You Can't "Act As If" God Exists

[@CosmicSkeptic]

For early access, ad-free videos, support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/alexoc Watch the full podcast with Chris Williamson: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIStmZSKjL-rh9Usi=eQ3SKOWQ0XFbnATX

[@GrahamAlanRandallMusic]

These were true statements. You can just believe in helping people.

[@nigelbrown3658]

Re 4:49 about us not having to make genuine moral sacrifices in modern society, I’d say we have gone to great lengths to hide those options from ourselves by allocating them to others especially by thinking the democratic process is a set and forget process instead of an ongoing dialogue.

[@aspire90medo1]

obviously, you'd know if your videos aren't monetized, but I just wanted to say I didn't see an Ad in this one.

[@aiya5777]

Alex, you can do anything

[@tesmith47]

You WHITE folks talking to each other, if you want some different answers , how about talking with Black folks

[@Implicit_Truth]

This video came out 55 seconds ago and yet there are comments criticizing the arguments in it.

[@jamesclerk815]

If you are one with the philosophy then you already know the argument.

[@jeremycurle6880]

time is relative 🤔

[@Tailormademan900]

Bible thumper Christ insanes have a low attention span and can't handle anything in depth or put together well. Their answer to everything is "Jesus" "Pray about it." Or the dumbest one, "Get right with the Lord." WTF 😂

[@user-soon300]

This is because people they do not. Change their mind about it.

[@user-soon300]

By the way not all people from the same spot.for example I'm from Iraq it's different timing i think.

[@bryandraughn9830]

The whole idea that someone can "decide" what to believe is completely insane to me. If im not convinced of something there's not much i can do about it. Do people expect me to start pretending to believe something? Cause im not going to do that. I can't see how it even works.

[@natigrinkrug]

I spoke to a group of “spiritual” folks on my college campus today. They consistently acted as though I could simply start believing in spirituality, and a soul, etc. as if belief in this mystical supernatural thing actually makes it exist. I couldn’t get through to them that I could not possibly believe in such a thing if I am not presented with sufficient evidence for it to be true.

[@Andres64B]

I know. I can no more choose to believe in their God than I can choose to believe in Santa Claus, Gremlins, or the Easter Bunny. Ask them to just start believing in Santa Claus.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

The reason why you can't decide what to believe is because you haven't examined the fundamental nature of reality deeply enough (metaphysics and ontology). Not to say that most theists have either, but there's a lot more to Being than what we can wrap our heads around. When one sees our Beingness through MANY ontologies, metaphysics, and epistemologies, and begins to understand how some of them succeed where others fail -- and that none of them are inherently 'better' than any other -- one may then become a genuine mystic/skeptic. EDIT: Some folks seem to misunderstand what I mean by this. I'm saying you can indirectly re-wire your beliefs by simply choosing to be critical of your existing beliefs. Which is to say, when you genuinely understand that the 'map' you hold is not the 'territory' -- the things which don't sound convincing to you, will very likely change. Cognitively, you are re-wiring/re-enforcing patterns all the time, you just aren't aware of it. Which is why most people think they can't "control what they believe" and seem to think that people who CAN are acting irrationally. It's just not true; and highlights a lack of self-understanding and little self-mastery (and thus, a lack of 'wisdom', or 'meta-cognitive' capacity). Belief is genuinely extraordinarily powerful, folks -- because consciousness itself is powerful. If you don't believe X is possible -- then X will never be possible for you (full-stop). If you believe X is possible, and then engage your creativity in figuring out how you could make X happen; then X suddenly IS possible because you did it. For a long time, a man wanted to fly -- one day a man figured out how to fly (by creating a machine). It's not a matter of becoming "irrational" -- it's a matter of developing alternative forms of cognition (adopting new logics or 'patterns of cogitation'). Doxastic, paraconsistent, and constructive logics are just as valid as 'traditional logics' -- they are simply better at different things. "When you change the way you look at things, the things themselves begin to change." -- Max Planck

[@someguyusa]

@@Archeidos-Arcana You're missing the point. We do not have any conscious control over what data or information will be able to convince us of something. You cannot believe something if you are not convinced of it, and you cannot choose to be convinced of something. You may choose to behave as if you believe something, but that's not the same thing.

[@MultiAwesomered]

Do you have any interaction with or experience of depression? Being stuck in bad positive feedback loops forces you to believe things that aren't true.

[@aliraza9494]

So much to learn in a mere ten minute video from you than entire playlists from so many other channels.

[@bargledargle7941]

I learned that they criticized people who criticize because criticizing is too easy 😐

[@easyaccessjeans]

This was a very thought-provoking clip. I'm adding this to my repeat playlist so that I can think about it more often. Thank you.

[@louisuchihatm2556]

Yeah right! I opened it just for it play in the background & I ended up sitting down to watch & listen.

[@swolejeezy2603]

Alex is such a thoughtful dude. I know people have been saying this your entire time on KZbin but we will be watching your career with great interest

[@lucacuradossi1040]

Palpatine

[@buckfozos5554]

@@lucacuradossi1040 lol, yeah you can't sneak that one in. I heard his voice too as I read it.

[@Dialogos1989]

Phantom Menace!

[@garrgravarr]

Ew

[@audiodead7302]

He has such a young face though. His beard seems out of place.

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

"Act as if God were there"? Why stop there? Why not act as if Spider-Man actually swings around New York?

[@FoxyGrandpa75]

Well maybe because there’s a difference?

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

@@FoxyGrandpa75 what difference? Maybe more evidence that Spiderman exists?

