Mike Winger is wrong about Graham Oppy

[@MajestyofReason]

To those saying Mike is referring to the ontological argument discussion with Ben Arbour: (1) I listened to that discussion in full and couldn't find anything like what Mike attributes to Oppy. (2) That video has a transcript that KZbin created. The transcript doesn't have a single instance of 'intuition', 'intuit...', or cognates. All seven instances of 'against' in the discussion also have nothing to do with what Mike attributes to Oppy. (3) All the other points still apply -- e.g., Mike paints this as a 'non-intellectual' factor responsible for disbelief, and yet as philosophers understand them, intuitions are explicitly *intellectual* in nature. (4) I've had to do WAY too much detective work for Mike, and the video Mike *did* direct us to had nothing resembling what Mike attributes to Oppy. I think this alone legitimates charges of being irresponsible in characterizing Oppy's views. (5) In any case, keep in mind that I was very clear in the video that I'm not saying Mike made this up. 🙂 (6) Irrelevant clarificatory note: I said 'rational normativity' in the video, but sometimes this is also called 'epistemic normativity'. (7) According to my little elves, the most plausible candidate for what Mike is referring to is the following: In the Oppy-Arbour discussion (around 56:34 - 1:01:40), Ben Arbour and Graham Oppy talk about reverse modal ontological arguments. Oppy was saying there that the strongest modal inference (in his opinion) is from actuality to possibility, and Oppy then went on to explain how, as a result of this, if the atheist "wants to talk in that 'seeming' way" (1:01:31) along with Ben, then the atheist can -- with no less legitimacy than Ben Arbour, who is appealing to the seeming possibility of God's existence -- reason from God's actual non-existence to God's possible non-existence to God's seeming non-existence. Ironically, this probably makes things worse for Mike. At 1:00:30, Oppy says his actual view: "The most secure kind of modal inference is the one that goes from . So if you think there's no God, you think it's possible there's no God. That's how you get there. You don't rely on any seeming claim." Oppy is here expressly saying that when we're examining the modal ontological argument's possibility premise, we do *not* rely on seemings or intuitions. Oppy then went on to make a distinct point. He *hypothetically granted* Ben Arbour's seeming talk -- "if you wanna talk in that 'seeming' way..." -- and then explained that *even granting* this seeming talk, Ben's symmetry breaker for the possibility premise fails, since the atheist will simply report a different, incompatible seeming of God's non-existence. Here are other salient points of major divergence between what Oppy says in this Arbour-Oppy dialogue and how Mike construes Oppy. First, Mike construes Oppy has having an ‘intuition against God’ serving as a non-intellectual factor undergirding his disbelief, as ‘the reason’, at the end of the day, that he’s an atheist. But the portion of the Arbour-Oppy discussion here has absolutely nothing to do with Oppy’s reason for not believing in God. It has to do with one reason why Oppy thinks the atheist shouldn’t be convinced by Ben Arbour’s symmetry breaker for the possibility premise in the MOA. [Indeed, that reason is only *hypothetical* in nature -- Oppy's point is that *if* we follow Ben's talk of seemings [which Oppy expressly disagreed with a minute earlier'], Ben's symmetry breaker *still* fails.] So Mike construing this as the reason Oppy is an atheist is monstrously off the mark. It was not at *all* about his reason for being an atheist; it was a criticism of Ben's symmetry breaker for the possibility premise in the modal ontological argument, explaining why said symmetry breaker doesn't work. Second, the ‘seeming’ in question is certainly *not* non-intellectual; it’s an expressly *intellectual* seeming. This runs totally contrary to how Mike paints it. And this is crucial, since Mike’s whole point in the video is, ultimately, that (many? all?) atheists are non-intellectually choosing against (i.e., resisting) God. Add to this that ‘intuition’ in ordinary parlance has the connotation I mentioned in the video (combined with the facts that Mike did nothing to cancel the implicature and that the implicature is a negative, harmful caricature), and we have a serious case of overt, unmistakable, significant misrepresentation. And add to *this* that Mike is saying all this in front of half a million people and perpetuating negative caricatures of atheists as non-intellectually and willfully resisting God, and we have a grotesque impropriety on our hands. Imagine if I made a video to half a million people where I claim to paraphrase Ed Feser, and I claim that he said the reason he believes in God at the end of the day is that he wants theism to be true. Now imagine that, in reality, Feser was simply answering a question about whether he hopes God exists, and that in the same discussion, he explicitly said the reason he believes in God is that there are good arguments for God. What I did in this scenario is monumentally irresponsible. I've led boatloads of people to think that an intelligent, well-respected, scholarly theist believes in God because of wishful thinking. This perpetuates a negative stereotype, firstly, and it also blatantly misrepresents Feser. Yet this is precisely the sort of thing Mike has done. There really is no excuse.

[@pyromaniac129]

It's weird because I swear I can remember Oppy saying what Mike said he did pretty much verbatim. I remember specifically taking note of it because it seemed like a strange thing to say in a debate, although I don't remember the context and I doubt it actually reflects poorly on Oppy. Now that I am looking for it I can't find it. For context I am an atheist and not on Mike's side.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Is nihilism or wokism better than Christian nuclear families? Idk oppy but he's clearly not that smart.

[@mf_hume]

(7) Mike should know better than to characterize someone’s entire approach to disagreement based on off the cuff remarks in a debate, especially when that person has written at length about their actual views.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@mf_hume The bible tells us they are seeded this way. So does brain scans and I think this is general knowledge to most ppl

[@MajestyofReason]

@@mf_hume spot on

[@MikeWinger]

The video I was recalling was the debate between Oppy and Arbour. But I see that I’ve misrepresented things to a significant degree. I could try to offer support for my overall point, to rescue it, and explanations of my points to soften the blow, but I don’t see that as good form here. I’ll take down my video and edit the original Q&A to remove what I understand to be a misrepresentation of Oppy. There’s no proper excuse for me misrepresenting Oppy in any regard. You all have my apologies and Joe, you have my thanks for calling me out. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

[@MajestyofReason]

Thank you, Mike, for responding with principle, integrity, honesty, and humility. Much appreciated, and I hope we can both improve discourse around these topics!🙂

[@MikeWinger]

@@MajestyofReason:)

[@Francoisdp82]

I really appreciate you Mike.

[@ExploringReality]

Awesome job representing Christ through this Mike ❤️ thank you for what you do

[@ubersheizer5398]

I think it all comes down to that you are convinced Christianity is "obviously" true, and it escapes you how others don't see that truth. Btw, I think you are the kindest professional apologist on the interwebs, even surpassing Sean McDowell. Sean does have a chance of leaving the faith but you are locked in for life.

[@CapturingChristianity]

I hear the title of Oppy’s next book is: “I Have an Intuition Against God.”

[@MajestyofReason]

I heard he has a tattoo on his chest, "I have an intuition against God"

[@dillanklapp]

Cameron, you gotta take mike under your wing and expose him to the intellectual side of Christianity!

[@Greyz174]

@@MajestyofReason uwu

[@richardgamrat1944]

@@MajestyofReason :DDD

[@michaelduguay7698]

@@nonsensem09 I have an intuition that he does

[@fujiapple9675]

Mike Winger is wrong about a lot of things; Graham Oppy is no exception.

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

I didn’t even know he was till this video

[@c.guydubois8270]

Fractionally wrong?

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Oppy is brilliant and correct

[@rodjayoma7085]

That was painful to watch. As someone who has left Christianity, all I want from my Christian family is understanding.

[@scottharrison812]

I guess I no longer even really expect “understanding” from a majority of Christians. There ARE (and have been) more nuanced thinkers (generally not evangelical) like Dale Allison, Paul Tillich, John Caputo, Peter Rollins who open a space of genuine encounter over belief and being, but you just aint gonna find this in general discourse. This guy has decided in advance what is true and his default position is that you or I are in stubborn rebellion against his God. It’s an impregnable tower of hubris. No point bashing your head against a brick wall. I guess I simply hope to receive a modicum of human decency to acknowledge my different POV - for a Christian to say “look,I may be wrong, but this is what I have come to believe, what I have put MY faith in …”. It’s the inflexible certitude that is so sinister. One hopes for the common decency of a fellow human being to say - “I acknowledge YOU, even if you don’t or won’t or can’t or can no longer believe what I believe - for whatever reason (perhaps years of abuse for instance, or the problem of suffering in the world) - but I see you, I dont require that you conform to my vision of reality, to My God … I can acknowledge that you comprehend life differently”. Imagine that! Without being ridiculed, not to be accused of deliberately not seeing “the obvious”, being told I have taken a “relational decision AGAINST God (what arrogance!) … that I am WRONG, going to Hell, wilfully refusing his supreme TRUTH. It seems odd that Christians - just like any other fundamentalist believer (Jewish, Muslim, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons…) cannot see how abusive and narrowminded this line of (un)reasoning is - and each inflexible “truth” excludes and trashes the next man’s inflexible truth. Sigh.

[@rodjayoma7085]

@@scottharrison812 I think some of it is well intentioned but some of it is also fear. In my old church, preachers would talk about non-believers as these immoral, god-hating, fornicating, adulterous, murderous, vice loving Boogeymen and years of hearing that message Sunday after Sunday just influences how Christians perceive outsiders, even I myself used to believe that. Going through deconversion for me was a slow and painful process and I wouldn't wish it on any Christian/believer if that meant they come out the other side a worse person than they currently are.

