Religion: Truth & Belief | Philosophy Tube

God and truth, science and religion, belief and madness - what do the philosophers Anthony Flew, R.M. Hare, and Søren Kierkegaard have to say about these topics?
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Anthony Flew, Theology and Falsification - www.politik-salon.de/files/the...
R.M. Hare, Theology and Falsification - www.politik-salon.de/files/the...
Mario Aguilar, Contemplating God, Changing the World
Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution
Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript
Sam Kriss, Village Atheists, Village Idiots, thebaffler.com/salvos/degrasse...
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@ReligionForBreakfast]

Well done. As a PhD student in religious studies, I loved this. Many people equate "religion" with "belief," but as you say, religion is so much more than that. Your analogy with the Russian Orthodox church is a good example on how religious identity encompasses ritual and cultural identity too.

[@hedgehog3180]

This is also why calling Atheism a religion is wrong. Sure there is some sort of Atheist community but it is an incredibly loose one that is deeply divided among itself. I mean a ton of leftists are atheists (probably the vast majority) but then you also find the stereotypical youtube skeptic who borders on fascism. The only people who are really actively cultivating an Atheist community are people like AronRa who are mostly leftovers from the early days of New Atheism.

[@XBLspartanx170]

but in certain religions, belief is inseparable from the practice and being "lukewarm" about it is frowned upon. 2 Timothy 4:3 so its technically correct that there's more to religion than blind faith, but religion without faith is simply willingly puppeting a false divine (a demiurge) to your own selfish ends, which is the worst kind of evil i can imagine. bottom line, I'm not pushing anything on you, but believe or dont believe, not everything has a convenient gray area for you to scurry around in aimlessly because it makes you look like a massive hypocrite.

[@Cherry-sg4zg]

You are also great , I always loved your videos

[@Ivashanko]

@@hedgehog3180 Atheism isn't a religion for the same reason 'being bald' isn't a hair colour: it doesn't fit into the definition as common defined. Atheists can be (and often is!) an identity, though, and identities, when collective, can result in social or political action, for good or for ill.

[@foxoflight7257]

aww, nice to see you here, love it when i see, that my fav yt-ers watch each other, lol

[@fredswann9]

I see a similarity between Kierkegaard's madman and tbise who use #AllLivesMatter. You've said a facfual statement, but the context takes you away from truth.

[@ChessTimF]

Nice link! A good example of uttering a true statement, but one that can be justifiably labelled as 'unhelpful' and/or 'misleading', both morally and epistemically, given the context in which this statement is invariably found.

[@BygoneT]

Fred Swann Don't think so my dude. There are things which are independent of context, much like a married bachelor, Racism and the value of life is independent from context. Your life doesn't lose value if you live on an island or on the moon. Everyone's life is important, and nothing will ever change that. Nobody is to be cared for, more than anyone else on the basis of skin colour or social status. We need to equalize the playing field, not bring everyone in the hell that is the Ghetto.

[@Grayhome]

That's brilliant. I would add that a lot of political discourse seems to go down this path, where one side says something that is technically true, but the other side sees them as mad for that statement. Recent examples might include things as extreme as Neo-Nazi talking points. Saying "History is important," and "Free speech is important" are both factual and uncontroversial, but the context in which the Neo-Nazis espouse these arguments takes them away from the truth, as you say.

[@ravinglibertopian3226]

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[@Koich14]

(I don't mean to utter one of the most controversial, clickbaity names in the internet right now, but hey... what can I do?) I wish Jordan Peterson'd read your comment and think on it. I myself went through a very brief and volatile phase in which I was rather fascinated by him (glad that's over), and I think that more than half of everything he says falls into your description of #AllLivesMatter

[@carlyflynn3885]

I appreciate this video immensely. As a Roman Catholic who technically works for the church since I teach English and Literature at a parochial school, I find it frustrating to be looked down upon by other intellectuals who find my devotion to be "blind" or "unchallenged." Most religious people I know have challenged their own beliefs so thoroughly that it's prompted an undeniable change of lifestyle based on these exact "unfalsifiable" ideas you mention. I personally find it enlightening and useful to study the philosophies, traditions, and myths of people outside of my circle of understanding for both empathy's sake and for the sake of my own edification. As you mentioned, faith for me is a lifestyle, not simply a philosophy. God's existence may be the backbone of my personal motivations, but I don't feel the need to prove Him as much I feel the need to share Him, preferably through actions and not preaching--like your lecturer who proposed a "living theology." In other words, overt evangelization is frankly unappealing and misguided to me. But living a life of service and offering the world a little more peace, that is a worthwhile pursuit that my Church helps me to recognize and believe in more strongly. As for some of the comments below that point out the discriminatory behavior of some Christians, I will point out that Jesus hung out with the outcast, the downtrodden, and the misunderstood people of His time. Christians that don't do the same unfortunately don't know the faith they profess.

[@oseikwamejnr]

Great comment.

[@TheGodshelper]

"Blik" is actually a dutch word with literally the same meaning. Thumbs up for the dutch.

[@leonowitzl5647]

TheGodshelper in german too:) but it's spelled "Blick"

[@datarama2382]

In Danish, it is spelled "blik" (like in Dutch), and has precisely that meaning.

[@Drudenfusz]

Yeah, I also noticed the similarity to the germanic word, and find it intersting that it is accordingly to the video just made up. Guess someone didn't do his research there before writting that line for the video...

[@Dragnf1y]

Drudenfusz Isn't it possible that Hare did in fact make up the word and it simply caught on in the language?

[@datarama2382]

Caught on? I'm not sure I follow. Hare made up the word in English, and it caught on in Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and German?

[@Shakespeare563]

It's interesting, coming from a family who is half Catholic and half [numerous variations on protestantism] I notice that for the Catholic services, there tends to be a lot more of that aesthetic, meditative experience wrapped up in the ritual, whereas in most of the protestant services I've attended (especially if we count Mormons as protestants, which I personally do) there is a lot more of that "going to church to specifically reaffirm to each other that X, Y, and Z are true and all in attendance agree that they are true" Don't know if that really means anything, just thought it was an interesting observation related to the video

[@Shilpa_Kujur]

I am a Protestant and I disagree although, I also live in a country where Christianity is not very popular. So maybe this is how generally it is but my Protestant family (mostly my entire family including far relatives) are more like atheistic Christians. Basically, they do seem to believe in god but not really, I have no other way to explain this. If you didn't know they are Christian, you couldn't tell after meeting them. The other Protestant people I have met are also like this. While the Catholics kind of shocked me because I had never met so orthodox Christians ever before. But maybe this is just my personal experience.

[@Shakespeare563]

I struggle with this issue a lot, living in a very religious state. I don't want to take away the important familial, communal, therapeutic and aesthetic benefits religion brings into people's lives just bc I disagree with their core beliefs, but at the same time, how are we to engage with the very real harm homophobic, transphobic, and anthropocentric beliefs cause (it is a widely held belief here that conservation efforts violate man's God given Dominion over the earth, and global warming is a lie from Satan, bc god wouldn't let anything bad happen to His children), if we can't seriously critique the underlying ideology, both out of "respect for sincerely held beliefs" and the very unfalsifiable nature of those beliefs?

[@DManCAWMaster]

George Austin LaBonty You can target harmful doctrines and just make it clear that's all your targeting

[@felixtroendle245]

I'd say: don't question the underlying ideology, because people don't actually believe in God the way they think they do. People are homophobic because they were raised that way, and because they already think gays are disgusting, and they believe God is good etc., that _He_ is homophobic as well, _and that He told them to hate the gays_ . If their minds are changed (by the normal human things that change minds, like having to get along with a gay co-worker, as opposed to debate) they will discover that God actually wanted them to have a change of heart. Sorry, I'm a cynical cunt :(

[@Shakespeare563]

certainly, I'd be the last person to argue that religion is the soul cause of bigotry, or that atheism is somehow the cure (good lord, just look at the "skeptic community" on youtube if one needs to be disabused of that notion) but at the same time, it also seems pretty obvious that even if the LDS church is not the ultimate, primordial cause of the state of Utah's more... regressive policies, it certainly is an exacerbator, especially in areas where science-skepticism, or even outright hostility toward science plays a major role, as people's faith does often seem to justify a disbelief in science. IDK, like I said, I try not to be a dick about it, but acting as though these issues can be divorced from the faith seems like trying to avoid the elephant in the room

[@rababh9382]

George Austin LaBonty religion may not be the only reason behind homophobia and bigotry and all that hateful nonsense but it sure does fuel it, A LOT. I live in Saudi Arabia and i was a muslim for 19 years, i did hear about homophobes around the world just hating gays for no religious reasons at all but it'd different when ur religion doesn't just condones it but it also rewards homophobia and sets laws to how to kill them the right way and tells stories about luts ppl who were supposedly punished by god for "sodomy" so yeah.