[@markmiller6111]

Title is wrong because I’m not religious but I definitely act as though God exists. If I completely discounted the existence of God, I would have to discount the value of human life. In the same way I discount the value of animal life (not vegan), humans after all are just animals from a scientific worldview. So Alex can intellectualise this all he likes but you cant get away from the fact that we need something external to create meaning. I’ve seen all his arguments against this including Sam Harris laughable “wellbeing” argument but they all appear shallow. It’s like privileged people being blind to their own privilege. A man grows up under a society that was built with Judeo-Christian ethics, influenced by people that was influenced by people with Judeo-Christian ethics and thinks he exists in a vacuum and did it all by himself, blind the privilege that this apparent “wellbeing” nature of the people around him was shaped by something, in the west…judeo-Christian ethics

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

@@markmiller6111 why do you need something external in place for meaning? Why do you have to have something external to value human life. I don't operate that way. I don't find that I need the trappings of mythology or tradition in order to find meaning in my life. I was a Christian for many years, why would I act as if God exists when I find no evidence to validate that belief? In the search for truth why would I lie to myself?

[@FoxyGrandpa75]

@@CatDaddyGuitar there’s abundant evidence that Jesus was the son of God. Zero evidence that spider man exists. That would be the most glaring difference

[@davec-1378]

This was hands down, the best exchange I’ve seen in months, perhaps longer. Very interesting views given with useful analogies that gave clarity.

[@billwilliamson1506]

I felt the same. The poignancy of this discussion really struck me. The literally false but figuratively true analogy was a great way to put it

[@JeffBedrick]

When you finally get around to removing all the clutter from your attic, your first thought should not be: "now how can I fill it up again with more clutter?"

[@sababaratashvili8629]

*Looks at modern era Suuuuure.

[@InigoMontoya-]

You haven't met my wife.

[@MrWeebable]

Empty room just stays empty? No furniture implies it has no function.

[@Hemlocker]

I think this is a terrible analogy.

[@kawasakiwhiptwo5821]

There is something (if you can realize it) other than clutter. You can fill it with that.

[@katieshelton8117]

I have spent so much time thinking about this kind of thing but with no one to discuss it with. It feels so good to hear other humans talk about it so eloquently. Thank you for giving voice to the thoughts in my head.

[@RorinoTheGreat]

I act like a Christian to appease my parents but it is perpetually low stakes. They have only pressed me on it twice, and I only convinced them by the slimmest of margins, and I would consider that medium stakes at best. If I were in a high stakes situation, or otherwise was forced to act like I was a Christian at all times, I sincerely doubt I would be capable

[@jamesdean5095]

You wouldn't be capable, for sure. My parents and I avoid the issue out of mutual respect - the last thing I would want is to hurt them, and having grown up Christian I understand the nature of that hurt. It's no challenge to me to keep my beliefs low key in order to not hurt my parents. That being said, I absolutely would not lie if asked. That's where the 'mutual respect' element comes in. They know I don't believe, it's self-evident. But we don't need to talk about it. It's worth considering how YOU want to live though. You shouldn't have to present a lie; to not be who you really are. As mentioned, if pressed I could not lie. I believe this is bad for the soul. Embrace your beliefs and don't be ashamed of them. Your parents are adults - they can handle it. They can handle you.

[@edivaldobarbosa3709]

​@@jamesdean5095 honestly i would lie just to avoid discussion, when taking inconsequential lies into account my peace of mind is prioritized over overall honesty

[@dannyhernandez265]

There’s only so much you can lie about. After a while, I think you have to tell them. It’s like someone feeding you a food you don’t like all the time, but you keep eating it anyways.

[@jeronimo196]

No worries, most christians also act like christians at low stakes situations and only some of the time. Shouldn't be that hard to fake, really. Low stakes, high stakes - most people usually do what they want to do and find justifications/ask forgiveness later.

[@jenniperkins4260]

This is the problem Christianity has become an adjective. Christian = good. No ! Be proud to be an Atheist it says I’m not gullible and brainwashed

[@loodlebop]

Isnt it nice when Alex is invited as a guest and allowed to speak

[@rodgolson]

Amen, and AMEN! Thank you for this succinct and clear video. As someone who left Mormonism and Christianity in 2018 to become an atheist, I appreciate your ability to articulate these thoughts so well. The ugly political climate in the USA, especially on the right with publicly professed Christians, proves your point that many don't actually believe what they profess. Their actions - lying, cheating, and dismantling democracy for ideology - contradict scriptural teachings about gaining heaven. American Christian nationalism opposes Jesus' teachings and threatens humanity's greatest system of government. Your discussion lends credible evidence exposing the hypocrisy of those claiming religious beliefs they don't uphold. I aspire to communicate these ideas as concisely as you have.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

Watching the current debate in America, I would imagine it's difficult to find someone to have an even tempered discussion like this with. It's probably just the internet highlighting extremes and bringing out our worst qualities when we are anonymous, but it feels like most people have staked out a position now, and will defend it, even when parts of it become ridiculous.

[@davidcattin7006]

Yes. Social proof is strong as well, and is why, especially in small conservative towns, people all go to church. I would be willing to bet that half of them don't really believe. They go because it's the thing to do. To not go would make you different, and different is unacceptable.

[@john-doe842]

May I ask why you left Christianity my friend? Were you raised in a Christian family? When you were a ”Christian” did you actually have a personal relationship with Jesus?

[@wet-read]

Indeed. Project 2025 cannot be allowed to be implemented.

[@Shawn-nq7du]

Try the real deal - Catholicism. Mormonism is a new 19th century religion.

[@MaxWithTheSax]

Props on the production quality and editing. Looks great.

[@Berliozboy]

That's one of my issues with the "Act as if you do" type of advice. It reminds me of critics that tear down problematic art with the sentiment "It has dangerous ideas! Well, I can read them and I'm not susceptible to them, but the masses, and think of the children! They are susceptible!" Maybe built into the critical impetus is being way to willing to sell people short.

[@hellomate639]

I believe in God and I sort of take issue with Peterson framing it this way as well. It's a very noncommittal thing, perhaps. There's a related problem with the question "does God exist?" however. If God is the originator of everything, then God is the originator of origination, time, logic, paradoxes, etc. Likewise, that also makes God the originator of the concept of nothingness and the concept of reality. I've lately taken to referring to God as a sort of hyper-reality in that sense. It might seem wild, but that's ontology for you. It also means that by definition, God as a concept falls out of simple propositional logic or empirical analysis. The empiricist who lives in a perfect matrix will never know that they live in a perfect matrix.