[@scottharrison812]

@@rodjayoma7085 🙌solidarity … in my experience the person deconstructing her faith is profoundly engaged with existential, moral, ethical, religious and philosophical matters in a way I rarely witnessed in the comfortable certitudes of the local church - or even the denominational seminary - which is itself concerning… because there is soooo much in Christianity which is by no means certain. You need only to begin to examine the theological debates between the Christians of the first 3 centuries (Marcion and the Gnostics come to mind) to see how tenuous much of what Christians hold to be FACT actually is. Theological developments of the last two hundred years show how diverse Christian thought has become - and how dumbed-down fundamentalist Christianity actually is. Add to this the history of the Canon formation, The Quest (Schweitzer + subsequent work on the quest for the historical Jesus- 3 Quests fact), Higher Criticism, the careful examination of the biblical texts (Ehrman, Tabor), demythologisation (Bultmann), recent work on the theology of Saint Paul … and the position of the fundie-evangelical becomes less secure still. But as you say - FEAR leads to a hunkering down and the insistence you see in the apologist … and I think Pete Rollins has a point here - basic psychology perhaps - the more certain a man seems the more he is suppressing his own doubts. When he goes on the attack or mocks you he is subconsciously trying to avoid pieces being pulled from his own jenga tower. He is too afraid to let anyone mess with the pieces holding his tower in place…

[@rodjayoma7085]

@@scottharrison812 thank you Scott. Till this day I still struggle with these philosophical matters and I'd like to think that most of those who deconverted are. Living in a world post religion is like living in a moral/ethical waste land where everything is uncertain and you keep second guessing yourself if you have moral justifications for your beliefs/actions or not. And the majority of us regular folk, myself included, are not philosophers who are well informed about these matters. All I can really do now is to be as mindful and as careful as I can be when it comes to moral/ethical decisions and hope for the best and if ever I fail to account for something then all I can offer is humility and I'll accept whatever consequences my actions entail. When it comes to the uncertainty of Christian doctrines and claims, unfortunately, I don't see it getting more nuanced any time soon within churches, since preachers will speak on these matters authoritatively (probably with no fault of their own) as they have always done, as if all these matters are already settled. Also, most Christians whose faith hasn't been philosophically challenged are already settled in their beliefs and they simply don't have the time for all these debates, like non-believers it's a luxury to even have the time to delve into the philosophical and historical literature of Christianity when you have a full time job and have a family to feed, you probably just want to relax, go hang out with friends and family and attend your local church 1-2 days a week in whatever free time you have left.

[@peterlindal3352]

@@rodjayoma7085 Hi Rod, thanks for sharing so honestly and open about your own expirience, i am also sorry for the way in wich others have treated you spiritually. I resonate with a lot of what you say, and although my faith tends to vary, it often comes down to intense doubts and struggles in reconciling what i want to believe with the world i encounter. I still hope the church can grow and allow space for people of all backgrounds to be disciples, to love and be loved, irrespective of their stands on certain doctrinal issues. Being part of a loving community has been a gift to me, and something i want for others, even when i do not find all the claims of Christendom to appeal to me. I hope and pray that you continue to find purpose and meaning in your search, and thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Rod, take Care!

[@TheAnalyticChristian]

Thank you. You put a lot of work into this, and I know your time is very valuable. I sincerely hope Mike either takes his video down, or makes a new video saying he misrepresented Oppy.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

Do you also comment on every atheist video that misrepresents something a Christian said and tell them to take it down?

[@ExploringReality]

As a Christian I felt pretty similarly about this too. Was really disappointed.

[@jmike2039]

Based than

[@ExploringReality]

@@jmike2039 ❤️

[@Overonator]

Oppy is THE guy when it comes to theoretical virtues. In other words he's best know for this framework of evaluating explanations using theoretical virtues. To completely misrepresent why Oppy is an atheist (theoretical virtues) and claim it's just Oppy's intuition is maddening and just complete slander. It doesn't matter if Winger means intuition in the everyday sense or in the philosophical sense, it's wrong in both senses.

[@MajestyofReason]

Excellent point

[@MrCmon113]

It's very hard for me to believe that anyone belives or doesn't believe in gods based on philosophical technicalities.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@MrCmon113 well that's just intuition

[@RealAtheology]

I think (not entirely sure) what must have happened was Mike was thinking about the debate between Oppy and Dr. Ben Arbour on the Ontological Argument and probably had Oppy's comments in mind about the nature of modal symmetry breakers and confused this debate with Feser. But as you point out, even in this instance he seems to have completely mischaracterized the nature of the dialectic.

[@brando3342]

@Real Atheology Yeah, I was thinking I heard something like that from Oppy before, but couldn't remember where. Thanks.

[@MajestyofReason]

Yeah, it sounds like he totally mischaracterized the nature of even that dialectic. What timestamp are you referring to in that video, so I can confirm? :)

[@camspiers]

Maybe he understood 8% of the dialectic.

[@MrGustavier]

@@brando3342 I think I heard something like that from Oppy too... Was it when he got irritated in his debate with Andrew Loke ? Or maybe it was during the debate review ... ? On Malpass' channel ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@brando3342 At 20:23 of Oppy's debate with Andrew Loke on Cameron's channel, Oppy says : _"theory is prior to argument"_ ... Maybe this is what Mike had in mind about _"intuition"_ ??

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Well said my friend!

[@DigitalGnosis]

Great video. Especially given Grahams view is that there are NO successful arguments for Gods existence and he has even said his personal credence in Theism is much less than 1%. It sounded like Mike was being reasonable at the start then he sort of rambled off into some mad apologetics zinger about "atheists just hate God relationally" like Oppy is the prof from Gods not Dead.

[@matthewpopp1054]

You still doing streams with Derek and Pinecreek?

[@lalosalamanca4226]

I think if you actually have a credence like that on a philosophical proposition, there may be a problem. I'm not even that sure that the laws of logic exist.

[@ramigilneas9274]

⁠@@lalosalamanca4226Depends on what you mean by God. Even if we are talking about a deistic god who created the universe and finetuned it to allow for life to evolve… I still wouldn’t grant that idea a probability higher than 1%. And if we are talking about a ridiculously convoluted and nonsensical god concept like the abrahamic god then I would probably grant it a probably of one in a trillion.

[@lalosalamanca4226]

@@ramigilneas9274 sounds like you need to study more. Nathan took graham out of context by the way.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@lalosalamanca4226 Well, studying drastically reduced my confidence in the probability that the abrahamic god exists. Listening to the best arguments of the best Apologists reduced it even more.😂

[@11kravitzn]

Because Graham Oppy "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1), duh.

[@MajestyofReason]

Yeah, this is what I suspect might be underneath many of these suggestions. If so, I think it's not only clearly false, but it might be eisegesis to boot. Cf. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aILMfoB7rrWaopY [I know you're kidding, lol]

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@MajestyofReason The possibility of Rauser doing coherent exegesis is like that of a ceiling fan powering a helicopter.

[@11kravitzn]

@@MajestyofReason I'm not a Christian, but I don't think it's eisegesis. Read Romans 1:18-32 and on, and then tell me with a straight face that Paul isn't saying non-Christians knowingly reject his God because they're wicked. It's a polemic, and has always been used that way. Remember when they burned heretics and Jews (Judaism being heresy 0)? Christians love these verses, but they're intellectually toxic, intellectually vicious "anyone who disagrees is evil". Hence why these verses are also instrumental for cult formation, like Matt 12:30. Christians have to be willing and able to criticize their sacred texts if they want to escape black and white authoritarian dogmatism.

[@thoughtful1233]

​@@11kravitznAmen. No sacred texts in an honest grasping for faithful representations of the world. The dialectic never closes.

[@davethebrahman9870]

This is always the excuse used by Theists when their arguments fail: ‘It’s a problem with the heart’. It is in fact the Theists who are engaged in motivated reasoning.

[@Doeyhead]

Mike Winger's viewpoints of how clear it is that God exists, is how clear i feel that , the Christian God, absolutely does NOT exist. Just from my historical research of the biblical records are concerned...not just philosophically.

[@ThisDonut]

Man when I saw Mikes video yesterday it really pissed me off. Im so glad you posted this response which allowed me to find your channel and dispel this frustration.

[@ThisDonut]

@@thevulture5750 I left a comment on the video the same day if your curious. I havent studied Grams work but just from the high esteem Mike held him in, and the name being familiar to me, I just knew that he wasnt not being represented accurately there. My lack of knowledge of his work was apart of that frustration because I couldnt comment on what he actually believed, but was confident nonetheless that it wasnt what Mike suggested. Then Mike goes on about how painfully obvious gods existence is and I just threw my hands up, or rather put them to the keyboard. Bit of an overreaction in hindsight.

[@ThisDonut]

@@thevulture5750 im not convinced such an entity exists

[@MetaphorUB]

My conscience finds all kinds of problems with Winger’s theology. If there is a god, I am unable to accept that it is his.

[@dillanklapp]

So glad you decided to respond to this. Saw mikes video yesterday and it made me want to pull my hair out😂

[@martifingers]

Yes it was a timely and strongly argued response.

[@Akira-jd2zr]

One thing I'd like to point out: there isn't equal representation of "smart people" on both sides of the atheist vs theist debate. The vast majority of scientists (9/10) and philosophers (8.5/10) are non-believers... The same applies to educated vs non-educated where people with more education favor non-belief...

[@goldenalt3166]

I'd be skeptical of using those categories as stand ins for "smart people".

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@goldenalt3166 I understand your skepticism but if you absolutely HAD to choose a field that is composed of the "smartest" people, what would you choose? Here's another point to support my position: look up what are the hardest/most difficult majors in college. You'll see that it's mostly the sciences and philosophy...

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Akira-jd2zr Lawyers. Doctors. Money managers. Basically, the ones smart enough to make money off it. :) But I think picking a profession is a bad methodology. They're also the hardest fields to study with specialized schools.

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@goldenalt3166 Well if all you care about is money then that's different... Plus, doctor counts as science.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Akira-jd2zr It's just a side effect. Philosophy seems like one of the easiest degrees. Unless you want to claim that it includes almost every degree. What I find interesting is that seminary seems to be one of the only schools where a significant number of students come out not believing the subject at all.

[@Lojak-exe]

Once I heard Joe say "transcript", I knew it was already over lol.

[@azophi]

Yup. These arguments are actually the most interesting to me, the ones about divine hiddenness and non-resistant non-believers.

[@DigitalGnosis]

14:30 Show me what you love and I'll show you your God. -- I think that the contents of your prayers say a lot about your character and virtue.

[@modernmoralist]

This was a great video... except for the loss of Australia. It was a fun country while it lasted.

[@jaclo3112]

Australia has been throught out of existence again!?!?! Aww, maaan. Sucks every time that happens. Especially when I'm currently sitting in Australia. *sad face.