[@Seraphobe]

I don't know what is the best approach, but I would try to frame my arguments within the context of religion. We know that god gave us free will, including free will to make mistakes and lets us to feel the consequences of these mistakes (when we fall, we feel pain; when we are not careful with fire, our houses might burn down, etc.). We also know, that god gave us only one earth, so we have to take care of that earth. It is disrespectful to god to destroy such a precious gift he gave us. How would you feel if your children destroyed everything you gave them? Something like that... I don't know if it would work, but that's what I would do.

[@TheBillyDWilliams]

Christian pastor here. I personally tend to fall into the "living theology" camp on this. You can have intellectual assent to any belief you want, but if you're not living differently because of it, is it really that important of a belief? Great video, thanks for your work!!

[@TaylorjAdams]

As the son of a former pastor I agree entirely. Though I ended up on the other side of the argument due to the same reasoning. But what's important is that people try to do good. Some people come to God because of bad experiences and the will to be good, others leave the church because of bad experiences and the will to be good. Many end up either over-dogmatic or over-nihilistic, but those cases are easy to point out which can make it difficult to remember that they aren't the norm. When people make a decisions based on their beliefs (whether they that be God's will, Kant's logic, or Superman's principles), they are accountable to themselves to choose what's right and good, lest they fall into dogmatic and/or nihilistic behaviours and lose sight of what right and good is.

[@Dacommenta]

TheBillyDWilliams definitely because your belief includes how others must act.

[@Samura1gamer]

+TheBillyDWilliams if i may ask how did you reach the conclusion that god is real

[@Peace_Guard]

+TheBillyDWilliams It's obvious that for people who "have faith" there's more going on there than simply "believing there's a God". But the question is how much does it matter? What's the moral balance between the positive and negative effects of religion? Is marksism evil by definition? Certainly it isn't. It had a lot of important, valid points. But then there's the objective truth of it being a basis of A LOT of immorality of the highest level. Is it more important what an ideology/dogma claims to be or what are its effects in reality? Does it matter what it claims to be AT ALL? Most religious people who "do good" would likely do it even being irreligious, the same with atheists. On the other hand there's no other ideology than religion more effective at MAKING PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE GOOD BAD BECAUSE OF RELIGION. Why can't people simply follow the religiously neutral philosophy of intellectual and moral self-betterment? Just like that, without the whole religious areola containing a lot of immoral, evil messages among good ones and a lot of lies among truths?

[@alexc2265]

TheBillyDWilliams I totally agree! Thanks for your input!

[@gamefreak23788]

I go to a Russian Orthodox Church and his description is very accurate of the ceremony.

[@joshuadanielspencer]

I deeply appreciate the nuance of engagement in this video. As a devoted Christian and someone who enjoys the intellectual challenges posed by my unbelieving friends, I think this kind of discussions is highly valuable.

[@zellfaze]

Joshua Spencer Non-believer here. Also appreciated the nuance and your lovely comment.

[@elliottmcollins]

Yeah! Placing the question of how True religious beliefs are in a practical and ethical context seems really valuable to moving conversations about religion in the right direction.

[@docpepperclassic]

Man, I love this community sometimes. Y'all are great.

[@Swishead]

I feel like I am bathing in a warm philosophical bath

[@Partyaap050]

I don't understand the discussion. You either believe, or you don't. To claim that God must be real is arrogant, and Atheïsts using somewhat the same logic by saying God mustn't be real are also arrogant and arguably hypocrite. What is there to debate about?

[@ronethan]

Thanks! The way I live my religion is very much like that. I don't know if it's "true" or not, but it brings me comfort and motivates me to do good... So I've decided it doesn't matter if it's "true" as long as I'm not using it to oppress anyone.

[@kameradkircheis8426]

"It's still cool to appreciate other peoples viewpoints" Except fascism

[@WBWhiting]

Lohengramm misses you.

[@kasstape]

Kommissar Kircheis exactly I appreciate religious people's view points, I appreciate social liberals, social democrats, libertarians, and sometimes even conservatives view points and I consider myself an anarchist communist but I will never ever appreciate a fascists view points. I can understand where they're getting their view point from but I will never appreciate it

[@kameradkircheis8426]

+WBWhiting So do I

[@DManCAWMaster]

Kommissar Kircheis I appreciate their viewpoint I just widely disagree with it

[@jamesmeow3039]

Facism is harder to appreciate because it has much less theory and ideological development like Conservatism or Socialism has.

[@smekdei]

Really interesting video. I'm an atheist myself, but I've always hoped that I was wrong; that maybe there is a benevolent God and life after death. I think the "madness" example was my favorite for that reason... it gives me hope. Still and atheist, but it reminded me that we humans don't have the full picture.

[@johnbenson4927]

By saying that you hope you´re wrong you proved what an honest person you are.

[@avery-quinnmaddox5985]

TL;DR - Beliefs don't matter as much as the outlook on life and political and/or moral actions of the believer. Religion is to be seen as a set of interpretative filters that paint one's scientific, political, and moral worldviews.

[@avery-quinnmaddox5985]

markj6700 Yes, that matters, but only insofar as science intersects with practical affairs. Serious scientists have already tested religious claims and found them to be wrong, and therefore will not continue to take these ideas seriously. There isn't much harm being done to biology since obviously mainstream, serious biologists have been using the evolutionary model for about a century. It is of no practical concern what a few crazies believe about scientific research. Evolution isn't being overturned as a serious scientific theory. The climate change bit DOES matter, though, but no one is denying climate change for religious reasons, only economic ones (interest in oil company profits).

[@x.r.6392]

@@avery-quinnmaddox5985, you do understand that policies regarding the matters in question depend on the views of the masses, right? Also, 'a few crazies' actually make up for half of the American population.

[@ceulgai2817]

I have a problem with Flew's Parable of the Gardener, because it posits that the believer and the skeptic are describing the same thing, when they're clearly not. The believer subscribes to a limit on human capability, and for the skeptic to suggest that whatever WE can't detect must not exist is uncomfortably anthropocentric.

[@aWinterCrow]

First off, sorry to resurrect a year old problem. The believer subscribes to a limit on human capability based on an assumption that he made up from the very start - that there is a gardener. The skeptic suggests that if all methods of detection fail, then the initial assumption could be wrong and the actual explanation is something other than that. See, the skeptic's approach allows you to take other hypothesis and test them, too. You might or might not find a valid explanation for that garden being there, or maintained or whatever. The believer's point automatically blocks you out of any other possibility, and locks the conversation and tests to their initial - possibly wrong - assessment. Now tell me which one is more anthropocentric.

[@ChristopherTiihonen]

I swear once I'm back on my feet I'm going to get on the Patreon here. It's been a rough year but this channel oh so deserves support.

[@sethheasley9538]

I love how even-handed your videos are, not bashing one side or the other while being very clear about your own beliefs. Well done.

[@evelienheerens2879]

These principles and ideas apply just as well to political beliefs. I loved the introduction of blik. Blik is actually a dutch word which roughly translates to looking at something for a moment, or to describe the look in someone's eyes. I think it mostly refers to the latter meaning, as it very much seems to denote a persons feelings and thoughts and how they are expressed into the instrument through which they see.

[@michaelgoldberg252]

As a theology student I very much enjoyed this. For people interested in the subject I can also recommend the 'reformed epistemology' approach. Also @Philosophy Tube, how about a video on logical positivism? Keep up the good work

[@houstonnewman4196]

I'm not of any faith, and I'm philosophy major. This video is really great, and I've never thought about religion in that way! You've really helped me appreciate something I've missed about religious views. Thanks!