[@heinrich.hitzinger]

​@@hellomate639Would you choose the blue or the red pill? 💊🤔

[@hellomate639]

@@heinrich.hitzinger In this thought experiment, there is no red pill to free you. There is no evidence that you're in the matrix, whatsoever. The empiricist simply continues on in the matrix, declaring the idea that they're in the matrix to be ridiculous due to a lack of evidence.

[@danw5760]

I'm conflicted on it. Im close to a free speech absolutist, but I can't deny the truth that art and culture does influence the masses in a significant way, it's difficult to reconcile that truth with my ideal

[@Berliozboy]

@danw5760 i think it absolutely effects people. I take issue with the "it effects them, not me." The typical "censorship for thee and not for me" attitude.

[@CaveatDraco]

"You can't have free will unless big brother grants you it." - Ben Shabibo We have free will because we ironically, don't have a choice in it. We just do.

[@witsemxx7837]

One moment in my life (like 4 years ago) I was so aware of free will not existing, that I had out of body experiences. So I would be talking to some one and constantly be thinking that what I came up with to say and do was completely out of my control, this made my conscious part to be observing my acting self. When I stopped "over" thinking it went away, now I live in the moment and accept my feelings and other peoples feelings as the basis to live on, its nice!

[@sunflare8798]

You are so much younger than Peterson, and so much better... Way more articolate, precise and knowledgeable, truly impressive. Keep getting better Alex, we need young people like you

[@BruceWayne-ri4wr]

I will go and tell you right now that within 5 years the cosmic skeptic here will be a bible-believing Christian he'll be a Catholic like me but I just about guarantee you you can tell he's heading in that direction he doesn't really believe atheism I don't know how anybody can be an atheist if you really start to sit and think about it there's no way that atheism is true it's clear that God exists you can argue about how he interacts in our life from now to the cows come home but he clearly exists I don't know how anybody could see otherwise

[@mjh277]

Articolate 😂 ironic. Alex isn’t better than Peterson. They’re just very different and fulfil different needs

[@hellomate639]

Peterson is the tip of the iceberg for what's coming. He's merely a harbinger.

[@stefus97]

​@@mjh277nah, he s pretty much better than Peterson, which in itself isnt saying much..

[@Bengal9063]

​@michaelhart1072 very true, Peterson speaks for those who think talking blabbering crap makes for a good argument.

[@monkeydonk3925]

Petitioning for Alex to have a conversation with Forrest valkai. I think that would be a phenomenal discussion

[@Bigstank7420]

Forrest is political hack everything he says is exactly what the woke liberal party want him to say.. he doesn’t have a signal opinion that differs wich is not interesting to me at all

[@DionysusBrew]

Two of the best!

[@MattCrawley_Music]

I'm not sure, I can't imagine there being much chemistry.

[@theothercheek777]

what would they disagree on? qualia, maybe? the realness of one's own experience of, say, the color red? regardless, I would watch it. two very investigate, skeptical minds would be a good time!

[@Bigstank7420]

Forrest is a woke political hack with no original opinions he would offer nothing to the conversation

[@modernorpheus]

"Act as if God exists." Okay. *Slaughters entire cities*

[@HungryWarden]

Technically speaking that is a moral action as God only commits moral actions and he did do that.

[@pauls7803]

​@@HungryWardenor an immoral action as God only commits immoral actions?

[@HungryWarden]

@@pauls7803 I guess it could go either way. But I know one thing and that is that even if the Christian God does exist I don’t think anyone should worship that monster.

[@pauls7803]

Very true

[@JoshCarpio1011]

​@HungryWarden is it slavery or the book of samuel? I want to understand your pov on why you don't like God

[@JasonPSchafer]

As a Christian, I appreciate this discussion. This is the problem I feel is an issue. Many Christians don't have to experience martyrdom, and we also refuse to work past our experience intellectually and spiritually. Many of us need a reason to get up in the morning, and so religion is important, but at the same time we wouldn't do the right thing even with those beliefs. It's awful. We need to be honest with ourselves with our comfort in modern society and not just keep parroting the same 20 arguments on the internet. We have a responsibility to offer something more than just absurdism and nihilism for people who do not have the minds built to handle such an existentially painful self dependent hopelessness.

[@joeroganjosh9333]

A reason to get out of bed in the morning….the vast majority of people anywhere get out of bed to go and earn money. Otherwise they’re on the street and starving. The gods aren’t giving anyone their daily bread.

[@JasonPSchafer]

@@joeroganjosh9333 Being religious isn't about turning a blind eye to the suffering of an imperfect world. But I think you already know that. So I'm not sure what you think your comment is supposed to add to the discussion, it's really the kind of comment I've seen play out 300 times in these debates over Facebook and KZbin and it's not productive. Of course people have a near term instinctive drive to survive from immediate threats, but that doesn't address the issue of their mental health in society at all. If your life is totally driven towards what Kierkegaard would call the Aesthetic life or Moral life, you eventually run into a problem of apathy or existentialism. Either the people stop caring because they realize nothing matters. Or they panic because they want things to matter but everyone around them are saying they are a fool for even daring to possibly try to make the "leap of faith". Yeah, I agree, the world is ugly as hell, I'm as cynical and Nihilistic as they come naturally, but if I don't have a present hope for the future and today. I might as well not get up in the morning and do anything, so it's better that I keep believing my "tomfoolery" as others would call it, as silly of an argument as it sounds. I couldn't be bothered to eat, sleep, or earn money if life doesn't have a reason to exist, is my entire point. Someone's always going to have it worse than me, I am painfully aware of that. You're not the first, nor the last person to point out this problem. Everything including money and the food I eat can be deconstructed. We all just choose to deconstruct things to various levels in our lives due to the usefulness of it for our own contexts.

[@stealthh4zz4rd74]

"Many of us need a reason to get up in the morning, and so religion is important" WTF, that sounds like it doesn't matter, if you chose between hinduism, buddhism, islam or anything else!? I'm NOT a christian because it helps me "be a better person", I believe in Jesus because he is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE.