[@JosephKano]

@@jaclo3112 have you gotten your cheque yet for pretending to be an Australian? Mines like 50 years overdue.

[@jaclo3112]

@@JosephKano mines overdue by almost 40 years. Where can we find the HR department to sort this mess out? We need a union.

[@Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic]

I always get the impression that Christians grade on a skewed Bell Curve when it comes to logic. I once took a college accounting course where the median score was 38 , a C, out of 100 + 10, an A, for a bonus question. I got a 40. A couple people got 110. My C versus their A does not fully describe the depth of misunderstanding I had compared to the the A student's comprehension. I passed the class knowing very little about advanced accounting. 'Eh, that's good enough', seems to be a 'logical' conclusion for apologetics.

[@scottguitar8168]

Mike Winger is probably going off his memory of what Graham Oppy said, which people will introduce their biases and interpretations to put words into Oppy's mouth that he never uttered. Mike Winger would be valid in his feelings about some smart guy reasoning his atheistic views and if I were Mike Winger, I would want to fully understand this smart guy's line of reasoning. It is the fact that he admits to understanding only about 8% of the reasoning Oppy was trying to convey that Mike doesn't get it. Also if you think you know God exists, it is going to be very difficult to consider Oppy's valid reasoning and the bias will find a way to reject the reasoning usually with poor rationality to protect the belief. I am not vested in my atheism and on occasion theists offer thought provoking arguments, where if I did not finally realize the weakness of those arguments may have convinced me towards theism. I don't know that Gods don't exist, I simply have no reasoning yet to support the possibility of their existence. If I could at least establish are real possibility vs. an imagined possibility, I could move to pure agnosticism or even agnostic theist.

[@devinbraun1852]

Great critique of Mr Winger’s video and issues within. It would be excellent if the algorithm queues your video up immediately after his so at least some of the viewers could be exposed to counterpoints.

[@toegap202]

I didn't think Tom Holland was so passionate about atheism.

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

Plantinga's argument, as presented by Winger, is just a step or two away from saying "Atheists don't understand because YHWH has destined them for damnation."

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

Thank you for your videos Joe!! I really appreciate your search for truth and it is inspiring to me. Also, "Is There a God?" was an awesome book. As a theist I thought Oppy presented a stronger case than Pearce.

[@anitkythera4125]

Of course Winger meant the negative caricature of intuition against God. He even used the Christian shibboleth “stumble” which references a Pauline epistle where the Greeks aski bc for wisdom and the Jews asking for signs but they preach a crucified Christ which is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness for Gentiles. Winger is just willfully ignorant and ironically so.

[@UndeaKnight]

I find Mike very helpful on matters of theology, but felt like this was a matter where he was stepping out into a place where he didn’t have great footing 😳 Thanks for your well natured response to his video, I hope he is able to see it in the sea of his mentions 🤔

[@kamilgregor]

Ironically, his response is entirely Biblical in this case.

[@UndeaKnight]

@@kamilgregor he does claim that his position would be supported by Biblical claims, but doesn’t really reach for the Bible to actually do the supporting. The foundation’s he provides for his claims are actually extra-biblical e.g. Oppy using intuition, plantinga assigning a failure in reasoning to atheists, there are people on both sides of the issue, etc. He just rounds it all out by saying all of the above make sense from a Christian POV rather than exploring what the Bible says to make a case from it. Which would be the way he’d approach making a biblical case (as this is what he attempts to do in his regular Q&A series, go to a text, see what it says, use that to think about a topic)

[@UndeaKnight]

@Lureeality 🎶🎵 that’s good to hear! 😊 Would you happen to have a link to that apology? 😊

[@UndeaKnight]

@Lureeality 🎶🎵 just found it! Thanks for pointing out where to look!

[@logans.butler285]

"Mike Winger is wrong about (…)" you can add anything there, his logo is literally a head with a Bible inside instead of a brain, and that says a lot about him. Plus it's sad how no one has yet pointed out his numerous misrepresentations of biblical scholarship.

[@Greyz174]

his "Defending Daniel" video is an impeccable case of misrepresenting bible scholarship

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

OK I do disagree with much of what he said in the video, but I have to defend him because your comment is total nonsense. I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not with this criticism, Who cares for his logo is, his channel is called the Bible thinker. Can you point out, what he miss represents about biblical scholarship.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@Greyz174 How? He has a pretty good track record when it comes to this type of stuff, not when it comes to philosophy or science though.

[@Greyz174]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 how much context do you have on the "authorship of Daniel" discourse? just so i know what to explain and what to imply

[@logans.butler285]

@@Greyz174 OMG, YES, God I loathe that video. I can definitely sense his well-meaning intentions, but to just dismiss skeptic scholars' work in light of what he preconceived beliefs tell him is just flat-out cheeky and dishonest - specially considering that the "skeptic scholars" he cringely attempts to debunk are Catholic themselves (Mark S. Smith, John J. Collins…) I'm actually planning on writing a full response to him about it, I will call it "Defending Daniel (from Fundamentalists)"

[@whoeverofhowevermany]

18:00 Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

[@istoner]

As to the first point about "intuitions," surely Mike referencing the beginning of that debate where Oppy explains that beliefs generally precede argumentation. Oppy doesn't use the word "intuition," but I think the larger point is that ultimately it's non-argument factors that control, and Mike is using "intuition" as an informal term for those factors.

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the comment! So, Oppy’s point there about beliefs is that beliefs and theories are prior to arguments in the sense that whether an argument is successful for someone is entirely a function of whether they believe all the premises. This doesn’t at all mean what Mike was using his intuition comment to mean, namely that non-intellectual factors may undergird where one intellectually lands. Oppy’s point about beliefs and theories is entirely a point about intellectual factors; it has nothing to do with non-intellectual factors. He‘a saying that instead of throwing arguments at one another, the proper philosophical methodology is to compare theories (where theories are belief sets closed under entailment). This is throughly intellectual.

[@MajestyofReason]

And also, that has nothing to do with an “intuition against God”, as Mike said. (And as another commenter above me points out)

[@istoner]

@@MajestyofReason I think you're probably right. Just pointing this out because a big part of your video is trying to track down what Mike is actually referencing. I'm pretty sure this is it (however misunderstood).

[@MajestyofReason]

@@istoner much love🙂❤️

[@goldenalt3166]

I can see Oppy using this to reject a premise in an argument that is based on intuition. Mike's black and white thinking makes him think that is affirming the opposite.

[@timothymulholland7905]

I was indoctrinated from birth through college and went through all the rituals and practices, yet I never felt the presence of a Holy Spirit or the deep conviction that a god existed and wanted a relationship with me. This was and is an intuition with a strong emotional foundation. Emotions are always present, no matter how we try to push them out of our thinking and reasoning. The acceptance of the conclusions of an argument is emotional, whether positive or negative.

[@rubif5797]

Perfect example how Mike hears what he wants to hear to support his belief.

[@donnyh3497]

The thing to keep in mind about Mike is that he is so irrationally terrified of hell that his rather intelligent mind has spent a lifetime desperately searching for reasons to believe in order to avoid his biggest fear. 😔

[@bds8715]

The biggest fear Christians have is that there is no god, they are not loved by a good and powerful being, and death is the end… and that’s why they have to hold onto faith 😔

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I do agree with Joe. But I’m sorry but this is totally disingenuous, actually it’s the exact opposite, he sincerely believe that Jesus Christ is inside and if you put your trust in them you will be saved. Well he’s afraid of how hell is described, but the idea that he’s just kind of living in constant fear of hell and that’s the only reason why he claims to Christianity is totally dishonest I mean come on. Yeah no complete nonsense, his reason for believing in God it actually has nothing to do with fear of hell, if he didn’t believe in the first place he would have nothing to be afraid of, he believes in Christianity because he believes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is God’s word, it has nothing to do with any fear of hell. You should actually address peoples actual reasons for believing in something, instead of trying to psychoanalyze their motives, christians do this as well by saying that atheists are only atheists because other deep hatred for God.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@bds8715 this sounds a lot like Sigmund Freud‘s observation.

[@bds8715]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Wouldn’t you agree that Mike Winger etc are constantly trying to apply duct tape over the holes in the bible? Psychoanalyzing explains their behavior…

[@donnyh3497]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Nonsense. When a reasonably intelligent person spends their frightened life trying to prove jebus, he doesn't ever have the chance to step back and actually look at the ridiculous story for what it is. If doubt how irrationally terrified of god and hell Mike is then just watch him give interviews on atheist channels. It's embarrassing 😳

[@rationalhuman2149]

Plantinga has the educational credentials and studied enough real philosophy to finally arrive at the position that…are you ready?…belief in God is properly basic and can be justified without requiring any evidence or argument. Which is basically the same position taken by uncredentialed fundamentalists like Winger who say “god is just painfully obvious ” . Sigh. All that money and time spent to throw up his hands and realize there is no evidence or rational argument for god, so I’ll just declare it to be basic, call it Reformed Epistemology , and sell books to ignoramuses.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

I think we could use the phrase “choosing to believe” as a euphemism for us, as students of philosophy, mentally attributing explanatory power to certain arguments, and in turn, practically “choosing what we believe.”

[@ryry854]

"Sub par epistomology" Thats an extremely polite way of putting it. I consider statements that attempt to disparage a non theist position by essentially saying 'they really believe but deny it' as disingenuous to outright dishonest.

[@joshuabrecka6012]

So, I don't know if this is already said somewhere in the comments, but he is definitely talking about Oppy's conversation with the late Ben Arbour. In that discussion, Oppy does say that, ultimately, intuition is what will decide between the modal ontological argument and its negative counterpart. But this cuts both ways, so it doesn't really count against Oppy.