[@benlowe1701]

What an interesting video. I'm from a mixed background: My mother is a Catholic and my Father is an Atheist. I've always considered myself Catholic, although i'm pretty sure there are a great many Catholics who would consider me a heretic for my political and social positions. Religion and faith to me is a fascinating subject, and I'm always happy to chat to relative strangers about it. Though religion doesn't get discussed much in the UK. I think its always important that religion and faith have some kind of purpose to it. Ironically, the same position I take in science (I'm a medical physics student: Physics is very interesting, but I find more satisfaction in having some applicable outcome than in more esoteric and abstract concepts such as cosmology, as fascinating as they are) I think people overestimate the importance of certain "truths", compared to certain positions. A deeply interesting and meaningful video. You've just earned yourself another subscribed. I'm also impressed by how relatively calm and cirmcumspective the comments are, especially considering the diversity of opinions below.

[@jsveterans6949]

Wow, best comment section I've seen in a long time... Well done, especially considering the topic.

[@josephsepulveda8819]

I appreciate the look from a different perspective at issues I find vital. I will keep living my Christian lifestyle and if it turns out I’m wrong at least I lived to help the people I interacted with. Great video.

[@lambbone8302]

That “complete works of William Shakespeare” in the background waiting for its moment

[@julieannmelville3954]

Great stuff! Love the way how you illustrate your point about living the experience of faith.

[@Crispman_777]

I wish I understood faith. It seems like it brings a lot to many people's lives, but I can't understand what (aside from reassurance of promised life after death and retribution for the injustices in the world).

[@CaliapiRose]

Crispman, I'm not religious, but from what I've seen faith gives people comfort in believing that something cares about them. The world can be a very cold place and a lot of people might have very little to no support in times of need. So the belief that everything happens under the watch of a being that can control the universe and really cares about you can be very comforting. Now I'm sure this isn't the case for all people, but it seems that for a lot of people this is the role of religion, to give people hope.

[@GhostEmblem]

I'd say the 2 you mentioned are some of the most compelling ideas in the history of all mankind. An afterlife and retribution for injustices how can you not see why people would want them to be true.

[@elliottmcollins]

I think Ollie's little description of a religious person walking into an Orthodox church and the sense of connection and belonging it brings it a good start in understanding what faith offers to people's day-to-day experience.

[@DManCAWMaster]

Crispman 777 Well faith means different depending on what you have faith in. For Christianity aka my former religion people in my family see it really as it's about sacrificing for the better good and the hope for a better world from it. To say they have faith in that means that you have confidence that being a selfless person will serve to make your lives and other peoples lives better

[@stevepittman3770]

Ghost Emblem - I think faith is more than wanting something to be true. I very much want it to be true that I can flap my arms and fly, but my life or outlook is not appreciably different because of it.

[@commiebastard351]

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, & I see the divine as incomprehensible, BUT, that each interpretation of the divine is, in a sense, true, in the same way that saying a river "is the same river" while also saying "it is constantly changing" is true, it can both be static & dynamic. All glimpses of the divine are real (including the perspective of the atheist, however she may see meaning or higher purpose in the world I consider "divine" to her) & valid, & we can in fact see the divine more clearly if we begin to understand & accept other perspectives. I myself have my own conception, & it is based off of metaphysical idealism, & that human nature is to "play", & that life is sort of a game ppl play (a manipulation of symbols that we create & that changes the way we think, like language) to communicate with each other, & that our consciousnesses, as they are connected, form a large consciousness which I conceive as a "goddess"

[@passive_annihilation]

I'm secular but have always tried to express this aspect of the religious to those who are oddly militant atheists or agnostics. I grew up in the Methodist church and was allowed to attend men's bible study at a young age and the men who sat around the table were the definition of "living the question". The lack of understanding on this point is maddening and has felt a bit isolating at times. Knowing there is some literature on the matter is like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for this video.

[@GourmetBurrito]

When I approached the faith I was born into with a critical lens, I had a short-lived Ditckens' phase. Then I made my back to an epistemological middle and got stuck. I was going through a bit of an existential crisis and I needed to build a worldview and I felt like I needed to answer this question of God but it never went anywhere. Not to say that it was a purely pragmatic decision (like in Pascal's wager) but sort of influenced by that notion I tried "living out the questions" as you say. and I guess it worked for me. I would say I experienced the "context" of the theology of my religion and though I can't really explain it, I have a much deeper conviction of the truth value of the tenants of my belief. Following with Kierkegaardian ideas, I learned that sometimes you got to take the leap of faith to experience faith. Sometimes you can't wait for enough evidence prior to.

[@thedisintegrador]

As an orthodox Christian I enjoyed this video really much and actually it describes my faith really well. Well of course the truth of religion is always bigger and I can go on and on about the greatness and majesty of the Encompassing One in Three, but I will spare you. Great video

[@mcova1998]

Its quite fascinating on how religion has a strong impact on our world throughout time. We idolized certain figures that can accommodate our certain aspirations and relatable aspects towards god(s). Of course I'm speaking in broader terms in which it'll take too much time to cover all existent religions. I'm agnostic myself yet I enjoyed your video to see both arguments presented in a clear manner. :)

[@conferencereport]

Great to see a more nuanced commentary on theism/atheist than the usual ones which, as you say, as you say, tend to focus solely on the validity of truth claims or just repeat the 'atheism is just a lack of belief in God' mantra. James Carse makes a good argument against the too-close identification of religion and belief in his 'The Religious Case Against Belief' in which he claims that belief (understood as focussing only on such truth claims) as actually antithetical to religiousity.

[@BrandonJudy]

I actually do appreciate the nuance since I never understood why it was the cool thing to make fun of religious people on the internet. As a person of faith, there are elements of belief that I admit can be confusing for outsiders. My beliefs have deep emotional value that cannot just be explained by stating that "x, y and z are true and that's it." Quite frankly, those that do overly simplify my beliefs trivialize a key aspect of who I am, and I find that insulting. I applaud you mr. Philosophy Tube, for providing quality insight into this discussion without demeaning those have or do not have religious beliefs.

[@JuergenNoll]

Maybe Hare was refering to the German word "Blick", meaning something along the lines of sight, glimpse, look, view and perspective.

[@mindybriggs6559]

"there is nobody for whom all facts are equally important." I don't know why, but that whole part just makes me think the- there is no objective reality. We're each taking it in individually so we're going to find different things to notice, believe, react to.

[@ng3106]

the work you do is wonderful and you deserve so many more subscriptions. thank you!!

[@benjaminangelis7609]

I love this video and the comments underneath it so much! I wish I knew people in my day to day life that I could talk with about all these things. I have so many theories and questions for everyone who commented but typing everything out would take too long...

[@alfme]

Loved the video as always, and I think a video about Feyerabend would be very interesting. If you don't know about him already, I think you'd really like him

[@arc6fire]

Ana agree i would like to see this as well. would switch lights off, close the curtains, switch of the mobile, get my popcorn, put my feet up, and sit back and mull over the discussion

[@JonSebastianF]

"Blik" is just a Danish (and Dutch) word for "glance" or "perspective" :)

[@ChakChakGuy]

“What have I always believed? That on the whole, and by and large, if a man lived properly, not according to what any priests said, but according to what seemed decent and honest inside, then it would, at the end, more or less, turn out all right.” - Terry Prachett

[@nightthought2497]

Faith is sometimes a way to apply lessons from understanding aspects of nature to our lives as individuals and communities. The belief that there is more to learn than raw facts.

[@cellomon09]

Flew is mistaken to demand empirical falsifiability from all religious claims. As Popper himself pointed out, empirical falsifiability isn't necessary for all rationally justifiable claims. In particular, the rational grounding for the traditional arguments for God's existence rest on premises whose truth can be established without being falsifiable. To dismiss these arguments in the name of falsifiability, then for consistency's sake, one would also have to dismiss mathematics, meta-science, and other fields of knowledge.