[@JasonPSchafer]

@@stealthh4zz4rd74 you're putting a conclusion in my mouth. I'm having a discussion with other people who will not necessarily agree with us, so screaming things over and over like the paramount truths we believe don't really get us anywhere in a conversation. Of course the reason I believe in Jesus is because I actually believe he Resurrected, and that he is our only source of salvation. That he Reigns in heaven at the right hand of the Father as our source of hope in the present age. That is my point of why Christianity gives me hope. It's the only truth I know. But I don't go screaming this to people, because that isn't a productive way to converse the Good News in a world oversaturated with information. I tell it to people thoughtfully and discuss it and then surrender to God and let him do the mending of hearts. We are just the news tellers. I'm not a Universalist, but for me to just up and ignore other people have chosen different truths for various reasons and not ask "why did they do so?" Is intellectually dishonest.

[@bobsurface908]

@@stealthh4zz4rd74 I see what you did there. The problem is All the other books say literally the same things, for the same reason: "Allah/Vishnu/right living/Quezelcoatl is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - if you offend/refuse to follow (x), you'll suffer (y)." Or in other words: What if you're following the wrong sub-set of Christianity, and you should be living communally with no goods, or should be believing the Body and Blood of Christ is rather than just a celebration - or vice versa, or that Confession is the only way to be forgiven - or that it's a papist charlatanry, and you should be praying for forgiveness alone like Jesus said? What if it turns out "deeds" are actually the route to salvation instead of "faith", and if you believe but do not act, you're not treating your brothers like you want to be treated...or the other way around, and that your "faith" will drive you to carry out "deeds"...but if your deeds are seen and you're praised for them, they become valueless because God sees what is in your heart and public recognition negates it? And on and on and on. Just

[@theothercheek777]

self deception is never the best alternative

[@360.Tapestry]

the layers of self-deception must be so deep if you think that's even a possibility

[@jaughnekow]

It's a mode of defense

[@TheYahmez]

Vedic Maya; Subjectivity is ~"Illusory"~ For many (if not all) 'The Self' is contingent upon Self Deception. Our ordinary modes of being are interdependent with pretense. God, the sanctity of human life & rights to things such as property ownership & self determination are about as real as money.

[@UnstoppableFloridaMan]

Yet if you take your truth what do you get. Utter meaningless and nihilism. If you truly believe that to be the way things are do not want to delude yourself with life why live it at all? You see how dangerous and depressing this way of thinking is?

[@jaughnekow]

@@UnstoppableFloridaMan you lose either way?

[@MadMathMike]

5:15 I believe them too, Alex, but another reason to consider might be growing *discomfort*, particularly due to a lack of economic security. It is certainly easier to be generous (or not selfish) when your needs are well met. Of course, we don't have a previous poll by Mr. Beast asking this question, so I suppose we can't really say if things have changed at all. 🤔

[@360.Tapestry]

the other day i mentioned something along the lines of: wow, these comments seem to present this opinion. five guys in a row jumped on and tried to put me down for taking youtube comments seriously - and yet none of them, not even one, had anything substantial to say.... it didn't make me feel bad for me, it made me feel bad for them🤷‍♂

[@ghoulish6125]

There are very few places on the internet, let alone a comment section, where intellectual and honest conversation take place. You’re essentially exposed to the wasteland of human populations where Critical thinking skills, reading comprehension or desire to learn might be an absolute 0 at times

[@MultiMustafa7]

Since I have nothing of substance to say, I might as well look for something to compliment. Let's see here.... Nice profile picture!. Is that a Chinese Dragon?

[@troyzieman7177]

Of all the challenges we face as a species. I can see a potential pathway to overcome them , except one . The internet . Theoretically, having broad access to unlimited information and access to other people, literally anywhere on the planet . Should of lead to more social cohesion. We forgot that critical thinking is something we have to work at . It is not one of our naturally evolved skill sets.

[@ghoulish6125]

@@troyzieman7177 well broadly speaking, as we have age restrictions for a lot of activities and other possible, tangible freedoms (think drinking, smoking, etc) certain websites simply have to be gatekept from minorities. At large, the internet is simply one of those age defining tools that launches our species forward, children need it, we need it. What children don’t need are the absurd videos aimed at them, social medias that cripple teens, so forth and onwards (there are several examples to list, I’m sure you can fill in the gaps). This will never happen because it will hurt some rich monopolies and their bottom lines, as we are a society of profit over people, almost anywhere you look. It would be beneficial for mankind to tailor the internet in certain ways that are more tooled towards societal benefit, but I fear would deem that as some sort of freedom killing, commie talk.

[@troyzieman7177]

@ghoulish6125 the problem with regulating the internet is their will never be a human being qualified to do it . Similar to censoring anything like speech for example . The internet can be a tremendously beneficial tool and for me what it requires is a complete retooling of the educational system . From kindergarten to university there should be required training in critical thinking , and skepticism. We need to teach people how to think not what too think . If people could for the most part, rationally sift through volumes of information and control their individual biases . Then the internet could be a mostly upside tool . The problem is people gravitate too their bias. The internet allows you to confirm every opinion and whim you have . Then you are open to believing anything

[@tychostation2423]

Oh wow. I come from a creationist household. At least while growing up. Alex is a wonderful human being. Glad to see him and Chris having a chat!!

[@clarklawlor419]

People often conclude that "no free will" means that nothing they do matters, therefore they shouldn't put any effort into directing their own life. But the conclusion should be that we should be more empathetic about others' decisions and situations, and we should program society (and our own lives) in order to influence our internal algorithms to make better decisions, rather than relying on the old tools of retribution for crimes and sheer "will power" for motivation. Perhaps we need to frame the "no free will" argument differently in order to influence a better reaction to it.

[@thelordz33]

The fact that there is no discernable difference between a world in which free will exists and one where it doesn't should be all that is needed to be said. What difference does it make if free will exists or not?