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the comment! Always great to see you here.🙂 I have a few comments about this: (1) would you be able to provide a time stamp so I can confirm? I’d like to make a pinned comment about it. I just listened to it in full and didn’t hear something clearly indicating that, although it was on 2x speed and I was working out so I could have missed it! (2) even then, Winger has very severely mischaracterized Oppy. (I’m not saying you’re defending Winger, of course. I just think this is important to point out!) For starters, Oppy is almost certainly talking about intuition in the philosophical sense, which isn’t non-intellectual (contrary to how Winger explicitly construed it). Second, Winger claimed that this is why Oppy is an atheist at the end of the day - it’s intuition. But this is totally different to saying that intuition is a deciding factor on where one lands on the modal ontological argument!

[@joshuabrecka6012]

​@@MajestyofReason I probably shouldn't have sounded so confident--the internet made me do it. I'll give the relevant sections another listen and try to get you a time stamp. Ya, I'm not exactly on the Winger side of the debate here... I was just going for a radically charitable interpretation. Probably been reading too much Davidson/Lewis though.

[@joshuabrecka6012]

​@@MajestyofReason Little elf reporting: it seems I should issue a mea culpa. The place I think I confabulated Oppy saying this is the back-and-forth starting at the 56:00 mark in the Arbour convo. But, to my chagrin, the thought is almost the opposite of what I said. Oppy says that the way we are gonna arrive at the 'modal seeming' Arbour appeals to is like this: God does (not) exist, therefore God possibly (does not) exist, therefore it (does not) seem(s) that God exists. I can delete older comment. Cheers.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@joshuabrecka6012 hahaha, you were unironically one of my little elves, along with several others (some on FB, too). Please don't delete the comment!!! This could be very edifying to people who read through the comment section [e.g., Mike?]. I'm not (and never was) mad or disappointed in your comment. It was important and put this potential avenue on my radar :)

[@JosephKano]

@@joshuabrecka6012 so it's possible this is how Mike misremembered it? This is if anything a lesson to Mike that he should check this stuff before spouting off, before going on video.

[@thegoodvillain777]

Imma be honest, I don't know who Oppy is but I know Winger enough to know he's probably wrong about him/her/them.

[@JosephKano]

Interesting that isn't it.

[@Sveccha93]

Imagine the feeling of Joe making a video dissecting your words? I can't think of anything more harrowing.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

The issue of arrogance is inappropriately applied by Winger in this case. Who is more arrogant, the person who spends their lives considering a plethora of arguments for and against, or the person who staunchly refuses to consider any view other than their own?

[@tymmiara5967]

I think Mike Winger made a mistake of reposting his clearly ad-lib response (probably a part of a long live stream) as a separate video. That said, you have proposed two possible interpretations as to what Mike meant when he said that according to Plantinga there is something wrong with the atheist's reasoning abilities. You said this could mean "either that atheists made some mistake somewhere in their reasoning", which then you say it is a trivial statement, or "they have some genuine impairment or deficit with respect to their rational capacities" about which you said "there is simply no evidence that this is true and it is comical to say it". I think there is a third way to interpret what Mike meant and it is not comical. I think what Mike is getting at here is the implication of reformed epistemology, according to which a human being has, among various cognitive faculties, a particular one aimed at experiencing the divine (sensus divinitatis). If Plantingian reformed epistemology is correct (which postulates existence of sensus divinitatis) , then it would follow that a non-theist either (consciously or subconsciously) ignores the sensus divinitatis, or this sensus divinitatis is malfunctioning. I think the latter is what Mike Winger could have meant, even though he didn't find the right words in this ad-lib improvised speech (he said "something wrong with reasoning abilities", which I think he meant as "something wrong with cognitive faculties", an easy mistake to make when someone is paraphrasing and is not in the field).

[@MajestyofReason]

Excellent clarification! I wanted to stick as close as possible to what Mike said, since I didn’t want to impute Plantingian epistemological views to him. [This is especially important given how much he butchered Oppy's views. I didn't want to impute a butchered Plantinga-esque view to Plantinga!] So, given this, I tried addressing Mike's exact words in my assessment. So I paid particular attention to him saying that there’s something wrong with their reasoning ability, with their thinking. It’s good to keep in mind, though, that he might have been (very infelicitously) expressing something about the sensus divinitatis, and so your clarification is very well taken!

[@tymmiara5967]

@@MajestyofReason That's kind of the problem of the variety of youtube content. On the one end you can find some well-thought-through, clearly scripted videos which can be expected to accurately represent the creator's current thinking, and on the other end there are livestreams where, it ought to be generally understood that these are merely ad-lib responses, first impressions, semi-improvised, and not really representative of the creator's current systematic thinking. What I don't like here is that Mike mixes the content up. He reposts excerpts from livestreams as separate videos, which then only ask to be held to a higher standard and torn apart.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

In regards to the non-resistance non-believers I pray that one day they'll experience God's grace. I also hope that they do not put the blame on God, for being unable to see a reason to want faith, since the world is so corrupt that even on the subconscious level some people have unwillingly become distant from God.

[@Francoisdp82]

Wrt 11:20. I think we do have some control over our beliefs. I can hear that some people believe that the earth is flat and I can want to believe that the earth is flat and I can go look for reasons to believe it. I can convince myself that it is true and I can end up believing it.

[@letefte]

Projection and creating strawmen are the order of business for Mr Winger here.

[@displacegamer1379]

4:55 does he believe in divine hiddenness? If he believes in divide hidden is then it can't be an obvious thing.

[@UserName-uz1qu]

Do you have any videos where you go into depth about why you can't choose your beliefs? I have a hard time believing that it's ever impossible, but I'm open minded of course, lol.

[@micell826]

If you think it's possible then simply choose to believe it's impossible and you'll understand.

[@UserName-uz1qu]

Good point :|

[@MoreEriksson]

'His video might be perpetuating potentially harmful caricatures about non-theists' Having read the top comments and seeing the amount of up votes they received, it's safe to say that hypothetical statement is just reality.

[@robertlewis2855]

Rather than Mike crediting Oppy's intelligence, he should credit Oppy's expertise in the field, his depth of understanding and high esteem among his peers. Oppy's views are *judgements* not "intuitions". They are undergirded by reasons. I think Mike simply needs to consider the difference between these and then wonder if he misspoke or misunderstands Oppy.

[@KabeloMoiloa]

kant boi spotted? if so, high five to you probably one of the best kinds of theism imho.

[@Greyz174]

Subtly implying Romans 1 has all the explanatory power you need

[@mf_hume]

“It’s not because of the arguments” is evangelical for “Oppy probably watches porn”

[@Greyz174]

@@mf_hume 😂"and would rather go to Hell forever than stop, for some reason"

[@logans.butler285]

"You just want to sin" said the men who completely dismiss the outright command from Luke's gospel of staying single until Jesus returns 🤣🤣

[@Greyz174]

@@logans.butler285 are you sure it says that?

[@Jon-jr7kx]

@MajestyofReason Greetings Joe, my thoughts/response: I think the video referenced was Oppy-Arbour (see 56:34 - 1:01:40) in the context of Arbour pushing back on reverse OAs. Even there though, Mike did misinterpret Oppy. Oppy was saying the strongest modal inference (in his opinion) from *it's actual* to *its possible* fits into the seeming talk Arbour mentioned. So, as Oppy argued, he can reason from (a) ~G to (b) ◇~G to (c) it seems to Oppy that ~G (1:01:27 - 1:01:37). A defence of Mike: 1. "We don't have control over our beliefs." •Even granting that (in practice) it's impossible to control one's beliefs, this doesn't even touch, let alone falsify, the doxastic voluntarist thesis-and consequently Mike's. Merely from the fact that we have no control over *some* beliefs, such as our belief in Australia or 1+1=2, doesn't entail we have no control over *any or all* beliefs (permissive cases in epistemology eg). Liz Jackson also has an interesting papers noting this. Interestingly, she voices these very same responses, and the ones below, (at 35:00) in your interview with her. •Let's assume DV, for whatever reason, was false, Mike could argue his thesis on the grounds that we can *indirectly control our beliefs* as even involuntarists grant (consistent with Mike's relational choice argument). •Even if we assume once again that DV is false, what Mike is saying can charitably be reformulated in terms of *commitment to pursue relationship with God* (as Mike Rota has used the term). 2. "Once your belief in God goes out the door, it's not like you can choose to be in an explicit relationship with God." •I'm glad you said explicit, but what Mike says is compatible with explicit and implicit forms of relationship with God (although this worry now only applies to "Non-Resistant Non-Believers"). Popular reformed circles may disagree with this, but it's still an option nonetheless. 3. Concerning, what seemed like, your indirect attack of the traditional model of hell/ECT see below: • The overwhelmingly dominant view of hell has, as a necessary component, agential culpability for non-belief &/or resistance, but this isn't problematic for the aforementioned reasons. • "I mean if you think that people can be punished b/c they don't believe a certain set of tenets, then it's natural to try to paint belief as a choice or function of an underlying choice." Minor contention, but the traditional picture of hell is typically posited as a punishment for unreedemed *sin* or moral wrongs and/or rejecting eternal union with God-whether one wants to interpret the latter as retributive can be left open. •Do you believe that mere agnosticism or disbelief in a proposition can *never* warrant punishment? Do you think anyone (in history) has ever had a moral obligation to hold or not hold certain beliefs (about African Americans, Women, Jews, etc)? Do you think God should at least distribute justice for their moral wrong (whether retributive or restorative)? •"The moment you grant that someone can rationally be convinced that those tenets are false, through no choice of their own, but instead b/c of their evidence & experiences which have helplessly led them to disbelief...plausibility for punishment is lost." Sure, but (a) Christians with, say, scriptural or philosophical reasons to believe no NRNB (even in cases of Oppy, Draper, You, etc) occurs will reject this & (b) only plausibility for the punishment of non-culpable non-believers is lost (ECT+Exclusivism still affirmable). •"Many Non-Theists hope God exists + Pro-Theism benefits"- Is the claim that inconsistent or hypocritical beliefs aren't at play here (which'd be question begging for the Christian you're arguing against) or simply that *hope for truth of P* can't be in combo with *resistance to certain inferential moves/evidences that confirm P* (which you'd need to give a reason for thinking)? The same would apply to the deconversion point you make. 4. "Religious beliefs based on relational decisions are unreliable, so Christians who base their religious beliefs on relational decisions should be agnostic." • Mike can simply respond by saying that mere lack of truth trackingness or varied widespread disagreement isn't sufficient to count as a defeat *anyone's* (theist or not) beliefs. He's obviously going to do this by adopting an equally controversial (yet respectable) epistemological position on justification. • The Christian like Mike can reply by posit some warrant/justification conferring mechanism like sensus divinitatis (whether Externalist like Plantinga or Internalist like Dougherty) or similarly just say that Christians, given Christian theism, are cases of folks appropriately/properly responding to available evidence while culpable/resistant non-believers are not. Thus, it wouldn't be mere *relational decisions,* it would be improper/inappropriate relational decisions (on behalf of the non-theist) that are acting as defeaters. 5. "If it's tied, you should be agnostic" • I don't think decision theoretic considerations about practical justification (Pascal's wager) should be dismissed so quickly here. 6. "Surely, it should be worrying if there's massive disagreement on the matter among the relevant experts who've studied the topic their entire lives and know more than you." •Because there's "massive disagreement among relevant experts..." about how to rationally respond & whether you should significantly decrease credence in light of expert disagreement, then we should (if it's true) significantly decrease our credence in the truth of this principle. Depending on one's position on the epistemic landscape, this may or may not lead to belief revision. •What reasons should Mike have for rejecting a strong steadfast view & self trust arguments from Zagzebski, Foley, Enoch, etc?