[@andrzejaraszkiewicz3026]

Except for the fact that mathematical statements ARE falsifiable.

[@WBWhiting]

There was a 1944 essay, "Gods" by a 'John Wisdom' where he gave the original example (in section 6.1, paraphrased below) of a theist and an atheist looking at a garden, the theist says 'a gardener tends this garden', the atheist says 'no one has seen or heard any gardener here and the delicate flowers wilt while the hardy weeds thrive' and the theist says 'the gardener is not visible and is inaudible and only looks after flowers that look after themselves and don't need tending'. My reading of his subsequent argument was basically: 'These two viewpoints disagree after looking at evidence, each has taken the evidence into account, there is no Occam's Razor so minimal to no assumptions is as valid a process as making endless ad-hoc assumptions to reconcile a belief to reality'.

[@GhostEmblem]

1) I would argue there is an Occam's Razor the idea that there is a gardner making things the same as they would be without one is more complex then if there were no gardner. 2) Occam's Razor is patently false the vast, vast majority of the time the simplest solution is incorrect.

[@WBWhiting]

Occam's Razor is 'The simplest explanation that fits the evidence is to be preferred over one that makes more unjustified assumptions.' How is that method of appraisal mostly wrong?

[@TaylorjAdams]

It's technically true that the simplest solution is rarely correct, but Occam's Razor isn't meant to judge all possible solutions, it's meant to judge specific solutions against each other, and in such comparisons the simpler solution is almost always _more likely_ to be correct. The *simplest* solution may not be correct so often, but there are always way more potential incorrect solutions which are more complex than there are simpler ones. Infinitely more technically, but more importantly plenty more which fall in the realm of those likely to be given. I think punctuation in the OP may be a bit confusing though. Reads clearer as "...into account. There is no Occam's Razor, so minimal to no assumptions..." or "...at evidence. Each had taken the evidence into account so there is no Occam's Razor. Therefore minimal..." But in either of those cases Occam's Razor wouldn't have been used properly. On the other hand if the OP was simply missing a comparable statement to the theist "a gardener tends this garden" saying "no gardener tends this garden" Then the argument would make sense. The reply to it would be that atheists wouldn't say "no gardener tends this garden" they would say "there is no reason to believe a gardener tends this garden" which the resulting argument actually supports and Occam's Razor prefers.

[@xzonia1]

shoe laces - Regarding Occam's Razor, take this example: I cannot find my keys. What happened to them? The simplest answer is: A) You misplaced them. This is most likely the correct answer. A more complex answer is: B) Your brother hid them to play a prank on you. Why is this more complex? Because your brother needs a motive to do so, and also an opportunity to get away with it without you noticing. Is it possible this is the correct answer? Yes. Is it more likely to be the correct answer than A? No, it's not. An even more complex answer is: C) The maintenance man at your apartment complex came in and stole them. Why is this less likely? Because he'd need a reason to do so (that outweighs the risk of him getting caught and losing his job), he'd need to know when no one is home, and it's also really unnecessary for him to steal your keys because he already has a key to get into your apartment anyway, so it'd have to be a different key on your key ring that he wants, and he'd have to know enough about you and your keys to know what they go to in the first place and to desire them. Is it possible this answer is correct? Yes. It is more likely to be correct than A? No, it's not. That is why the idea says all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. It's not always the correct answer, but it's reasonable to run with the simplest answer first and then work up through the more complex ones if the simplest answer turns out not to be true.

[@xzonia1]

Lol. I would say phone a friend then. :) It does work best when multiple solutions are already present, but it does also encourage us to ask "Is there an easier way?" more than we might otherwise do in our daily lives.

[@jakepup5794]

I see a parallel between the idea of Living Faith and the anarchist notion of Praxis. Actually getting out into the world and doing some good.

[@mikeh5399]

Glad to see that this episode was subtitled!!

[@PhilosophyTube]

Thanks! Yeah I'm trying to get more and more of them fully subtitled

[@mathieuleader8601]

C.S lewis was a facinating man having been religious then irelligious then religious again

[@Nickman826]

Mathieu Leader if by fascinating you mean a victim to bullshit

[@Mandragara]

Mere Christianity is a meh book though.

[@michaeld387]

Mandragara agreed. I just finished reading it and found the argument paper thin at best. Seemed like it was meant to preach to the choir rather than actually convince non-Christians.

[@agnosticatheist7529]

C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest authors of logical fallacies of the 20th century.

[@malchir4036]

C.S. Lewis is fascinating for being a modern Plato. Great storytelling and a neo-platonist approach to philosophy of religion, but he never got to a serious logical argument, despite his efforts. I put compare him to more Orthodox Christian philosophy of religion. More mysticism, lots of classical philosophy. Much less like the more logic-oriented modern philosophy like Plantinga and Craig.

[@magilunedecelestia]

Knowing the other's perspective and emphathy are what many people need in order to have understanding. It is a hard thing to do but hey, it is a way on how not to be unfriendly to others with a different point of view in life. Btw, this channel never ceases to be awesome. Good job bruh!

[@Aondeug]

Oh this was really nice. A rather fair shake of the matter, I think? Very brief, yes, but I do appreciate how you showed a variety of views and I really appreciated how you presented the idea that religion is more than just belief. I've not come across the Living Theology concept in that exact wording before, but I have seen similar talking points among certain monks I was fond of. Still am fond of, really. It's rather similar to how I tend to handle the whole matter of religion personally. There's some other things that come into the matter for me. One of the big ones for me as a former Buddhist being that I'm still working on needing proof of something. Buddhist proof gathering methods vary though, and there's a great amount of focus put upon Direct Personal Experience. I can read about the Four Noble Truths. I can argue very well to them being true, perhaps, but until I experience the full scope of the truths I can't really say I know anything about it all. I'm just able to ramble off fact lists and argue in a traditional method laid out many, many years ago. That doesn't actually mean anything. What means something though is the realization of the truth. The seeing it up front and personal. That is the only kind of knowledge that is ultimately with substance. Everything else is a substanceless conventional truth. Conventional truths are useful. Very useful in fact. But they're also not the point of the matter in Buddhism. The point of the matter is to find the Absolute Truth and understand it. And the Absolute Truth cannot be understood with conceptual thought. Reading about it isn't enough. Absorption levels isn't enough. Thinking about it isn't enough. Being able to lecture about it isn't enough. It needs to be attained, not just known. Otherwise I can't be said to really know it. It's kind of like...the difference between being able to tell people the definition of what a trochee is versus being able to actually construct trochees. Or to at least be able to hear them and understand their acoustic effect. If I can tell you the dictionary definition of trochee all I've done is recite a fact. It doesn't actually mean I know what trochees are or that I understand them. It just means I memorized something. Another related issue is that I don't need to just experience these truths. The truths also need to be purposeful. They need to be useful and do good. And not just on individual levels but on massive ones. If a monster comes up to me and tells that if I sacrifice a person for them I'll have a home and food enough to keep me alive and satisfied and I go and do it and I do in fact get that home and that food then...What good is that? It's true. I killed a person for them and in exchange I got a home and food, enough to last me for the rest of my life. But what good is that? Someone is dead. And what about people besides me? There's still people out there that need food. I have enough food for myself, but does my supply stretch very far to help people in a meaningful manner? I've got a home but can I fit everyone who needs a home inside it? What of the people crushed underneath systems far larger than any one of us? People are still out there suffering and all I've gone and done really is hidden myself away and went 'Fuck you, got mine.' And in the end? I'm going to die. That's not changing. I'm still stuck with that knowledge and I'm still stuck with the horrifying realization that nothing about me is static and that nothing's ever going to last. What did I actually manage? Even if we can say that I was happy to the end of my days, I don't think we can say that I actually managed anything of any worth. All I did was kill someone and then hide away. People are still suffering. This is a bit similar to the whole needing to live a religion thing in the Living Theology, but I do think that this ties into what 'truth' is it needs to be stated by itself. The truths I'm looking for, Absolute Truths, don't just need to be directly experienced but they also need to be useful for both myself and others around me. Otherwise there's no damned point in any of it. A fact is very well and good but it's not a Truth. A note about that all is that...while I know that atheists are looking at the matter in a very different fashion from my own I do find it hard at times to actually solidly grasp that. Like I know that it's the case. The way I talk about how it works and how my brother talks about it are very different and I can go down the list and pinpoint our differences. But really, truly grasping that is hard. It's a really frustrating thing, but it's a thing I have to remind myself of when talking to people with different ways of conceiving of the thing. Even with other religious people this comes up because there's so many of us with so many different ways of handling this all! It's like I'm looking at someone through a wall of fog. I can see the shape. I can hear the voice. But I can't clearly see the figure and I get spooked and confused by what's behind it. It's something I need to be mindful of. Which is part of why I really appreciated the other perspectives you presented. The difference between knowing and understanding is a bitch.

