truth accidentally, because the sole purpose for the existence of your reasoning, as with anything biological, is simply to allow you to survive. Evolution does not care for truth or false holds. Its primary and only tenet is for you to survive. That’s the implication drawn by Alex

[@wangsunfuh8889]

@@emmanuelkatele1 That is only the first step. The implication is that the reason which is used to justify evolution is invalidated by the conclusions of evolution and is no longer a convincing basis for the argument.

[@JasonsChannel62]

Of all the outlandish possibilities we will consider possible, the one we will never entertain is that we can be right. Please tell me this isn't us.

[@Alex_Vlass]

When Atheists discover the transcendental argument and the fact that coherence based worldviews lead to Orthodox Christianity ☦️

[@mitch0990]

👍☦

[@piage84]

Nah.... No rational mind gets convinced by TAG. TAG is where apologists go to "die", meaning when they finally realise their favourite religion has zero good evidence, they retreat to sophistry and drop the need for evidence all together. No wonder TAG is very popular online with young uneducated Christians who all sound the same when you talk to them. They are all hyper confident and smug, until you ask them to justify the first premise of TAG. They all run faster than roadrunners.

[@myself2noone]

Other than it doesn't. People are not finding this convincing at all. And more and more people are leaving Christianity so it's clearly not working.

[@Alex_Vlass]

@@myself2noone Not at all, plenty find it convincing because it’s true. All arguments ultimately boil down to circularity, so if you predicate everything you believe off presuppositions of “logic”, yet justify it circularly, you violate your first presupposition in justifying it. Not to mention the absolute absurdity of the overwhelming majority of the materialist doctrine. The only thing you have going for your worldview is that it’s been turned into propaganda in public schooling, basically forcing the Darwinist, materialist worldview on youth who can’t yet critically think (I was one of them), simply because convincing a society they are equal to animals with no objective morals or purpose makes them far easier to control.

[@Chair-g6b]

1) Orthodoxy cant solve the problem of induction and causality because your god (who is completely acausal) can intervene whenever he wants to and disrupt the causality of the world we live in, and since knowledge is an event, god can disrupt events that lead to knowledge. You have no justification for reliable knowledge. This is not to be confused with humes "destroy laws of physics" argument as it only applies to causality, and since you don't fully know gods essence (ousia) which is distinct from its energies you cant know if you have a justification for this problem. Even if you want to suggest that god acts through a medium that propagates the cause into this world, the cause of that cause is still uncaused, it doesn't solve the issue. 2) The laws of logic, transcendental arguments, the concept of hypostases, the logos, god itself etc all predate Christianity and more specifically the incarnation by hundreds to potentially thousands of years, even the old testament does (duh). If the incarnation and/or christian doctrine is the necessary precondition of intelligibility then you would have to concede that either: a) The laws of logic, transcendental arguments etc are a byproduct of accidental knowledge (eg akin to a gettier case of non JTB knowledge) (LOL) or b) Do what Fr Dcn Ananias says which is that the creation of the universe is an act of divine revelation which is intelligible. Which can very easily be modeled into an argument that if first order knowledge can be intrinsically justified by the conception of the universe as an act of divine revelation, why cant second order knowledge?. 3) There are more coherent worldviews with more coherent metaphysics than orthodox Christianity and Christianity as a whole. Hermeticism for example allows for a coherent trinity with a cosmic logos allowing for intelligibility to occur at the start of time as well as the nous which propagates the cosmos. Thus it is a more coherent answer to (1) as there is no need for a "perfect God" to enter its creation to fix stuff and tamper everything to its liking, that's fundamentally incoherent. This also provides a solution to the problem of induction and regularity in nature as well as evading the causal critique, this can even provide solid answers to the problem of evil (which orthodoxy cannot, privation theory is incoherent, Joe Schmid tackles it on the majesty of reason channel) as well as divine hiddenness etc. We can adhere to foundational coherentism to such paradigms. Chris Langans CTMU would also be more coherent as it is also a trinity and has an unbound telesis. It evades similar critiques. 4) Your god is capable of deception thus it does not adhere to the preconditions of intelligibility. Example ( www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2022-23&version=NIV ). Even if you want to argue that god let an "evil spirit" do it, the fact of the matter is that the cause of the evil spirits deception is your god. Take an analogy: You are the boss of a gang and you want to get rid of a hostage, one of your cronies comes up to you and goes "hey boss, i can shoot this hostage right now, but only if you want me to". If you were to go "ok you will execute the hostage now" , you are the cause of that hostages death, you are a murderer even though you didn't directly pull the trigger. The same way that in the ahab story your god is still a liar., and no its not taken out of mistranslation, you can read this verse in greek too, it alludes to the exact same act. For a more direct lie we can go to Genesis 22:1-2 where he straight up lies to test abraham. Your god knew the outcome of this test, and still lied. Furthermore we can clearly see the conflict between orthodox Christianity and the sciences/natural philosophy, evolution, cosmology, history etc These issues don't persist under hermetic and CTMU worldview.