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the comment! Very much appreciated. I’ll respond to your points in turn, with separate comments corresponding to your central points. (My comments won’t all fit into one comment.) You say: “Greetings Joe, my thoughts/response: I think the video referenced was Oppy-Arbour (see 56:34 - 1:01:40) in the context of Arbour pushing back on reverse OAs. Even there though, Mike did misinterpret Oppy. Oppy was saying the strongest modal inference (in his opinion) from it's actual to its possible fits into the seeming talk Arbour mentioned. So, as Oppy argued, he can reason from (a) ~G to (b) ◇~G to (c) it seems to Oppy that ~G (1:01:27 - 1:01:37).” I don’t think it captures the depth of misrepresentation to say that Mike merely misinterpreted Oppy here. First, let’s get clear on how drastically dissimilar this Oppy-Arbour point is from what Mike actually attributes to Oppy. I’m not saying you disagreeing with the following; I’m just highlighting it for those reading who might mistakenly think your point rescues Mike from serious, irresponsible misrepresentation: - Mike construes Oppy has having an ‘intuition against God’ serving as a non-intellectual factor undergirding his disbelief, as ‘the reason’, at the end of the day, that he’s an atheist. - The passage you just provided has nothing to do with Oppy’s reason for not believing it God. It has to do with one reason why Oppy thinks the atheist shouldn’t be convinced by Ben Arbour’s symmetry breaker for the possibility premise in the MOA. [Indeed, Oppy was only hypothetically following Ben with this talk of seemings rather than adopting it himself at this point in the video; Oppy’s point is simply that the atheist can make an entirely symmetric move as Ben’s *if* we grant this seeming talk, and so Ben’s symmetry breaker doesn’t make any headway in actually breaking symmetry between the respective possibility premises.] So Mike construing this as the reason Oppy’s an atheist is monstrously off the mark. - The ‘seeming’ in question is certainly not non-intellectual; it’s an expressly intellectual seeming. This runs totally contrary to how Mike paints it. And this is crucial, since Mike’s whole point in the video is, ultimately, that (many? all?) atheists are non-intellectually, willfully choosing against (i.e., resisting) God. Add to this that ‘intuition’ in ordinary parlance has the connotation I mentioned in the video (combined with the facts that Mike did nothing to cancel the implicature and that the implicature is a negative, harmful caricature), and we have a serious case of overt, unmistakable, significant misrepresentation. Add to this that Mike is saying all this in front of half a million people and perpetuating negative caricatures of atheists as non-intellectually and willfully resisting God, and we have a grotesque impropriety on our hands. Imagine if I made a video to half a million people where I claim to paraphrase Ed Feser, and I claim that he said the reason he believes in God at the end of the day is that he wants theism to be true. Now imagine that, in reality, Feser was simply answering a question about whether he hopes God exists, and that in the same discussion, he explicitly said the reason he believes in God is that there are good arguments for God. What I did in this scenario is monumentally irresponsible. I have led boatload of people to think that an intelligent, well-respected, scholarly theist believes because of wishful thinking. This perpetuates a negative stereotype, firstly, and it also blatantly misrepresents Feser. Yet this is precisely the sort of thing Mike has done. There really is no excuse. Again, I recognize you’re not defending Mike with your remark here; but I simply want to make it loud and clear that he is nowhere near off the hook :)

[@MajestyofReason]

Let’s then move on to your defense of Mike. Once again, I deeply appreciate your well-thought-out comment; it adds to the discussion nicely, and I hope my responses can do the same in turn! Much love♥ You say: “Even granting that (in practice) it's impossible to control one's beliefs, this doesn't even touch, let alone falsify, the doxastic voluntarist thesis-and consequently Mike's. Merely from the fact that we have no control over some beliefs, such as our belief in Australia or 1+1=2, doesn't entail we have no control over any or all beliefs (permissive cases in epistemology eg). Liz Jackson also has an interesting papers noting this. Interestingly, she voices these very same responses, and the ones below, (at 35:00) in your interview with her.” I agree that merely from the fact that we have no control over some beliefs, it doesn’t thereby follow that we have no control over absolutely any belief. The point of the Australia and Hinduism examples was just to get intuitions pumping (so that people don’t dismiss DI outright, as I’ve seen happen with undergrads in philosophy), and then to report that I find DI more generally plausible. Of course, any proper defense or argument for DI would need to address permissive cases etc.; if I were to make a lecture video on DI, I would of course address those directly. But for purposes of this video here, that would go far beyond its scope. The point was to open people up to a view I find independently highly plausible and motivated rather than to offer fleshed out arguments for that view. Second, we have to keep in mind that many of the ‘edge cases’ (like permissive cases) won’t be applying to many (perhaps most) reflective, informed atheists; instead, they’ll mainly be applying to people who are either reflective, informed agnostics or who haven’t thought about the matter much. So my overarching point about there being some non-willful non-belief remains intact. For many atheists, their evidence base and experience really are like the Australia case, in that there’s a preponderance of evidence on one side, and a relative paucity on the other. [We can, of course, question that balancing of the evidence, but that’s a separate issue!] You then say: “Let's assume DV, for whatever reason, was false, Mike could argue his thesis on the grounds that we can indirectly control our beliefs as even involuntarists grant (consistent with Mike's relational choice argument).” I address this elsewhere in the comment section; to one commenter, I say this: “So, I agree that there's a sense in which we have a *very indirect* control over our beliefs, in that we can willfully search out for evidence, search out for books and articles, search out for reasonable people with whom we disagree and engage them in conversation, etc. But by my lights, how someone doxastically responds *after* making those willful choices about exposure to information is not *itself* under one's volitional control.” To another commenter, I say this: “So, as for non-culpability for belief, you invite a helpful clarification. You say: “You seem to be saying something like "If direct doxastic voluntarism is false, then no one can be culpable for their beliefs", …” The clarification is that I was not intending to convey this conditional claim; instead, I was trying to convey something more like: (P) If (a) direct doxastic voluntarism is false, and if (b) one is also not culpable for engaging in various irrational or immoral belief-cultivating practices with respect to one’s belief in p [by, e.g., not engaging in them at all, or if engaging in them, by doing so inculpably (e.g., through implicit, hardwired, human bias)], then (c) one is not culpable for believing p. So I was assuming, as background, that at least many non-believers don’t willfully engage in irrational or immoral belief-cultivating practices. I had this in mind - but didn’t convey it explicitly - when I mentioned the case of belief being a *function* of some underlying choice(s) around 12:30, and when I went on shortly thereafter to talk about the non-believer who is not only such that their direct disbelief in God is not their choice but also who is such that their belief is explained by their evidence and experiences which have helplessly [=not of their choosing] led the person to disbelieve. In short, (b) takes care to ensure that even under indirect doxastic voluntarism - where we can control our gathering of evidence, our information consumption, etc., which can indirectly affect our beliefs - the non-believers in question are, indeed, inculpable and non-resistant.” Next, you say: “Even if we assume once again that DV is false, what Mike is saying can charitably be reformulated in terms of commitment to pursue relationship with God (as Mike Rota has used the term).” Once we do this, though, we fall into my point that once someone non-culpably forms atheistic belief [NB: *not* agnostic belief], such relational decisions become irrational and so *not* something the avoidance of which is appropriately punished. (This would be like Vishnu punishing Mike because Mike didn’t relationally commit to Vishnu; that would be unjust, since such relational commitment is irrational in light of Mike’s non-culpably formed Christian belief [NB: we’re assuming ~DV, as you specified, hence the ‘non-culpably’ modifier].)

[@MajestyofReason]

You continue: “2. "Once your belief in God goes out the door, it's not like you can choose to be in an explicit relationship with God." •I'm glad you said explicit, but what Mike says is compatible with explicit and implicit forms of relationship with God (although this worry now only applies to "Non-Resistant Non-Believers"). Popular reformed circles may disagree with this, but it's still an option nonetheless.” I’m not convinced that what Mike says is compatible with implicit forms of relationship with God - at least, for the relevant people at issue (atheists). Mike painted where one lands *intellectually* on the issue as a function (or partial function) of relational decisions, which in turn implies that if one lands on the atheist side, one’s relational decision was against God. At least, the I how I most naturally understood him. So atheists, on this model, have relationally rejected God.
 Also, this natural reading is bolstered quite significantly by my background knowledge. Not knowing much about Mike other than that he’s a conservative evangelical pastor, my background knowledge strongly supports that Mike thinks adults need something like conscious belief in God or Jesus to avoid hell. So the natural reading of what he said, combined with my background knowledge, strongly support my reading of him [though, of course, they don’t entail it! And I haven’t looked into Mike’s views with any depth, so the requisite intellectual humility is called for.]