[@kathyh8047]

I really appreciate this video. I grew up in a family that's engaged with but critical of the Catholic church in my country. Religion has always been a famili-ar thing for me; I find some of the rituals grounding and the idea of a loving God comforting. And I believe the Living Theology aspect is hugely important to how the church must act in today's world. Whether God _factually exists_ has become secondary to what meaning I derive from the broader senses of faith.

[@jamesh3775]

Hey olly, this is a pretty interesting idea. I hope ypu can do this again with more non-european centric veiwpoint. Maybe do a veiwpoint from Islam and judaism? Or Confucianism and shitoism? I find that religions are actionable philosophies with axioms and lore behind them. Either way, interesting

[@bw7601]

i don't get how if one is going around making political actions in the name of a god that is living the question. surely that is living in assurance of an answer?

[@ElvynBliss]

Hey, thanks for the video, indee a very refreshing spin on the topic. btw I like the "tipjar" plug. I find it very fitting. I think since your patreon passed the point where your rent and your full living expenses in London(!) are covered, I would find it disingenuous to use the "this will help me survive" plug, since your survival is already more than covered.

[@mountaindew9]

I appreciate your nuance as a spiritual former Catholic

[@Nathouuuutheone]

I'm pausing halfway to say this: Religion isn't exclusively about supernatural claims. There's a bunch of non-theistic religions and religious groups who claim that there is no reason to believe in more than what we can actively experience or scientifically prove. You're using the word a bit wrong.

[@colonelweird]

I still somehow count myself a Christian, and the question this video brings to mind is, how can understanding religion in this way help with understanding or changing religiously-inspired bigotry, fascism, moralism, closed-mindedness, etc.? I've always believed these things betray the fundamental impulses of the religions in question -- and honestly, I often think that what those people mean by "god" (and other religious language) has practically nothing in common with what I mean by it. My bliks and their bliks are not the same bliks. Yet we're both theists, Christians, etc.

[@xzonia1]

Frank McManus - True. I identify as Christian, but I do not consider myself religious, and I don't identify with the many people who call themselves Christians but spew hate into the world. That isn't what Christ taught, and it's not what I believe.

[@kirksabio2382]

I'm a firm believer in my faith, but I think it stems from me questioning it at every turn. I see this as a necessity to build up on a person's ability to believe and to perceive. Our faith tells us that we (believers) are the salt of the earth, and it is probably because of that, that i take everything with a grain of salt

[@jemmapetersen1893]

Ok. Well that was my first video of yours that I've watched (aside from your channel description front cover). Now, how do I think it went? I'll just say that I can't think of any of my very few channel subscriptions that took less than watching 10 videos before I hit subscribe. I hit subscribe before this video even finished. I sure hope this channel maintains this level of captivation.

[@jaybretherton6246]

'A lack of belief in a God' is very different to 'A belief in the lack of a God' Maybe that's just agnosticism, I'm not sure, I've heard different people use both for atheism.

[@cgillespie78]

Theism is a belief in an intervening, personal God. Atheism is a lack of that belief. By definition Deists are also Atheists even though they believe in a creator. Agnosticism relates to knowledge (same root word). Even the pope is agnostic if he relies on faith to believe. It's there in the word unfalsifiable, there is no way to know so we are all agnostic.

[@jaybretherton6246]

@@cgillespie78 that's really interesting, I didn't know that

[@cgillespie78]

@Zee Jay Do you Know that God exists or do you only believe that He exists. If you lack knowledge and believe on faith, that sounds agnostic to me, though obviously theistic.

[@cgillespie78]

@Zee Jay How do you know? And I completely agree with that definition of theism.

[@Trumpetgirl1000]

I used to be christian and now I am an atheist (or technically agnostic) and I have a friend who went from being christian to athesist a couple of years before me. And although we kind of went through the same change, it was still very different, because for him, loosing his faith was a drastic change in his world view (which lead to him being quite cynic for a while). However my world view did not really change, I just found different explanations for what I see (which is why that change did not distress me that much).

[@Theo_Caro]

Trumpetgirl1000 I have had a similar experience. My friend had his meaning in life tied to the idea of God, and when he became an atheist he fell into nihilism. I had long before accepted that morality and meaning was independent of God, so when I became a deist (which is not the same as atheism but it is similar enough) I didn't really have a existential crisis.

[@Crispman_777]

It just confused me (not that I was religious in the first place). I could never understand what all the fuss and anger was about.

[@TaylorjAdams]

My dad used to be a reverend and I have a very similar story. He wasn't able to accept a non-dogmatic belief system until first going through a series of alternative dogmas from universalism to a view that the longer someone stays in the church is reverse proportional to their strength of morality. I just went from the argument that the holy spirit (my conscience) was how God A) lets us know which parts of the Bible are more related to the context of the time it was written than absolute truth, and B) how God speaks to those who live their whole lives without reading the Bible and determines whether or not they follow him. Eventually this just led me to the natural conclusion that the Bible is a useful guide just like most other poetry and art, and that it's more important to actually label myself an atheist these days in order to stand against those who actively try to affect legislation based on irrational, unfounded, and ultimately unchristian dogma. I may not believe in God anymore but when I did I still felt that actual belief in God is unimportant as opposed to doing "God's will".

[@Mandragara]

Agnosticism isn't a stance. You either believe in god or you don't. Agnosticism is a statement about whether you believe god is 'knowable' or not, it's a statement of knowledge. Theism\atheism is a statement about belief.

[@unadulteratedtruth2212]

Personally, I find the comments of this thread pretty sad. I think perhaps we as as Christians sometimes lose sight of how we are to best reach the various pressing needs of each individual. On behalf of my family in the faith, I sincerely apologize. I'm persuaded that when the church carries it itself as it ought, it makes it easier for others, including church people, to have faith that endures the challenges presented at various times to Christian communities -- a faith that is longsuffering and persistent enough to accept the promise of our Lord that if we seek we shall find. A faith that doesn't quit easily is one that doesn't fail. I'm speaking from personal intimate experience. How I wish I could somehow make make experiences yours as well. But this matter is always a private thing and no man can share in another's private experiences of this kind.

[@RyanDavidFerguson]

Speaking as a Christian, I appreciate this video. I appreciate the recognition that while assent to/dissent from a collection of beliefs about reality is an important element, it isn't the full story -- a whole worldview and lived experience (and not just fear of punishment/aspiration of reward in the afterlife) is part in parcel. I think it's also helpful to recognise that while atheism equates to a negation of religious beliefs, worldviews and lived experiences, and that negation doesn't take on any particular form, that vacuum is nonetheless filled in with other beliefs, worldviews and lived experiences, which I take great interest in. Just in regard to Anthony Flew's garden analogy, I'm familiar with this analogy and it's always bothered me. I think the story recognises something true, but then goes too far with the criticism. I think the story rightly brings up the important question: "Since I can't see any evidence that this gardener exists, what does it matter if he does?" However, the story seems to make the rhetorical point that in fact it doesn't matter and the gardener may as well not exist, which I think is erroneous. By all means, if there is no evidence that something exists, then a person has good reason to doubt that it exists. But being imperceptible doesn't mean being inconsequential. Until fairly recently, we had no way of perceiving that the cosmos is bigger than a small part of the milky way galaxy, yet it is of significant consequence that the reality we live in is much bigger than that -- and it was just as consequential before we had a means of knowing it as it is now that we can perceive as much. I wasn't familiar with Kierkegaard's madman story, but I love it!