[@clarklawlor419]

@@thelordz33 I mean, true, whether it exists or not shouldn't make any difference. But if the way we *talk or think* about it effects how we act in a negative way (i.e. causes us to disengage from life or feel a loss of control) then maybe there are better ways to discuss or think about it. Most discussions I hear about it tend to devolve into semantics, and leave people wondering "what now?" The truth is that our minds do process information and make decisions. We are biological machines that process inputs and react according to our biological algorithms. The fact that we are aware of this process as it happens gives us a sense of control. We could argue that this sense of control is part of the programming of our minds, and we shouldn't reject that "sense of control," because doing so would disrupt the algorithm. The fact that we have no "control" over this programming at a deeper level shouldn't impact whether we engage the program.

[@zs9652]

The concept of free will seems useless with how they set it up. If I can make decisions with my own physical abilities without an outside entity rewriting my decisions, then I have free will. Basically if I am not mind controlled, blackmailed, or threatened then I have free will.

[@Orca_mammal]

The truth in this case seems to be somewhere in the middle. Everything cannot be deterministic, as individual personalities seem to have an effect. But absolute free will cannot exist either as every single one of our choices are affected by factors outside our control. If you take the decision of quitting smoking, is it truly yours decision despite the fact that other people told you that smoking is bad? But if some other person doesn't quit smoking despite the same circumstances. Can it really be considered deterministic? The middleground makes the most sense.

[@Муня-ж7з]

As a person who has studied physics and metaphysics i have a strong reason to believe free will fundamentally exists, but it's pointless in a world where we still have to pay taxes, not even to mention more serious stuff.

[@InigoMontoya-]

When I had my brain tumor removed, I didn't look to have it replaced with something else.

[@nicholasjohnson4402]

Clever. But it's not apples to apples.

[@jackcleary1879]

You might seek serotonin elsewhere if the brain tumour removal caused you to go into a severe depression

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

people will have a religion-shaped hole in their mind after leaving religion, rather than realizing that the hole was never there

[@jaijaiwanted]

@@nicholasjohnson4402we’ll see. The analogy could be very accurate.

[@XRamenmaX]

​@@opensocietyenjoyerwhen I left my religion, I did not have a religion shaped hole afterwards, I had a community-shaped hole, and in most parts of the world Churches have built a good strong community. Causation does not equal correlation.

[@brianmoren3780]

Funny how most pretend we don't ''act as if'' all the time. We do. All the time.

[@KoopstaKlicca]

Perhaps too anecdotal but a good example of this is dealing with depression with my therapist. I had a pretty unshakeable idea that things can't get better and that I'm doomed to depression but my doctor simply asked that I would "act as if depression is changeable" and I'm doing a lot better now with time and effort. When it comes to application of ideas and theories to life, sometimes it's every needed or helpful to act as if the principle is true to get everything that hinges on that principle moving, and only then do we have access to the validity of the principle

[@NoFeckingNamesLeft]

@@KoopstaKlicca you’re right and I think anyone who’s overcome serious mental turbulence knows and is grateful for how malleable and “programmable” beliefs actually are. We’re just not rational creatures at all and our brains are highly exploitable even to itself. I don’t know Alex at all so I could easily be very wrong, but he strikes me as someone who hasn’t gone through this particular flavor of introspection yet.

[@KoopstaKlicca]

@@NoFeckingNamesLeft I do think there is a place for rationality, but yeah despite Alex not being a theist, I think he is still submitting to this idea of an "external rationality" that humans just happen to have the ability to access, rather than just another part of the brain that can be swayed like any other.

[@jamesdean5095]

@@KoopstaKlicca In my view rationality is like logic; it's a rigid system of rules that is self-evident in its robustness. Usually what's actually disagreed upon is axioms - what do we agree on as the base of where we build that logic from. The problem with that is there's nothing to debate about - we just fundamentally disagree. I'm currently watching another long debate Alex has had with Sam Harris, and my constant thought the whole way has been: you disagree on axioms. They cannot be debated because they are fundamental beliefs. You just disagree, and that's it.

[@bike4aday]

@@jamesdean5095 That's a good point. And without recognizing that the disagreement is fundamental, it leads to endless circles of trying to prove the axioms with the model to convince the other which simply cannot happen because as soon as the model questions it's own axioms it invalidates itself.

[@bennettfloyd2715]

We cannot choose what we do or do not believe. What we CAN choose is the degree to which we’re willing to scrutinize or investigate our beliefs. But we cannot choose our beliefs in and of themselves. Edit: Some people commenting on this thread have aptly pointed out that I misspoke when I said, "What we CAN choose is the degree to which we’re willing to scrutinize or investigate our beliefs," implying that we can choose how "willing" we are to scrutinize our beliefs, etc. What I SHOULD have said is something along the lines of, "What we CAN choose is how far we'll go to scrutinize or investigate our beliefs.'

[@farrider3339]

Straight to the point. I agree. Most people fail to realise

[@IanM-id8or]

@@farrider3339 Most THEISTs fail to realise that. The vast majority of atheists get it

[@David-dv2lb]

what's this based on? completely untrue.

[@mandatory055]

If we cannot choose what we believe, how can we choose our attitudes towards how far we investigate our beliefs?

[@princeicykeybord]

@@mandatory055the way you relieve yourself of bias is by seeking understanding of the other side. You can’t choose your biases but you can choose how you go about them. This doesn’t always change biases or beliefs, rather allows the possibility of understanding.

[@ryleeejay3829]

I often don’t understand all the language in the videos, but they’re fun and interesting to listen to

[@gr42eg]

Wonderful dialogue. The exchange on the literally true and figuratively false (and its inverse) can be a useful heuristic for investigating for interrogating the growing number of ethical choice that modern science is bringing forward.

[@zachr755]

Incredible, Alex! One of the most intellectual clips on KZbin, and the whole podcast episode is phenomenal as well!

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

So well put. The only part of my experience that has changed by knowing there is no such thing as free will is how harshly I hold people to account for their actions *in reflection* The stories my brain generates when reflecting have been fundamentally altered by this knowledge and I think that's about it.