[@MajestyofReason]

You continue: “3. Concerning, what seemed like, your indirect attack of the traditional model of hell/ECT see below: The overwhelmingly dominant view of hell has, as a necessary component, agential culpability for non-belief &/or resistance, but this isn't problematic for the aforementioned reasons.” (1) Let’s get clear from the get-go: I was not attacking ‘the traditional model of hell/ECT’. As I explicitly said in the video [somewhere around 13 min], I was targeting a religiously exclusivist view of ECT which requires someone to have conscious belief in certain religious tenets [e.g., Jesus as lord and savior, God’s existence] in order to avoid punishment. This was my express target; I said nothing about ‘the traditional model of hell’. (2) It is correct that your proposal here is one significant view among Christians [e.g., it’s what I was taught in my Catholic education]. I don’t know about ‘overwhelming dominance’, however - it depends if that’s an empirical claim about what Christians in the pews believe (both past and present), and I don’t think we have good reason to pronounce on that without significant empirical evidence. But again, note that I never denied that this is a significant-cum-dominant view; instead, I was expressly targeting the view mentioned in (1). (3) I have addressed those ‘aforementioned reasons’ above :) (4) This portion of the video is again informed by (and included because) the ECT model I mentioned above - an exclusivist one requiring explicit belief - is a huge strand within contemporary evangelical Christianity. *This* was my target, and it’s a fitting target given that huge portion of Mike’s audience (and, to some non-small probability given my evidence, Mike himself) affirms it. You continue “• "I mean if you think that people can be punished b/c they don't believe a certain set of tenets, then it's natural to try to paint belief as a choice or function of an underlying choice." Minor contention, but the traditional picture of hell is typically posited as a punishment for unreedemed sin or moral wrongs and/or rejecting eternal union with God-whether one wants to interpret the latter as retributive can be left open.” Again, I’m not targeting the traditional view of hell. I stated my target in the video: a model on which one can be punished for not believing certain religious tenets. You continue: “•Do you believe that mere agnosticism or disbelief in a proposition can never warrant punishment? Do you think anyone (in history) has ever had a moral obligation to hold or not hold certain beliefs (about African Americans, Women, Jews, etc)? Do you think God should at least distribute justice for their moral wrong (whether retributive or restorative)?” Do I believe the first question? I believe it can only warrant punishment if one is culpable either for the belief itself or for some action which led one to the belief. I explained in a previous comment why the cases relevant for the video don’t fit this. Do I agree with the second question? I think they have a moral obligation to hold those beliefs only if either forming said beliefs is under their control, or doing something which leads to the formation of said beliefs is under their control. As for the final question, yes! If I were a Christian, I would hold that there’s a finitely long, partially retributive, mainly restorative hell for wrongdoers, after which - once the creature is restored with themself, others, and God - they join God in heaven. See my discussion with Josh Rasmussen and Eric Reitan for more. :) You continue: “•"The moment you grant that someone can rationally be convinced that those tenets are false, through no choice of their own, but instead b/c of their evidence & experiences which have helplessly led them to disbelief...plausibility for punishment is lost." Sure, but (a) Christians with, say, scriptural or philosophical reasons to believe no NRNB (even in cases of Oppy, Draper, You, etc) occurs will reject this & (b) only plausibility for the punishment of non-culpable non-believers is lost (ECT+Exclusivism still affirmable).” Regarding (a), I don’t see how those Christians will reject the conditional claim you quoted. The claim you quoted is a conditional claim: if someone can rationally be convinced etc., then punishment is unjustified. The Christians you mention simply negate the antecedent of the conditional claim because they (wrongly) disbelieve in NRNB; they don’t [or needn’t, and definitely shouldn’t] reject the conditional itself. My point in the quote is simply the conditional claim. Regarding whether there’s NRNB, I didn’t explore that much in the video but took it as a datum [which, to me, it is]. Regarding (b), again, I expressly said that my point is restricted to the punishment of non-culpable//non-resistant non-believers. I didn’t take a stance on the punishment of culpable/resistant non-believers. You continue: “•”Many Non-Theists hope God exists + Pro-Theism benefits"- Is the claim that inconsistent or hypocritical beliefs aren't at play here (which'd be question begging for the Christian you're arguing against) or simply that hope for truth of P can't be in combo with resistance to certain inferential moves/evidences that confirm P (which you'd need to give a reason for thinking)? The same would apply to the deconversion point you make.” The point is that the data of extremely strong non-intellectual factors (hope, desire, family, community, relationships, etc.) pulling towards theistic belief despite intellectual settlement on atheistic or non-theistic belief is very surprising under Mike’s hypothesis under which non-intellectual factors (largely) decide where someone lands on theism vs. atheism, and hence that this data constitutes powerful evidence against his hypothesis.

[@MajestyofReason]

You continue: “4. "Religious beliefs based on relational decisions are unreliable, so Christians who base their religious beliefs on relational decisions should be agnostic." • Mike can simply respond by saying that mere lack of truth trackingness or varied widespread disagreement isn't sufficient to count as a defeat anyone's (theist or not) beliefs. He's obviously going to do this by adopting an equally controversial (yet respectable) epistemological position on justification.” Yes, Mike can respond by denying my claim. This is always open as a response. The question is whether it’s a plausible move, and I don’t find it remotely plausible. Of course, Mike might find it plausible; but that’s a conversation for another day. I think if one becomes apprised that one’s method of forming a belief is unreliable, then that constitutes an undercutting defeater for said belief; I find this highly plausible and deeply intuitive [‘painfully obvious’, to use Mike’s phrase!]. In light of this - and in light of the fact that, in my experience, this intuition is reasonably widespread - I think it was entirely appropriate to assert it in the video. Of course, not all philosophers agree; this much is always the case, and I wasn’t trying to adjudicate the debate. You continue: “• The Christian like Mike can reply by posit some warrant/justification conferring mechanism like sensus divinitatis (whether Externalist like Plantinga or Internalist like Dougherty) or similarly just say that Christians, given Christian theism, are cases of folks appropriately/properly responding to available evidence while culpable/resistant non-believers are not. Thus, it wouldn't be mere relational decisions, it would be improper/inappropriate relational decisions (on behalf of the non-theist) that are acting as defeaters.” Yes, Mike can respond by positing a special faculty that uniquely (some might think arbitrarily…) demarcates his in group from the out groups in terms of warrant or justification conferral. In other words, he can respond by denying my claim. This is always open as a response. But the question is whether it’s a plausible move, and I don’t find it remotely plausible. Of course, Mike might find it plausible; but that’s a conversation for another day. No one is trying to settle the debate about reformed epistemological (etc.) views here. I’m responding based on what I find plausible and suspect many others will, too. Of course, not all philosophers agree; this much is always the case, and I wasn’t trying to adjudicate the debate. You continue: “5. "If it's tied, you should be agnostic" • I don't think decision theoretic considerations about practical justification (Pascal's wager) should be dismissed so quickly here.” No, I didn’t ’dismiss’ them. Notice that I was extremely careful to say that I was speaking in terms of *rational normativity*, i.e., the kind of ‘should’ which is a function simply of evidential considerations or reasons for truth. [This is sometimes called 'epistemic normatively', other times 'rational normativity'.] I wasn’t talking about pragmatic/practical normative considerations. What I said leaves entirely open whether, in terms of pragmatic normativity, evidential ties should lead to theism [or theistic practices].

[@MrGustavier]

I think most theists I've spoken to admit that if they had been born in some other part of the world with a different religion, they would be of that religion... What does that tell us about theists' intuitions ?

[@lexifan23]

Maybe true for theist but not true for Christians who have a relationship with Christ. Deference between religion and faith.

[@XarXXon]

For the N-th time, there is no "atheist worldview".

[@chrishollandsworth6700]

Well said. A response was more than appropriate given how widely he missed the mark on his appraisal of Graham's posistion.

[@bensmithoriginals3413]

I've said it before... I really don't want to make weak arguments in ear-shot of this fine young philosopher 🤣 dude, when you came in with "well, that wasn't fun" or whatever it was, I had to pause the video to laugh at the comedic timing, and hear it again. Well done, BTW. As always, I appreciate your even-handed approach and defense of humility. I'm always more snarky in private conversations with people who understand my humor, but I'm always cringing at the "internet atheist, new atheist" slurs made by "internet Christians."" Frankly, I have to imagine that the Christian drive to appear philosophically sound and rational is NEW. Like faith doesn't cut it anymore. They want the atheists to admit how well read and legit they are. Almost like a NEW Christian movement on the INTERNET. You know, the New Chrstians and Internet Christians obsessing over worldly validation and respect from those who are perishing? 🤣 Okay, sorry... just a bit of fun... it just makes the whole thing feel like schoolyard nonsense driven by ego from all ends, when it could be such a great conversation more of the time. I appreciate more and more the conversations that don't resort to well poisoning or flat-out ignore each others intended arguments. I wish it were easier to show someone like Mike that his words hit me the same as if I suggested he was running from Allah to suit his dark side or something. You've got a gift, though, my friend. You're able to get your points across without triggering people so hard they dismiss you without a second thought. I think even when you piss people off, they know that it would benefit them to hear you out.

[@MajestyofReason]

Much love ♥

[@rogermills2467]

I know you wrote this 6 months ago but Ive thought this and said it aloud less eloquently about "new Christians". How many times did Paul say "Become intellectuals and read philosophy and you can come to believe my preaching"? Never, he called his converts "not wise by human standards' and then lamented how intellectuals and philosophers and teachers of the law rejected him. Anyhow, you do great music and content too.

[@bensmithoriginals3413]

@rogermills2467 also, new music coming soon 🙂

[@petermeyer6873]

"I feel like what happens is when we dont understand an issue we tend to look for people who we respect, that we feel like they do understand it and then we may not really get all their explanations but we respect - and this isnt a bad thing, right - but we respect them enough to go: Im trusting your judgement here... " Well this is the most accurate description of a religious mind set. It shows exactly why some type of people are bound to believe since they have been trained or at least given themselves into not using their own thinking abilities in favour of any con artist coming along, who appeals to them. Furthermore by this video my long search for the meaning of the word "to respect a person" in the english language with the help of youtube has come to an end: "to respect a person" = "to put trust in foreign claims and suppress own scepsis, simply by feeling good when assuming a mentally inferior position in regards to the claimer." wow, no wonder I had not even a concept for that because of how lucky I was to have been raised and educated in a different way. To really respect a person, that I know now, one must have undergone quite some indoctrination in early years of life.