[@adamzandarski8933]

Existence becomes a thing such that things can take on existence, and it does so by taking on non-existence.

[@degabriele]

Could someone point me to the definition of TRUTH implied in this exchange?

[@MrGoodwell]

Theist here, but I've considered this question from the other side quite extensively. Does the argument that for the most part recognizing reality for what it is provides the greatest survivability?

[@JasonsChannel62]

Is it missing the point to point out that when it's said "there were people who believed 2+2=5 but they died out" and "I only believe 2+2=4 because it's beneficial for my survival" that you're using truths like "they died out" and "it's beneficial for my survival" to make your point? And doesn't this question fit into the broader category of question of whether or not our concepts correspond to anything in reality? Why this more specific framing in terms of theist/atheist? Just address the more general question. Eliminate unnecessary variations on the same thing. Lessen the workload? Use the mind's ability of class and member? Is that being done at all? (Sorry. I'm sure it probably is. But when I don't see it directly addressed, "this question is another form of..." It makes me think we don't realize it.)

[@iamdanielmonroe]

There may be a rough overlap of survivability to what we define as truth. Obviously not a 1 to 1 match but broadly speaking, our perception of truth is what lasts and what is consistent over time. Almost in line with Jordan Peterson's approach, if something lasts, persists, or recurrs over and over again in a consistent pattern throughout time in myth, or in nature, there may be some reason to suggest that in that pattern is truth of one form or another. Lies or at least falsehoods overtime are revealed to be so whether via nature self correcting, philosophical thought clarifying or scientific advancements revealing new levels of insight. Ultimately, I don't even know if completely objective truth exists even at the physical level, but as flawed human beings, all we have is our limited human capacities to aim for some type of consistent standard based on the best that we can put together using the tools we have available.

[@gratefulkm]

Objective truth exists as a narrative like math's An objective truth for example that matters is how does she that grew you control if you are a pack animal or not ? Which means, there is a pinpoint exact replicated method used throughout all life that determines if you are a pack animal or not And knowing what that exact method was, is knowing an objective truth a very dangerous one at that

[@Balthazar2242]

Required reading on the subject: The Abolition of Man and _Miracles_ by C.S. Lewis

[@shinywarm6906]

So long as they generate behaviours which tend to promote survival, any belief will survive and persist. Any that tend to decrease survival chances will not. It's why the belief that to kill one's children is the way to eternal life is rarely encountered, whilst that which says looking after them is the way to heaven is common - even though there is no way to verify either claim. What people with time on their hands make of the philosophical strengths and weaknesses of those beliefs (including their truth or fallaciousness) is of no interest to the universe.