[@mindlander]

Think there is a difference between us and a rock? Will wise..

[@tgrogan6049]

I got out of bed for 40 years and went to work and I never thought about "god"!

[@stetonwalters574]

I've gotten out of Bed And went to work for the last 33 years.And never thought about the fact that my body is made up of 7*10 Billion Adam's. But yet here I am.

[@LURSMAND]

kinda sad tbh

[@fireside9503]

Ignorance is bliss

[@360.Tapestry]

is that supposed to sound impressive?

[@Arbitrary_Moniker]

@@LURSMAND Why?

[@wonderpeter5231]

Alex, first off: you're one of my favourite KZbinrs. One of the things I've really heard you ponder about in the last couple of years is the apparant impossibility of 'deciding to believe' something without proof. Perhaps you already knew this, but I wanted to share my perspective with you. I believe in God. Am I rationally convinced that he's out there? No. I am very honest a out that. But I say I believe however, because in this case, believing (for me) means really wanting, hoping and trusting that he's there. I've been in bad places, mentally throughout my life. For me at some point, my skeptical side has lost the battle against my emotional side. Just on the religious front, I seem to say to myself: "Sure. I'll allow myself to believe in this without evidence", because rationally I seem to understand that I need it. Again; perhaps you've already heard perspectives like this, but perhaps it opens up a new idea of how a person can in some way 'decide to believe' something without proof.

[@nathanmaxey2966]

Ah yes, belief in belief.

[@futureboy7653]

A great example of how our greatest difficulty remains properly taking criticism. The whole "critic" vs "proposer" paradigm, while interesting for abstract discussion an about civilization's trends and periods of greater criticism vs proposing, doesn't really match reality. Everyone is able to do both, to varying degrees at various times. We are all examples of Alain de Botton's "Wild Hope-filled Optimist", critiquing what we see as sub-optimal in our hopes of reaching the more optimal, and proposing new ideas when we have them and think they're good. There will always be things we can improve, and therefore always a need for successfully processing valid criticism.

[@joeyrufo]

0:13 Karl Marx also said that the point of philosophy is not merely to understand the world, but to change it!

[@joeyrufo]

Alex is actually sorta right, though! You can't solely follow Karl Marx! Marxism isn't complete without natural religion! Marx might not have known this, but we have better technology now! :P

[@samueloak1600]

​@@joeyrufowhat

[@williammcfarlane6153]

It's not that they've gotten too comfortable but more of a philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind"... Very few people will say that they wholeheartedly support child labor, but many are not willing to give up benefits that they receive from child labor... 😬

[@360.Tapestry]

have you ever read "the ones who walk away from omelas"? it's a short read

[@chaotickreg7024]

​@@360.TapestryHave you been watching Big Joel. He's a big Joel.

[@BioChemistryWizard]

Alex thinks in the reverse way of how you cure depression. "You believe something and then action follows through". No Alex in depression, getting the boulder moving through faith is the beginning of getting better, not just believing the depression away. And its just as true in Christianity.

[@joannware6228]

"Faith is the key that puts every other truth into its proper place. Triumphs become opportunities for gratitude instead of pride. Tragedies become opportunities for growth instead of despair. Life just makes more sense and our faith in God gives us joy even when we face what can feel like insurmountable trials." -Matt Fradd, p.96

[@jasonm7684]

PEople only feel pride for their triumphs because they incorrectly assume that their triumphs are a direct outcome of their free will and independent agency. The truth is that we dont have neither free will nor unlimited agency. Pride is fundamentally based in a lack of understanding about human activity and more precisely their origins. You dont need to have faith in a god to humble your self by recognizing that nothing you do is independent and isolated from your experience.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

I think we should let the theists in our lives remind us to regard other people in our lives as having a value that can not be materialistically and pragmatically mathematized, and we should let the atheists remind us that we don't need fear of eternal punishment or hope of reward to treat people that way.

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

That's cool and all if you don't care about finding out what's actually fundamentally true

[@ZhangK71]

Human beings are always going to be irrational to some extent-even atheists. They are going to be just as likely to like and value and feel compassion (or hate and feel bloodlust) towards some people without a ready-made “mathematical” reason internally or even one that can be later mathematized in a “computational-psychology” PhD’s office. Alternatively, you could also argue that treating people well-at least according to the Abrahamic model-is an implicitly mathematical assessment. The reward for doing so is positive infinity while the punishment for not doing so is negative infinity. And then the claim is that each individual act of grace and sin is added up, which means each of them is positive or negative infinity divided by whatever number of total such acts in life… and we know infinity divided by whatever number is still infinity.

[@dylanboczar999]

I agree, but also, I was not raised religious in any way shape or form, am a pretty rigorous empiricist, etc, and yet still have a deep-seated core feeling that other people have a sort of sacred value. I really don't think you *need* religion to feel that.

[@ShmoeBoe]

​@@dylanboczar999 Why do you think people have sacred value? It just sounds you're religious with a thick facade of empiricism.

[@Alkeeros]

@@ShmoeBoe it's called "empathy." I seem to be an accident of the universe (I see no compelling evidence of a mind behind creation), but I still feel pain and pleasure, and can think. Other people are also capable of thought, pain, pleasure. So I should not act in a way that causes pain, if I can help it. And I have to trust others generally feel the same way. Nothing supernatural required. Imagine if people claimed you needed to be religious to enjoy tasting food. So when someone says "I can't articulate why I like the taste of cherries rather than blueberries, but I do!" someone said "but why do you prefer one taste? Surely you're just religious and afraid to admit it."