[@Venaloid]

Methinks Mike Winger doth protest too much. His own conversion story is largely informed by his absent father and his emotional need for a father figure.

[@K0wface]

I like how when Winger “heard Oppy admit he was biased” he jumped at the opportunity to essentially say “yes! We are just both biased!” Lmao

[@frogandspanner]

22:30 "No legitimacy at all" _The relation between intelligence and religiosity: a meta-analysis and some proposed explanations_ , Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2013 Nov;17(4):325-54. There _is_ a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, so the claim would have legitimacy.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Good response, Joe. I enjoyed watching it.

[@arma4968]

Hello Joe. I have 2 questions: 1. Why should someone who thinks God's existence is obvious believe that non resistant non belief exists? 2. Why are you a fan of Arsenal?

[@MajestyofReason]

1. Because of the abundant testimonial and behavioral evidence that some non-believers are non-resistant. (Is it not odd that someone could believe non-eye-witness testimony to miracles from two thousand years ago, but won't believe direct, introspective testimonial reports from thousands of non-believers?) 2. WE'RE TOP OF THE LEAGUE BABY!! But also, in my 10k AMA, I answer this question

[@brando3342]

I think this was a fairly good, and reasonable response to Mike's video.

[@dominiks5068]

I think I disagree with your point about non-culpability for belief. You seem to be saying something like "If direct doxastic voluntarism is false, then no one can be culpable for their beliefs", but why should that be the case? Similarly we could argue that a) you cannot do an action unless you have an according desire, b) you cannot directly will yourself to desire something, therefore c) no one can be culpable for not-doing something. But surely that's not a good argument - just because you cannot willingly create your desires doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for them. If you have the right cognitive faculties, then you *are* culpable for some of the things you didn't do - so why wouldn't the same be true for beliefs? I'm also not sure whether the theist should grant that there is a high amount of expert peer-disagreement on the existence of God. The relevant class of experts seems to be philosophers of religion, not philosophers in general (I'm pretty confident that the average philosophy PhD could neither name the Five Ways of Aquinas nor name all the characteristics of Classical Theism) and among philosophers of religion there is a pretty strong consensus in favour of God's existence (70 against 20% in the latest philsurvey). They definitely should grant, however, that there ARE lots of smart atheists and this definitely should lower their confidence in theism somewhat I completely agree with you, of course, that this guy was strawmanning Oppy

[@MajestyofReason]

Thank for the comment my dude! Always great to see you here :) So, as for non-culpability for belief, you invite a helpful clarification. You say: You seem to be saying something like "If direct doxastic voluntarism is false, then no one can be culpable for their beliefs", …” The clarification is that I was not intending to convey this conditional claim; instead, I was trying to convey something more like: (P) If (a) direct doxastic voluntarism is false, and if (b) one is also not culpable for engaging in various irrational or immoral belief-cultivating practices with respect to one’s belief in p [by, e.g., not engaging them at all, or if engaging in them, by doing so inculpably (e.g., through implicit, hardwired, human bias)], then (c) one is not culpable for believing p. So I was assuming, as background, that at least many non-believers don’t willfully engage in irrational or immoral belief-cultivating practices. I had this in mind - but didn’t convey it explicitly - when I mentioned the case of belief being a *function* of some underlying choice(s) around 12:30, and when I went on shortly thereafter to talk about the non-believer who is not only such that their direct disbelief in God is not their choice *but also* who is such that their belief is explained by their evidence and experiences which have helplessly [=not of their choosing] led the person to disbelieve. In short, (b) takes care to ensure that even under indirect doxastic voluntarism - where we can control our gathering of evidence, our information consumption, etc., which can indirectly affect our beliefs - the non-believers in question are, indeed, inculpable and non-resistant. This clarification also takes care, I think, of the desire case, since a principle analogous to (P) [and, in particular, a conjunct analogous to (b)] pertaining to desires would incorporate the effects of indirect control we can exert over our desires. As for your point about philosophers vs philosophers of religion, there’s good reason to think the predominance of theism among philosophers of religion is explained by selection effect rather than force of argumentation [and I think this is also borne out by the stats about theist-to-atheist transitions and atheist-to-theist transitions *as a result of* studying Phil Rel, if I recall correctly [though it’s been a log while since I looked into this stuff]. In any case, I’m quite confident the vast majority of even philosophers of religion couldn’t name Aquinas’s five ways; philosophy is hyperspecialized, so it’s difficult to find an appropriate reference class for ‘experts on God’s existence’. [I also think philosophers more generally likely have good, serious, informed reasons to disbelieve even if they don’t specialize in Phil Rel; they’re in general very reflective people. This is also borne out in my experience with professional philosophers, fwiw. This alone, I think, will still pose a disagreement challenge to the ordinary non-philosopher watching Mike’s video.] Needless to say, though, there are many paradigm cases on both sides of the aisle [wherein the paradigms have published very widely on topics in philosophy of religion and on a great many arguments for and against God, etc.], and there isn’t clear predominance of one view or another among the paradigm cases, and this gives good reason, so I’d argue, for the kind of confidence diminishment mentioned in my video :)

[@pouringsalt3460]

Thank you for picking apart what this man has said. It was well deserved.

[@blakehalley1612]

If I remember right, Oppy did say in conversation with Ben Arbour that there are no compelling arguments on either side. Not sure what this is worth, but just felt inclined to note it - try doing a word search for 'compelling'. (Of course this doesn't imply that Oppy's atheism rests on intuitions.) This year I will be writing a dissertation on something near religious disagreement and how we should respond. One view out of a sea of views I am fleshing out (I hope it is not easily destroyed because I thought a lot about it) is something like a non-cognitive approach to supposed beliefs about religious claims; whether that be for or against the existence of God. This view may have the consequence (it also might go into looking at studies in psychology concerning religious belief and disbelief) that Oppy, Pruss, Mackie, Rowe, Plantinga and so on rest, at least partly, their supposed beliefs on non-cognitive states of approval and disapproval. Not sure how this will turn out, but it sounds interesting at least. (Looks like others have beat me to the punch on pointing out the correct video)

[@joeldobbs7396]

Well said, I watched a bit of the debate in question and I don't think Mike was being honest with his assessment. People will listen charitably to any expert they agree with, but suddenly become intensely skeptical or paraphrase liberally those who they disagree with.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

my "intuition" changed with the preponderance of contradictory evidence and arguments against theism. And the observation that gods are fictional inventions.

[@chipperhippo]

Joe looking absolutely radiant in this video smh

[@bjk8794]

Only reason I'm not convinced he's Tom Holland in his Clark kent form is because he supports arsenal.

[@silasabrahamsen7926]

Lol, funny thing, that was me asking that question about 2 years ago, I think. Weird experience seeing it cause a ruffle now.

[@jackt752]

Great responses, thanks Joe.

[@bengreen171]

Mike Winger wrong? .....You surprise me

[@New_Essay_6416]

Lol

[@davidb22585]

I couldn't tell you what conversation it was from, but I'm pretty sure that I remember a debate or discussion Oppy had in which they were discussing the *modal* ontological argument specifically. As I recall, he was saying that the modal ontological argument for the existence of god (necessary being, exists in some possible world, must exist in all worlds), is no more or less rational than the modal ontological argument against the existence of god (necessary being, fails to exist in some possible world, must fail to exist in all worlds), and that one's intuition was the determining factor for which of the two seems more compelling. Will update if I happen to find it. Update: I haven't been able to find the specific one I was thinking of, but I have found examples of both Graham Oppy and Alex Malpass referring to the modal ontological argument for/against God's existence as being on equal footing, depending on "the intuition that gets you started". I feel pretty comfortable saying that Mike was taking Oppy's counter to this one specific argument (that it is no more or less rational than its own exact opposite), and overgeneralizing that to "the arguments for and against God are equally convincing".

[@MajestyofReason]

See my pinned comment! In short, if this is what hems referring to, then he has very badly represented Oppy🙂 (I know you’re not defending him)

[@davidb22585]

@@MajestyofReason I haven't been able to find the specific one I was thinking of, but I have found examples of both Graham Oppy and Alex Malpass referring to the modal ontological argument for/against God's existence as being on equal footing, depending on (in Malpass' words) "the intuition that gets you started". I feel pretty comfortable saying that Mike was taking Oppy's counter to this one specific argument (that it is no more or less rational than its own exact opposite), and overgeneralizing that to "the arguments for and against God are equally convincing".

[@EmersonGreen]

If you come for the king you best not miss 🔫

[@danielsnyder2288]

That is NOT a stereotype! I am an active Christian and can tell you from 66 years of experience, 95% of US Christians have never read the entire Bible and many have never read any of it. They sit in a pew and listen to preacher and go home. Even the evangelicals seldom have read their book.

[@modern_jacob]

Very bummed by Winger perpetuating stereotypes about atheists and agnostics. Kinda proving he’s just another conservative pastor fueling the fire of discrimination and arrogance.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Mike mentioned the Ontological Argument when he talked about Oppy’s debate, which means it should be the one between him and Ben Arbour. Did you check that one?

[@MajestyofReason]

I just did - I didn’t hear anything like what Mike attributed to Oppy. Granted, it was 2x speed and I was running!

[@chartannah6302]

MR, Doesn't Oppy use his intuitions in his evaluations of the theoretical virtues of the theories? Doesn't his intuition influence which theories best "manages the tradeoff"? Thanks for all your work!

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Apologetics is never for nonbelievers. It is only for keeping believers comfortable in their beliefs, by any means necessary.

[@brando3342]

I took Mike's point about "intuition" to simply be saying Oppy "agrees to disagree" with certain Christian arguments.