[@stueyapstuey4235]

The problem with this approach is the privileging of philosophy and the brain over the brute stuff of the universe. How brains process things does not affect the actuality of the things. The effectiveness of human brains (and sense independent technologies) in rationally accounting for the things with which it comes into contact is the determining factor. You guys are in danger of smuggling phenomenology into the discussion by not adequately addressing the dialectical relationship of materialism/naturalism and analytic rigor. It isn't the status of minds, or thoughts that comes into question, but the methodological accuracy of the approaches humans take to analyze the 'ontic' stuff - and this is always subject to the validation of 'do our findings align with the brute facts?' If yes - we have a preliminary truth. If no - go back, try again. The difficulty in philosophy seems less amenable to resolution than that of scientific analysis. So, maybe, fix the philosophy, because it appears... (methodologically) confused.

[@exiledfrommyself]

Two plus two equals four is just a way for us to communicate with each other. If we all had different answers, how could we communicate? It's the same way definitions work. We agree to use words in a certain way in order to communicate with each other. If everyone had their own unique definitions or interpretations, communication would become chaotic and ineffective.

[@SamFey]

*'Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.* *Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'* Richard Lewontin 'Evolutionary' Biologist.

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

To reason is to correate patterns. Logic is correlation. Pattern recognition is it all there is, nothing more, nothing less. To reason is by consciousness . We only connect to the world through our senses, and interpret the inputs by our brain. My consciousness is mine and mine only, therefore I only interpret and conceive it. It's anecdotal and subjective, relative to an observer. Although we do share the very similar, same physical world. And the physical world seems the same way, too. Einstein's special relativity.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

I seem to be getting along just fine without knowing what's true, so I guess it's not really important.

[@Detson404]

Right? A well justified belief seems to be all we can hope for.

[@theboombody]

Yeah, some folks can't STAND other folks believing a lie I guess. But heck, if my mechanic can get my car to run for a decent price, I could care less if he believes in vampires or a flat earth.

[@mark69985]

@@theboombody Except when said mechanic gets on the school board and advocates teaching flat earth in our public schools as science, then I start caring.

[@gre8]

@@theboombody Think about how, for hundreds of years, the Ptolemaic model of the universe was useful for calculating complex things like the position of planets, eclipses or calendars far into the future, yet ultimately wrong. Conversely, what if you mechanic's understanding of cars is extremely flawed, but just right enough to get your car to run nicely for a couple of days just to explode later with you inside? Truth is a very serious question and philosophers are right to nerd out on it.

[@Detson404]

@@gre8Sure but my point is that we can’t ever seem to know if we know something or merely believe it. From the inside a justified belief that happens to be true and one that happens to be false are identical until somebody with more data tells us otherwise.

[@markkjacobson]

How is Truth being defined. Maybe I missed that in an earlier part of the conversation in a different post.

[@bloodbentvessels3254]

Who is the person on the right? He's in a lot of your videos but I can't find his name or channel anywhere? Thanks.

[@ericb9804]

This is only a question if you insist on metaphysics, namely "the correspondence theory of truth."

[@skylarwapato2535]

Most mutations are either benign or negative. So we have many traits that are neither helping nor hurting our survival odds. So saying traits that we have must serve survival is not true.

[@hamzazouari999]

While fields like ethics or social norms are shaped by human perception and evolutionary bias, mathematics exemplifies an objective system that exists independently of individual minds. Statements like "2 + 2 = 4" are true because they adhere to the internal consistency and rules of arithmetic, not because they serve any human purpose. This is not a subjective truth but one that holds universally due to its coherence within the logical structure of mathematics. This objectivity extends to other formal frameworks like physics, logic, and computer science, where truths are governed by consistent rules validated through reliable application. In these domains, consensus does not create truth but rather recognizes it; shared understanding arises from testing and confirming principles that yield the same results regardless of observer. Thus, certain systems reveal objective structures that transcend individual perception, showing that not all knowledge is contingent upon human perspective. These formal systems offer truths grounded in internal coherence and universal applicability. This ultimately challenges the notion that all knowledge is shaped by arbitrary, survival-driven biases and provides a foundation for understanding reality that stands independently of human cognition.

[@alena-qu9vj]

I thought that the quantum mechanics rather disapproves of the "reality" not dependent on the human observer? At least the material reality, Of course there might be some ideal reality independent on human cognition - some call it God.