[@momchi98]

9:20 is my favorite part. I've seen how the more I try to be objective the less I like life. It's bleak, it's dull, it's uncaring. This is not reality's problem, but my human brain's problem. The brain on average just does not like objective reality, only as long as it's useful and/or makes us feel good or makes our lives better. The moment a grim reality comes around my brain wants to have children less and less. So far that eventually I became an antinatalist, I truly don't want and never will (hopefully I don't succumb to stupid emotions), because I know how painful life can be and how many people, including me like to escape it to actually get to enjoy it. This doesn't mean all of reality sucks obviously, just like nature is cruel and unforgiving it can be beautiful and calming. Just going for a walk in a forest, walking through old wooden bridges through small rivers makes life more majestic. All I am saying is on the whole the more I think about existence the less I value it. I can't know what I will do in reality, but if the news told me in a week a giant meter will wipe out all or almost all of humanity I won't truly grieve or be sad. I am not invested in life anymore as I once was. I will talk to my family, tell them how much they mean to me and try to calm them down because I know they will take it much worse.

[@strider_hiryu850]

yes the confronting of the nature of reality can very quickly embitter the heart. this is the dilemma. blue pill, or red pill. do you continue to live in happy lies, ignoring the depressing reality. or do you take it head on. either crumbling under its weight, or rising above. >"just like nature is cruel and unforgiving it can be beautiful and calming" it's simultaneously a horror flick, and a romance drama. the duality of man is a mere reflection of the duality of nature. >" I am not invested in life anymore as I once was. I will talk to my family, tell them how much they mean to me and try to calm them down because I know they will take it much worse." oh no. don't tell me you're legitimately considering committing, what the Japanese call Harakiri. please seek help, call a help line, listen to your family when they tell you not to. please

[@ewfvds8036]

What do you mean when you say it's bleak and dull? I mean, compared to what? If you know what something is to be dull then you certainly know what it is when things are not, or else you have nothing to differentiate it with. I hate when people say such things. Like, "Things are meaningless." Oh, you mean when they don't currently hit the mark whereby you would experience something to be meaningful? Things can't be inherently meaningless when you're body is already programmed to know what it is for things to be meaningful. Everywhere people are always whining about not caring about anything anymore. It's almost gotten to the point where it borders on evil: meaning people no longer care about the world ending. With SO MUCH history, knowledge, developments in art, in music, in morals; people who've put their lives in wars - for their countries or to protect their values. DULL!? l Try new experiences, go outside, learn a new language, read Shakespeare, learn an instrument, defy anxieties, stop using social media, stop using porn; or better yet, go and find a rock about half your weight, carry it for as long as you can, and when you can no longer, place it somewhere higher than where you picked it up: All this bullshit about not being to enjoy the one and only thing you've ever participated in, I mean It's the most single dullest thing I hear about.

[@brianmoren3780]

​@@ewfvds8036The way you dismiss these very real depressive feelings is also dull.

[@billpetersen298]

Yes, there was a clip of a child in absolute terror. Saying, this is the end, over are over again. From during the eclipse. A reminder, of how primal we can be, and were. There has to be a god. Because it’s just too much for us.

[@j8000]

​@@billpetersen298i mean, so what? Being afraid during an eclipse isn't the sum total of life. It's certainly not proof of the divine. That child will also play and run and laugh so much it hurts. Sure, bad things happen, but and this is crucial, good things happen too.

[@cannibalgrape9863]

There is an argument that a society needs three types of peoples; creators, preservers, and destroyers. The critic is the destroyer and are a necessary thing in a society, for they clear room for the creator to create.

[@jackkrell4238]

Well said, buddy. Also, Alex seemed to insinuate that a critic and a creator are fundamentally distinct, but if A and B are the only options and A is destroyed, than B must be the only option left( Obviously things aren't quite as binary as this example.)

[@DarkMatter2525]

Does that come from the Hindu gods Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer)?

[@cannibalgrape9863]

@@DarkMatter2525 That's just one culture that embraced the idea and included it in their religion. European pagan renewal cycle myths were also similar.

[@ttte123]

This is interesting because the Gods of Hinduism represent these traits. Brahma is the creator, Vishnu the Sustainer and Shiva the destroyer.

[@360.Tapestry]

even by refusing to play by the rules of the matrix, we're all just serving the matrix

[@jmerton8362]

There are those that curse the darkness and those that turn on lights.

[@Sulla5279]

I don’t see the problem as a lack of proposition makers and an abundance of critics. What I see is an abundance of those who make propositions and then feel entitled to the agreement of others even when those propositions fail to stand up against the mildest scrutiny.

[@domepuncher]

If I am ever asked if I think God exists, I tell them "I've actually never thought about that before". Bewilderment on their faces is priceless.

[@luckyboy9339]

And you know that is a lie.

[@zimpoooooo]

Which God, is also a good answer.

[@El_Paracleto]

@@zimpoooooo why, does that help muddy the waters, lol...

[@domepuncher]

@@zimpoooooo Nah, I'm not trying to be a reddit atheist type lmao. The whole point of mine is that it's funny - never having thought about the supernatural is a much more ridiculous thing to claim.

[@zimpoooooo]

​@@domepuncher It's just a sensible question. Anyone asking that question will always be thinking of their own very specific god.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

It’s very frustrating that the actual reality of atheism is not as much up for debate as people’s fears about its implications. And how the fact that that’s what they’re so concerned about isn’t itself considered an argument for the position that religions play on fear.

[@1overpar]

Religion purports to offer a personal relationship with all the things we don't understand... But in fact, religion offers a story that allows people to compartmentalize all the things they don't understand, and gives them a script to follow in place of developing a perspective on their place in the universe. Atheism doesn't supply a replacement for the story or the script... When faced with the realization that the story and the script are just that, it's up to the individual to figure out what that means to them. Religion offers "utility" in protecting people from the existential crisis of consciousness, and also in encouraging its adherents to follow a uniform code of belief and behavior. It's not surprising that some people prefer the story to the uncertainty... But the uncertainty is the reality of the human perspective, and no one can answer the subsequent questions for another person. If we want to be honest with one another, each of us has to look into that abyss and figure out how to come to terms with it in a way that makes their life meaningful. I absolutely support someone who chooses to follow a religion because that's what they find to be rewarding... And if that marked the boundary of religion's impact on our society, I doubt that many people would take issue with it. But we know that isn't the boundary...