[@MajestyofReason]

(1) If so, then Mike conveyed that point extremely poorly; (2) I also don't recall hearing Oppy say that in the discussion; and (3) the other points I made equally apply even if this is what Mike meant. :)

[@brando3342]

@@MajestyofReason Fair enough. Perhaps it was poorly conveyed. I don't remember if it was that discussion, but I do remember hearing Oppy essentially saying something to the effect of "yeah, I just don't think that is true". Granted that may not have been towards the statement "God exists", but it was at least towards a statement that supports God's existence.

[@markhamstra1083]

I’m more familiar with Plantinga’s epistemology that with Oppy’s work, so I may be projecting too much of Plantinga onto Oppy, but the following is how I see what happened with Winger’s video. Plantinga’s defense of the proper basicality of Christian belief relies upon a _sensus divinitatis,_ a kind of sixth sense by which one can directly perceive God. Paul and Calvin claimed that everyone possesses this perception of God, but at least some of Plantinga only relies upon some people having this extra sense - extra in that many others don’t feel or claim that they have any such _sensus divinitatis,_ no matter what Paul and Calvin claim. Aided by the extra sensory input of the divine into their reasoning, believers are justified in making intuitive judgments based upon the seemings of the divine that they possess, and their epistemic knowledge based in whole or in part upon their extra sensory perception of the divine is as properly basic as is knowledge that is based in whole or in part on perceptions via the common five senses. Given that overly brief summary of Plantinga’s epistemology, what I see Oppy as doing is something like this: Oppy doesn’t claim a compelling argument defeating Plantinga’s epistemology. Neither does he (or Plantinga) claim that Plantinga’s arguments compel non-believers to embrace Plantinga’s epistemology and the _sensus divinitatis_ as true. There isn’t something to prove that the sensing of the divine isn’t possible or true, or that Plantinga’s epistemology is fundamentally unsound if the sense of the divine actually is possessed by some. Neither is there a means to compel those without the _sensus divinitatis_ to somehow acquire it or believe in its actuality and the epistemic beliefs that are based on it. This inability to compel the other is where I think Winger got his both-sides-are-equivalent notions from. What Winger subsequently claims is, however, far different from what Oppy does. Nowhere does Oppy claim, as Winger asserts that he does, that both believers’ and atheists’ positions depend equally on “intuition” or on equivalently non-rational presuppositions or beliefs. While Oppy may to some degree accept the soundness of Plantinga’s argument that if some do possess an extra sense of the divine, then it epistemically justified for those people to employ properly basic beliefs from the perception of the divine in their intuition-based reasoning, that doesn’t in any way mean that Oppy thinks that their is an equivalent extra sense or basis of intuitive reasoning that justifies atheistic reasoning. Oppy’s reasoning on the non-believers’ side relies, rather, only on the absence of the _sensus divinitatis,_ not on the presence of something equivalent to it. In Oppy’s reasoning, and in the absence of extra sensory input of the divine, theistic beliefs are lacking in virtues compared to naturalistic, atheist explanations. That Oppy doesn’t think that believers can rationally compel non-believers of the existence of God or of the truth and proper basicality of their beliefs based on their direct sense of the divine and that non-believers cannot rational compel disbelief in God or perception of the divine, does not in any way mean that Oppy himself believes that theistic belief and non-belief are equally well-grounded in rationality. Oppy himself doesn’t believe in the _sensus divinitatis_, so for him naturalistic, atheistic explanations possess greater, not equivalent, virtue. Winger, instead, tries to assert a variation on the well-worn apologists’ argument that atheism is a religious belief equivalent to theistic belief. The variation this time is that atheistic and theistic beliefs are equally based on intuitions and are, therefore, equally rational., equally justified. Winger may believe that, but he is wrong to try to claim that this is what Oppy believes. Contrary to Winger’s variation, absence of extra sensory perceptions and beliefs stemming from them are no more equivalent to claiming to have such perceptions and beliefs than the absence of belief in God is equivalent to the possession of such belief in the well-worn original.

[@kurtfrederiksen5538]

From what little I have seen from Mike Winger he is presents things in a dishonest manner, uses strawman arguments and frequently resorts to poisoning the well when talking about people who disagree with him. If he is a spokes person for Christianity he is a good illustration of how not to do it.

[@JohnnyHofmann]

Nice video, Joe

[@waynemills206]

Intuition. The brain's self soothing attempt to complete a prediction based on insufficient evidence.

[@richardcollison6274]

As a Buddhist, I often note that few of these apologists consider the eastern religions. Those apologists who do usually misunderstand them. Yet despite this, they are often adamant their worldview is the only way to see the world. Buddhism has no position on the existence of God; it's not considered important. Do apologists ever wonder why Buddhists are not part of this debate?

[@kylekloostra5659]

Thank you for this

[@stevenharder308]

Instead of offering conditional prayers that assume the truth of Evangelicalism, consider that the intellectual weight behind Christianity is and always has been Catholic. The sacramental approach to faith is a powerful alternative to trying to talk oneself into “believing” things. I see the fruits of sincerity in Christian tradition and that makes the difference for me when considering whether to suspend action along with judgment. I love and trust whatever it is that confers heroic virtue on humanity. I’m happy to call that God, and to provide every opportunity for it to work on me. At the very least, attempting to excise Protestant formulations of Christianity from one’s conceptual framework is an interesting intellectual exercise.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

I don’t think Winger will ever read this, but I am not “stupider than god.” His god killed his kid because he couldn’t just forgive people for offending him and not liking his kid.

[@jaclo3112]

The bible presents God as a bumbling, incompetent idiot. He is constantly messing up and uses the most useless and ineffective methods to fix his mistakes. It's taken humans to reason that genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, denial of free speech and freedom of religion and many other biblical morals do not make a cohesive, civilised society.

[@lalosalamanca4226]

Mr Schmid, I have a couple questions. I am not so familiar with your views, by the way. Do you align your beliefs according to the amount of agreement on a subject? Or is it based on your personal evidence? If it's about agreement, why are you an agnostic in the face of ~65% agreement that atheism is true among philosophers, according to David Chalmers' survey? Do you hold to any philosophical views that had a similar amount of agreement or less?

[@crushinnihilism]

As a polytheist I always wonder why these people hyper focus on a single monotheistic god. Theres never a case for or against polytheism. Its completely glossed over. Never mention.

[@blakehalley1612]

Time: 1:38:49 A few minutes from here we see the part that Mike might have been pointing out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5Xbl6iGnNZnirs

[@modernmoralist]

Could you make an update video, since Mike Winger made a recent short video on hiddenness? Mike basically restated material from his now-deleted video you critique here... but Winger prefaced his statements with hedge claims about how people will mistake his words for bullying or attacking/misrepresenting views and motives... when he had to take down a video because he did just that. As his brother in Christ, I am also calling for him to a) take down his hiddenness video and b) replace it with a public apology video stating that he committed a year ago to trying to do better but ended up blaming his critics and misrepresenting why they criticized him. He needs to show evidence of a transformed character, as this is not merely a repeat of his previous errors but adding what looks like resentful jabs at those who held him accountable last time. I am sorry for his shameful, sloppy work. The Christian community deserves better. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6fGkohsoq2hp7s Here is part of his description: "you are pigeon-holed into a situation where people will think you are personally attacking individuals. In other words, when I say that humans are accountable to know that God exists this argument can quickly turn things into the social foul of saying that people have bad motives or are otherwise insincere. What starts as a philosophical view of the apparentness of God's existence turns into a bullying situation where the Christian is painted as personally attacking others. I reject that framing but I realize that many will continue to see things in that perspective, sadly." Note the language "pigeon-holed", "social foul", "the Christian is painted as", etc. He characterizes the person who attributes hidden sin to others AS THE VICTIM. When an apologist attributes hidden sinful motives to all nonbelievers despite signs of sincerity they might face the threat of the claim that they... attribute hidden sinful motives to all nonbelievers despite signs of sincerity.

[@MajestyofReason]

Sad to see! Unfortunately I probably won’t respond - it’s just a bit too painful to me. I do, though, encourage you to comment on his video.

[@modernmoralist]

@@MajestyofReason I will. I am also calling on apologetics/Analytic theology channels to publicly confront Winger. Given the egregious nature of his unchristian conduct, I think he needs to step away from ministry until we see evidence of a profound change of heart.

[@IdolKiller]

He's also wrong on PSA, Original Sin & Open Theism

[@CharlesPayet]

Expecting honesty or equal respect from Mike Winger is your first mistake, Joe.

[@gregjeffries8446]

Mike’s arguments are virtually always comprised of straw-man fallacies to present “opposing” personal positions. His recent Graham Oppy vid being a prime example. It’s his thing.

[@jayrobinson24]

I'd like to think Winger just went off the rails and started presenting his own ideas in a conversational parenthetical, but this was recorded and released to his audience, so it's clear his intention was to misrepresent Oppy. Slimy in the extreme.

[@exalted_kitharode]

You might want to see literature about alleged conceptual deficiency of error theorists concerning epistemic and moral normativity. It's definitely a thing, many respectable philisophers in metaethics and metaepistemology genuinely propose that their opponents, PhD's in philosophy and professors are somehow impaired in their comprehension of position with supposed obviousness that have to strike every intellectually integrated agent as true. In other words, some moral realists think that you have to have some real problems with your thinking if you can't understand that they are right. Don't know what to say…

[@exalted_kitharode]

So if Plantigna said something similar about atheists, I'm not surprised, maybe those metaethicists were actually inspired by his attack on atheist's conceptual framework.

[@dynamic9016]

I would love to see a discussion or debate with Dr. Graham Oppy and Dr. David Bradshaw..I listened to Oppy n Swimburne in a debate n Graham Oppy is really scary smart as Dr. William Lane Craig indicated..Thanks much for the video..

[@ramigilneas9274]

Winger clearly isn’t serious when he says that it might be a problem when every smart person disagrees with you… he is a creationist.

[@West3720]

14:10. Which God do you hope exists? I think a God that can help one grow in virtue, love, and knowledge would be great. I think if that God were to be the Christian God that I would not want that God to exist because that God also comes with so much baggage.

[@bigtombowski]

Grandma P = KZbin CC for Graham Oppy

[@New_Essay_6416]

Mike, have Oppy on your channel 😆