[@rekindle7602]

i think the blik/belief distinction is really interesting and valuable because, from what i've learned from my religious friends, religious belief is different from belief in, say, gravity. Belief in God or gods or whatever functions in their lives differently from their belief in physical principles.

[@mikegribanov6105]

This is awesome, excellent video. I'm Russian-Orthodox and far left politically btw. May seem like it doesn't fit but you explain well why it does

[@alyosha3266]

I'll just leave this here for anyone interested about another view of religion: "The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." -Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

[@augustlovesjosh]

I was raised secularly, and for a while i got really into the anti-religion side of atheism. I've chilled a bit since then, but this video was really interesting because I'd never heard a non-religious person point out that there's more than just a belief system to religion. I feel that having watched this video, I'll be more open to understanding other points of view

[@sylvester01ful]

Cognitively, religion and science are just two different methods for pursuing the same goal, i.e., for answering the three philosophical questions: What is truth? What is existence? and What is right? Each of the two methods for getting at this goal hold its own delusions. The difficult task, which may take half a life-time, is to identify and correct such delusions with an unscrupulousness commitment. The religious way of answering these questions uses the methods of faith. The scientific way uses the methods of observation. Faith begins answering from the perspective that existence is more important than one's particular experiences. Observation start with particular experiences and the hope that everything will all add up someday before you die. The best philosophers teach us how to achieve a unified system of thought by discovering the relationship between personal experience and universal existence, between self and God. In the search for the meaning of life, on becoming a whole integrated person, it doesn't matter with which of the three questions one starts because all roads converge at a center of gravity called one's character. However, to declare that one is an agnostic is only a lazy abnegation of the mind. The default mode for such a sleepy state is called Existentialism. Existentialists are the worst philosophers. Existentialism, actually, is not a philosophy, it is a feeling: the feeling that nothing matters...why try...why am I living...life has no meaning...I feel trapped in existence. It is the way a person feels before committing suicide. (For example, while Dostoevsky was the greatest master of plot, observe that as an Existentialist, his characters are always contemptible, psychologically twisted beings unconsciously determined to destroy themselves and others.)

[@theocean1973]

Hmm...I wonder, do people who practice "Living Theology" ever stand up for LGBT rights?

[@grmpEqweer]

I think the Unitarian Universalists stand up for everybody.

[@diemanner7164]

They don't since the Bible is homophobic.

[@florian8599]

Offering same-sex union blessings despite the Vatican saying "no", anyone? It's not much, but it's honest work.

[@SanabiturAnimaMea]

As an incredibly bitter ex-Catholic, I invite you to consider that "living the questions" is not necessarily harmless. "Will an omnipotent being torture me forever for kissing another girl?" is not a beneficial question to live, it is a profoundly scarring one. As a straight cis man, maybe you don't understand how harmful it is to "live the questions". You don't have to be pregnant against your will, or be told that your gender/sexuality is evil. I find it interesting and a little depressing that you end your video with an "I'm not an SJW" statement. Apparently being nice to organised religion is associated with social justice now. Meanwhile, people are dying of AIDS because the Catholic Church has actively lied about the efficacy of condoms, and the name of God is used again and again to harm women and LGBT people.

[@PhilosophyTube]

These are really excellent points, thanks for making them. And I said that bit at the end half as a joke and half because I anticipated there would be some people who would call me a 'cultural relativist'

[@SanabiturAnimaMea]

Thank you and sorry for taking a rude tone with you.

[@PhilosophyTube]

Not at all, I didn't think it was rude and tone policing is bad news anyway!

[@WBWhiting]

Do a video on Cultural Relativism!

[@theocean1973]

Thank you!!! Too many people underestimate the harm religion does to certain groups. I’ve noticed that social justice circles support LGBT rights, but NEVER mention homophobia’s religious underpinnings. That would be “anti-Christian” or “Islamophobic!”

[@RKTGX95]

Not sure if intentional, but i really appreciate that the third part of the video about madness is in itself a bit of "madness" in this topic. (at least when comparing to most other discussions on the internet)

[@nellgwyn2723]

I'm somewhat proud realizing that i have come up with that same understanding/idea of religion for myself without ever hearing of this or reading any philosophy back then.

[@benwil6048]

Lol you know “blik” is literally Dutch for “glance”, “gaze”, “a can” or “way of looking at the world” 🤣😂🤣 Edit: I see some other wise ppl already noted this 👌🏻

[@arandomguy9]

As a Buddhist, (SGI Buddhist to be precise) What is your opinion of the fact that not all religious people are Theists? Since most if not all forms of Buddhism are Atheist I'd also like to know what you think of the idea that Hinduism and Buddhism are very closely connected despite being vastly different and would you ever consider doing a video on those two topics?? Side note: The founder of SGI Buddhism was arrested by the Imperial Japanese government for (and get ready for this shocker) Leftist thought crime... Feel free to use that fact as a method of debunking the far right's constant whining about being victims of ''wrong think'' (or whatever the fuck they call it) and show an actual example that the right wing have a history of committing thought policing throughout history against people who are even remotely left wing. (the founder BTW is Josei Toda you can look up the story on the Imprisonment during WW2 Malnutrition, interrogation, basically the guy suffered the worst of the prison camps) Thanks for the video, hope to see you branch out more in terms of video topics to the religions that aren't talked about that often. *cough such as the religion of capitalism *cough* Yes that was a reference to Calvinism, please do a video on why capitalism is a religious ideology.

[@petra123987]

arandomguy9 Religion usually (I would say always, but definitions might be debatable) refers to supernatural - it makes claims about (or containing) supernatural. That would include soul, afterlife, (non-contingent) predestination, entities like ghosts etc. I think people often relate (and conflate) religion with theism because of 'western' bias/centrism. Also, many christian, theistic or overly simplified explanations will describe Buddha as a god-like figure (or even a god). Why would you describe capitalism as a religion, when it doesn't contain supernatural claims? The word 'ideology' seems sufficient.

[@Mandragara]

From what I read it's a lot of feel good spiritual mumbo-jumbo from what I can tell. You don't have the problem of "why did God create evil" and so on, but it's still a bunch of unfalsifiable ideas. How could I disprove Karma?

[@FearlessSon]

Mandragara: That also depends a lot on the traditions and beliefs of the given practitioner. A lot of the more spiritualist elements like karma come from the contemporary understanding and religious context of the time when the religion began. That in turn gets carried down the ages as part of the religious tradition, and as Olly said in the video, that sense of being part of a long-running continuity to the past is part of the appeal of religion. There is also quite a large amount of variation in the specific traditions among different Buddhist sects; such differentiation is the inevitable result of a broad faith shared across large expanses of time and geography, being interpreted and re-interpreted in a lot of different cultural contexts. So for example, a modern Buddhist in an atheistic context might not believe in a literal spiritual karma and reincarnation, but they might still choose to act as if it was real. The rationality being that acting with mindfulness and compassion makes the world around them better for it, and that if other people act with mindfulness and compassion that makes their life better too, even if there is no afterlife incentive to do so.

[@petra123987]

FearlessSon Mindfulness and compassion don't require religion (which would include supernatural beliefs). Secular humanism promotes those values/worldview, while explicitly rejecting religion (faith-based, untestable, unfalsifiable, supernatural claims). Also, religion doesn't have a monopoly on everything spiritual - see Sam Harris on that topic. So, is modern atheistic buddhism (as you would define it) similar to 'cultural judaism' (or any other religion, eg. I've heard of 'atheist muslims')? Meaning that they only adhere to buddhism because of sense of community/tradition/upbringing, even though they don't believe in supernatural claims that buddhism traditionally makes as a religion? I would be interested in hearing your perspective, especially if you consider yourself a modern atheist buddhist. Specifically: what makes you identify with a religion (buddhism), instead of simply with an ideology (like altruism, philanthropy or secular humanism)?