[@360.Tapestry]

sure, guy. nice words. very confident- and authoritative-sounding, too

[@johnsherfey3675]

Why does truth or untruth only focus on the individual in these arguments?

[@MichaelFerraro-bt4ig]

The scientific community didn’t nail Einstein to a cross.

[@timwells6011]

Yes! I think this discussion shows that something like the pragmatic view of truth is the best way to understand the meaning of the word 'true' Following AJ Ayer/wittgenstein - to imagine that there is some 'higher' or 'metaphysical' sense in which statements can be true beyond correlating to sense experience or being tautological might just be philosophical confusion which, when cleared up results in a sense of relief 😅

[@alena-qu9vj]

Have you not heard that our sense experience doesn 't correlate with the reality as it really is? Its proven above any doubts that our senses are lying. So of course you may call your sense experience "truth" if you wish, you are free to give the word any meaning that pleases you. The reality doesn't care how you call it anyway.

[@timwells6011]

@@alena-qu9vj I mean sense experience in the broad sense to include empirically verifiable scientific theories, so yes, I think your point can still be included under the pragmatic view of truth

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@timwells6011 There is not much branches of sciences the theories of which can be empirically verified to an overall consensus. Not to speak about the "unscientifical" rest of our human existence (even if psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, history etc. are trying their best). So, you can perhaps have your pragmatic view of truth in architecture, engineering, even in producing the WMD's, but sorry not there where it is really important - as in the theories of their implementation for instance.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@timwells6011 There is not much branches of science the theories of which can be empirically verified to an overall consensus. Not to speak about the "unscientifical" rest of our human existence (even if psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, history etc. are trying their best). So, you can perhaps have your pragmatic view of truth in architecture, engineering, even in producing the WMD's, but sorry not there where it is really important - as in the theories of their implementation for instance.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@timwells6011 There is not much branches of science the theories of which can be empirically verified to an overall consensus. Not to speak about the "unscientifical" rest of our human existence (even if psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, history etc. are trying their best). So, you can perhaps have your pragmatic view of truth in architecture, engineering, even in producing the WMD's, but sorry not there where it is really important - as in the theories of their implementation for instance.

[@mark69985]

"Why we are able to trust human intellect and rationality as a reliable guide to truth." Regarding the real world, I actually don't think we can, at least not by itself; e.g., we can use intellect and rationality to "prove" that motion is impossible, as Zeno the Greek philosopher did. That's one reason why I don't value theological or philosophical arguments. But we can test our ideas to see if they accord with reality, ideally with the tool of science, and gain confidence that we at least have approximate truth. Rather than being circular, I see these converging on truth about the real world. If theists say "those who don't believe in God, they've abandoned truth," I say the opposite is, er, true.

[@tomwhittingham1007]

The thing is. If you contemplate being, beingness, nothingness, somethingness, infinity, eternity, the present moment, time, before time, no time, your life, nature, life at all, no life for long enough sincerely enough. It’s god, not as a personality or from an scripture but as force or entity or thing: creator sustainer destroyer and container and beyond what can be comprehended with a human mind or words. And you can know but you can’t fake knowing and you also can’t explain it and you can’t know you know either

[@matthewpopp1054]

I believe we can reason because we are limited beings evolved to survive (even before we were conscious like bacteria) to navigate a world layered in limitations which is what Natural Law is. A limitation. Inside the parameters of a universe that limits everything to Space Time. None of us are all knowing or exist everywhere all at once. Therefore no one or no one thing is capable of deceiving all of us all the time. We can further limit things by confining the very thing we want to investigate, interrogate, experiment on, or “torture” to understand more completely what we want to learn from the material world. So it is in the very limitations of my being and my evolved reasoning that I can understand the truth of this limited universe of ours.

[@alanbird7781]

What is ‘Truth’.? We may never know. However we do know pragmatically what works, what allows us to do things, what explains the world around us. Truth is the word we use for the later (pragmatic), now there are those who want to say we need to know absolute truth? Why??

[@tionarry]

Is Price's argument *true*?