[@FearlessSon]

I am not a Buddhist, but I did some research into it many years ago. I was at a pretty crappy place, emotionally and socially (I had only recently moved out of my childhood home and was weaning myself off of mood-stabilizing medications I had been on for years.) I found that some of the techniques traditionally practiced helped me find my level. The meditation in particular was especially helpful as a kind of self-directed cognitive-behavioral therapy (by training the brain to acknowledge, accept, and then dismiss undesired thoughts that drive undesired actions.) I am too much of a materialist to believe in things like reincarnation and the carryover of "moral credit", but that does not mean I cannot see tangible material benefits to some of the practices. Secular humanism does indeed promote values of compassion and mindfulness, and the advantage of the "secular" part of that is that it is faith-agnostic. The values transcend any one religious (or non-religious) tradition. But even then I can see why someone might still appreciate having a clearly defined religious faith in which to practice those values. A common criticism of "classical" atheism is that while it frees people from dogma it does not necessarily replace some of the elements of religious practice that practitioners find emotionally fulfilling. Religious institutions tend to create a focus and set of established patterns to go along with in realizing those values, and it becomes easier for a lot of people to internalize them when they get regular reinforcement from other people who share those values and someone to talk to when they struggle with them. I know some modern atheists have realized that this is often missing from a lot of atheist circles and have been trying to create an "atheism plus" to try and provide some of the same fulfillment for those who seek it. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[@djpeanutbutterjelly]

I think it might be useful to make some sort of video series where you show cogent and respectful counterarguments to various 'philosophical' idols of many people today which are very misguided, but disturbingly influential. For example, although I know you have very briefly touched on them in the past, you could go more in depth on Ayn Rand and the New Atheists, as well as people like René Guénon and Roger Scruton, whose conservative/traditionalist ideals are particularly pernicious at the moment. Then again, perhaps the best way to combat pernicious thought is to forward the opposite. Just a thought. Love the channel!

[@daneimp]

It's just extremely important to remember that facts doesn't care if you value them or not (as heard in many different ways before). But super interesting video. Ever made anything on Ninian Smart? He wasn't per se a philosopher, but had a very interesting model of analyzing religion.

[@Sorenbaa]

WAIT isn't this Karl Poppers philosophy?

[@elliottmcollins]

The parable of the gardener builds on some of Popper's ideas and vocabulary, but he never made those particular arguments that I'm aware of.

[@Sorenbaa]

Elliott Collins Ohh is see thanks mate

[@grovertigo]

People will call you an sjw for explaining why some people are religious? is that a thing people get called an sjw for? I don't think that's how that works.

[@Pfhorrest]

It still seems super weird to me, but in the contemporary world of the "alt-right" and "SJWs" it seems like atheism has somehow come to be seen as a right-wing thing by the vocal left, and defending religious freedom as a left-wing thing by the vocal right. It's weird to me because I've always known fervent religiosity to be a distinctly right-wing thing and the irreligious to be more likely to be on the left. Yet another way the whole goddamn world seems upside-down to me these days.

[@grovertigo]

Do you think there are religious people who have moved to the left since this shift? that would be a curious thing indeed.

[@YodasPapa]

Probably becasue there's a slight moral relativist and postmodern angle to the video, which is fine in appropriate doses and fully expected given the topic. To be fair to Olly there are a lot of people in the centre/right who are now so fed up with the whole SJW ideology that only a single sentence with a PC, postmodern, anti-US or pro-LGBT flavour can set alarm bells ringing. I know because I think I'm slowly becoming one of them. I think there's a similar phenomenon happening on the left as well where any possible hint of a racist undertone triggers an alarm and any one talking about the evolutionary origins of human behaviours gets the old evo-psych-sexism label which I've heard a few times. Oh and any time someone not islamic - even an ex-muslim - is critical of islam in its current form or calls for an islamic reformation someone calls them islamophobic. It all seems to be part of this polarisation thing that's happening and is unfortunately becoming inceasingly more of a 'real world' problem as opposed to simply an internet/media/political thing. Both sides have their points. All people with the capacity to do so would do well to bear this in mind.

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

He seems to misunderstand why people are called SJWs, though he is definitely a Marxist, which isn't really an excuse to denigrate someone unless they can't back up their explanations or are hypocritical. Usually Marxists annoy me personally because most of them can't seem to explain their vision of the world in a satisfactory way without it sounding like a totalitarian nightmare. People are typically called SJWs because of either their near orthodox/unquestioning commitment to their ideology, or turn to censorship, banning, or violence when they can't back up their arguments... Which happens a lot sadly. I don't consider Philosophy tube to be SJW, this guy is too intellectually honest.

[@grovertigo]

deee fqdd: I totally agree with your assessment of the rising sensitivity with regards to statements perceived as having an undisclosed grounding in hostile ideology. I think the inclination to respond with condemnative labels is because each side sees the other, for one reason or another as unapproachable; that to attempt to engage is to reveal your position and thus to leave yourself vulnerable to someone who considers otherthink as proof you aren't worth their time, or worse. I think the only solution is simply a faith in your fellow humanity; that a honest attempt to investigate the perspectives of others will produce the best outcome possible.

[@intrinsicawareness896]

I guess i came late here. Just to say that I appreciate the way you present your talks. I've been ghost watching your videos for a while now :) and even though I do believe in God and I have my own arguments, I totally respect your view, and more so, as i just wrote, the way you present them. Your channel is one of the best I've come across so far. Keep giving us contents bro. :D

[@joeyrufo]

This is pretty great. I've been thinking about this so much recently... Like, this is what "The Invention of Lying" was about... I think that what people call "scientism" is just looking at things only at face value, but that doesn't really have anything to do with science per se.......

[@cengizbalm2466]

Comments are gonna be full of pointless arguments

[@refreshdaemon]

No they're not. ;)

[@timpieper5293]

refresh daemon yes they are- ohhhhh. I get it now.

[@thulyblu5486]

and pointless comments, like yours! ^^

[@Samura1gamer]

if the argument is valid,is it pointless?

[@discordant8543]

Cengiz KAan BALIM What arguments aren't pointless

[@batman5224]

Hundreds of years ago, people could not see bacteria. Does that bacteria did not exist? According to Flew's logic, it would.

[@ChessTimF]

I like your objection! I think this is a big problem for the principle that 'for an empirical statement to be meaningful, it must be theoretically falsifiable'. If an entity, such as very small organisms, or particles of matter, or fundamental forces (e.g. gravity) are unobservable (we may be able to see their effects, but not the things themselves), how can we falsify statements such as 'gravity is what makes the moon go round the earth'? And things may get even worse when we consider even more abstract and theoretical entities which nevertheless are often give essential roles in our sciences!

[@Crispman_777]

They've never been called facts. Gravity is simply a very good theory we can use reliably that has yet to be proven wrong or be replaced with another popular theory. If something like The Theory of General Relativity is ever given a shred of evidence that proves it wrong then almost all of physics as we know it will have to be thrown away and started again from scratch. That's what keeps all of science going, the scientific method.

[@ChessTimF]

I agree with all of what you said, I think. The question is then 'what would, in principle at least, falsify (e.g.) the Theory of General Relativity'? If there are criteria of falsification, then there is no problem! But with things that are hard to observe directly, like very small particles, this can prove very difficult Another trap to avoid, I think, is setting up our experiments in anticipation of the results we think we will get. If the scientific method is to function properly, we need to be genuinely open minded about the possibility that we do need to, as you put it, throw away almost all of our scientific knowledge, if that is what the evidence comes to demand!

[@Samura1gamer]

your bacteria analogy is not valid in Flew's example the 2nd person never claimed there isn't a god there. And if 2 people 200 years ago were arguing about bacteria's existence, they would try to find some method to falsify its existence. something that the 1st person in Flew's example had no interest in

[@ChessTimF]

Great video, as always. One other interesting angle to look at is Basil Mitchell's 'Parable of the Partisan', which seeks to demonstrate that religious believers may not need to be in a position to know in advance what the necessary and sufficient criteria for falsification of their faith is, as this is simply not how relationships work, and religions are fundamentally relational in character. To draw an analogy: suppose I am in love with a person called Alex, but it seems to my friend, called Sam, that Alex is abusive and doesn't really care about me. Yet, every time Sam tries to convince me that Alex doesn't love me, and that my faith is therefore fundamentally misplaced, I simply say that I know that Alex really does love me, even if, to those on the outside of the relationship, this seems highly improbable, given the available evidence. When Sam, losing all patience, finally exclaims 'But then your faith is unfalsifiable, and you are being unreasonable!', I respond 'I am not saying that my faith in, and love for, Alex cannot be falsified; I am only saying that I do not know in advance what conditions or events would falsify that faith, though in all probability something would. Not knowing what will make me stop believing is not the same as not knowing if anything could make me stop believing'. Look forward to the next one!

[@PurpleJuneBug0410]

As a Christian, the part of about living theology (and consequently, living the question) stood out to me very much. I would concur with that idea on ground that it is in the nature of belief that we find grounds for "living it out." It is fairly non-controversial that beliefs (certain statements about reality that people hold to be true) have implications in significant areas of life (if held to be true). Clearly, if a person believes the statement "And we know that in ALL things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28), then he or she will have more of a legitimate reasoning for an optimistic life (even if terrible things happen to them) than a person who believes that all things work by chance. The existence of (a personal) God has profound implication on what is good/evil or right/wrong, If there isn't any lawgiver beyond humanity (and no immaterial reality beyond material realm) it seems relatively clear that good/evil or right/wrong is merely the by-product of socio-biological evolution, social conditioning, and personal preferences (thus, the set of morality we have could have been completely different, if we were to rewind the evolutionary timeline). If a law-giving Creator exists, then there is a foundation for thinking there are mind-independent realities of good/evil or right/wrong; thus, there could be things necessary good/evil or right/wrong, despite the different ways God's creation could have been. And this could ultimately determine whether or not someone thinks there are objective moral values. Enjoyed your video! Thank you!

[@peterp-a-n4743]

Nobody ever denied that there is more to a delusion but the mere truth claim. Of course our beliefs shape our life, our actions, our stance. That's the very reason we argue about them and why we care about truth in the first place, why we are scared of delusional people (so that we even lock certain ones of them up). You are basically arguing for the blue pill, which is in its core condescending and immoral (as Clifford would have said).

[@peterp-a-n4743]

Of course not, no evil can justify another injustice. But Matt Dillahunty is the very opposite of condescending most of the time; having been a devout christian himself for more than 20 years, he has much empathy for the deluded. Most religious people are themselves victims of their biography, their upbringing. The real problem are the non-believers who treat other peoples delusions as something sacrosanct and worthy of preservation. (Making non-believers act as such was the real coup of religions, as Ricky Gervais pointed out.) This is false tolerance for the sake of pc.

[@peterp-a-n4743]

You obviously don't get it then.

[@steampunkerella]

agreed, atheism as an institution is pretty ridiculous. i say that as someone who is, i suppose, "agnostic". is there a word for someone who says "i don't know if there's a god, nor do i care to find out"?

[@failpyre]

There is actually. Apatheist!

[@mathieuleader8601]

irreligious

[@considerthis768]

markj6700 Agreed, however I would go further and say atheism is the default position. In other words, it is no claim since existence of God is not self evident.

[@agnosticatheist7529]

Why would a disbelief be an institution? Is that even possible? That is like saying there is something north of the north pole - it just doesn't make any sense.

[@cleoraasaran9957]

I think you really are thinking of non-theist though, in the sense that Nietzsche was. He basically said, why argue about it, no side has the truth.

[@kurtweinstein8450]

I, as a non-believer, see many appealing aspects to experiencing belief and can understand that truth in a more narrow sense of the word not is central to that experience. Instead one may perceive personal truths about what faith means for them. Unfortunately I do not see faith as a choice, it could be for others, but I am by nature a doubter. Exploring what drives someone to be a doubter or skeptic, particularly in situations where skepticism is not a default position, may be an interesting subject.

[@GreatBeanicus]

I suppose you can look at Flew's philosophy both ways though. The skeptic may be the one asking "but then how is that different", but the believer could ask the same as well.

[@keyboardwarrior4859]

Any atheist arguing from a scientific perspective How does morality come from "survival of the fittest"

[@BuddyVQ]

clue less If you believe Darwin's observation of natural selection somehow informs secular morality... then you are entirely wrong.

[@keyboardwarrior4859]

Buddy/so is the solution do unto others? If so what about circumstances like the walking dead where you have to eat fellow human or very few women so do what you'v you're gotta do

[@BuddyVQ]

clue less Could u clarify your question?

[@keyboardwarrior4859]

Buddy what is wrong and what is right according to atheists or is morality relative

[@TheJohannes44]

+clue less - You will not get a singular answer to the question "what is wrong and what is right according to atheists?" because atheists aren't one group of people who share dogma or tenets. There are those who think morality is objective, those who think it is entirely subjective, those who accept moral realism and those who don't. That said, even if you're a Christian, for instance, you would have to accept that morality is relative; actions and commands by God in the old testament would be considered barbaric today. Society changes, and what is considered moral also changes.

[@anthonyeyler5505]

Quick pedantic note: The "u" in Aguilar is silent. Love your channel. Love me some Olly.

[@juozapasjurksa1400]

One of those very rare videos speaking about religion where comment section is so peaceful

[@kitrolison9865]

The part where you described the interior of an Orthodox Church was felt like it was straight out of an ASMR video!

[@NorwegianDean]

I mean, this video is golden. Such great perspectives on this interesting debate (which very quickly can escalate into nonsense yelling). Thanks!

[@sluggergirl2b142]

I really love the second interpretation, and I like that it sheds light on something in my life. When I was twelve (a very important age in my church) my parents told me they no longer believed in and had distain for our Mormon church. They brought up issues with feminism, the history, and some shady practices. I didn't take this well, and found that it left a big hole in my life. I assumed that if I believe in God or something similar they would think I'm stupid because they rejected religion, but it's nice to know that the tradition and theology can be separated.

[@jprt1990]

This is more or less exactly what my perspective on religion is. Nice to see there are other people out there who share my thoughts. It really is hard to get these ideas across without people misinterpreting you. But I think it's clear that religion has to be about more than the truth or falsity of its claims. We find it everywhere on earth in every culture, surely evolution must have selected for this trait for a *reason*. And we know it isn't the truth of its claims as many of them are demonstrably untrue. If many of its claims aren't true, it must confer an advantageous psychological or social advantage on the group.

[@byrongsmith]

Long time subscriber but missed this one until now. As a Christian minister, I think this was a great video. Thanks!

[@KarateExplodo]

I appreciate and understand the nuance of your position!

[@Pedrobio22]

Amazing, the 3rd part explain a lot of what is happening in Brazil now.

[@NN-zc3jd]

I really appreciate your approach , even if the truth matters it's not the only thing that matters some situations and some contexts aren't exclusively related to the truth you spoke about religion but topics like afterlife , miracles , metaphysics , feelings don't apply to any rules or any logic it seems that using logic and science to explain them is the right thing to do the "logical" thing to do but forcing it is as dogmatic as religion may seem saying unless I explain miracles they don't exist is no diffrent than a guy saying I believe God exists they do the exact same thing they reject the inevitable : one exclusive ideology cannot be endorsed by everyone no matter how compelling efficient we defy conformity someone will do it for the sake of it , someone else learn more about it and another one will gain something from it

[@randomartist3599]

I just found your channel a while ago and I love it. This video was very helpful but I would like to read more about theism and atheism. Are there some books/ more philosophers that could be recommended? Personally I'm an agnostic and I recognize that there are points to both of these points of you, hence the reason I would like to dig up a bit more to the matter.

[@tylrprkr]

I would love to see more on this idea of "Living Theology" as put forth by Aguilar

[@Notethos]

I'm interested in your kierkegaard quote. Unfortunately i didn't get to read much of kierkegaard in university (even when I took a class to focus on his writings I was only assigned fear and trembling which is a great text, but I read for 3 different classes)

[@StephenMeansMe]

How does the concept of "blik" compare to (e.g.) William James' idea that beliefs have a "cash value" in what we anticipate (or don't anticipate) by holding them? Or, to turn it around, what do people mean by "having a belief" besides "anticipating such and such states of affairs to obtain"?

[@slimyweasles4973]

Really great episode!