[@JohnVandivier]

Keep growing Alex. Watch this clip yourself a few more times and see the sand you stand on. “I don’t knows” and “maybes” and false contrasts abound.

[@frogimmortal]

So many things I wish I could add to this conversation. With regard to belief in God and the role of religion I would say the Bchillies heel of western religion is the primary emphasis placed on belief, where as most other traditions throughout the world emphasize community and ritual and strongly deemphasize conceptual certainty about the metaphysics involved.

[@rodolfocamilo4325]

The secular literature of authors such as Sagan, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens highlights numerous ways to address the loss of spirituality or belief in God. They suggest that music, poetry, literature, sports, hobbies, nature, philosophy, and stoicism can all provide meaning and fulfillment. Contrary to the pessimistic notion often perpetuated by Christians that atheism offers nothing, these thinkers offered us alternatives for finding purpose and meaning in a secular life. This misconception is so pervasive that I fear even Alex has come to believe it.

[@cypress_piper]

"At dawn, when you have trouble getting out of bed, tell yourself: “I have to go to work - as a human being. What do I have to complain of, if I’m going to do what I was born for - the things I was brought into the world to do? Or is this what I was created for? To huddle under the blankets and stay warm?” "So you were born to feel “nice”? Instead of doing things and experiencing them? Don’t you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And you’re not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren’t you running to do what your nature demands?" "You don’t love yourself enough. Or you’d love your nature too, and what it demands of you."

[@NoFeckingNamesLeft]

oh hi Marc

[@loomismeister]

@5:00 Why are we assuming that people 1000 years ago wouldn't push the same button for the equivalent of $1M? I'm pretty sure peasants would be slamming that button for castles all day long, regardless of how devout the populations are.

[@MichaelDeHaven]

We're better at remembering negative things than positive things. We then often improperly generalize based on that. It's a useful survival strategy. But it definitely has its downside in a modern, especially social media, world.

[@scrapanimation3813]

I think they were specifically refering to people already pretty rich, wanting to press the button. Iam not that sure though

[@willmosse3684]

Yeah. Medieval Europe at least was a rough place, with violent death rates significantly higher than they are now. I see no reason at all to think that medieval people would press that button any less than modern people.

[@martifingers]

I see what you mean of course but perhaps this is more about what sort of morality is being practised ie maybe the same would be true 1000 years ago but maybe the peasants would not claim to be acting morally or perhaps might change their choice when reminded of the eternal punishment that might result. Is that true today?

[@havenbastion]

The thing about eliminating bullshit is that you don't need anything to take its place. The truth is already there.

[@andrewg.carvill4596]

The two guys opened their discussion on the topic of the limitations of criticism - namely that finding truth requires more than more than 'eliminating bullshit'. As Alex put it "Simon Cowell can't write a song".

[@shadowcolossus8045]

This does remind of conversations Ive almost had with myself growing up realizing that I dont believe in a God, but I believe in the values of Christianity and can identify that its good for most people to have something to believe in where i dont feel the need to correct them from my perspective

[@BigHeretic]

The solution proposed is to make decisions based in reality... come on!

[@stephendevore]

That wouldn't be heresy.

[@uninspired3583]

I'd push the button. But I also would have when I believed in God too. Belief doesn't have a causal role in sociopathy.

[@nelson6702]

If you can have free will with God there's no logical barrier to having free will without.

[@channelname5938]

A problem I see with a lot of theist arguments is that they take basic philosophical “this can’t exist without this being true” arguments, but they take the “this being true” portion and give it personhood. “For there to be laws there has to be a lawmaker.” Okay… you’re essentially stating the laws have to come from… a place??? Okay. Why does it have to come from a conscious being?

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

@@channelname5938 "because it requires a personal creator!" But... WHY?

[@elizathegamer413]

i dont know if it's intentional, but the cutoff here is perfect. "act as if you do not have free will looks like this:" then the video stops. I think its a good point. the only way to act like we have no free will is to do nothing and make no decisions

[@theDanishMermaid]

Alex is brilliant ❤

[@rickwyant]

I'm sorry but the fact of existence is simply mind boggling. That's all the religion I need. The existence of the universe and my being aware of it, astonishing.

[@mindlander]

That's not religion. Fyi

[@danw5760]

You could just be a simulation so don't get too excited

[@EphemeralOnlooker]

There's been 4 thousand religions buddy. Don't act like yours is special.

[@mindlander]

@@danw5760 Im not. You could be..even God couldn't know if they're the ultimate being.

[@willyphallicus9958]

Best part is its a two way street.

[@MaxHarden]

I acted as if god existed in desperation to break free of alcoholism. But really what I did was “give my problems to my higher power”, aka “accept reality”. Stopped fighting and let the universe sort things out.

[@jaybee9269]

My higher power was “weather.”

[@user-soon300]

@@jaybee9269 what causes the weather

[@martijnnvermeulen7515]

speaking of this as a higher power would, I think prove the point that religious folks are making about people not really being able to live as consistent atheists. If we are meaningless blobs of matter, there is no hierarchy. Why would ''reality'' (whatever that means) or ''the universe'' be higher than me?

[@majestic-domination]

@@martijnnvermeulen7515 No one ever thought that

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@user-soon300 Why do you assume weather has a cause other than weather itself?

[@Rathe6]

Whether or not one has free will has to be anyone’s most fundamental belief. If we don’t, nothing said or done by anyone matters. It simply has no significance. If we do have free will, then all the conversations that follow can happen.

[@avatarmufasa3628]

Even in a world with no free will, we are part of that chain and if it just so happens that we act in accodance to what makes us live fulfilled lives, then surely it wont matter that we werent "free", we got the result we wanted?

[@MrCmon113]

Free will is complete nonsense. What you say or do matters, because it has consequences. Just like your actions have effects, they are themselves caused by prior circumstances.

[@Rathe6]

@@avatarmufasa3628 If you don’t have free will, you don’t really exist. The idea of “you” or “I” is just an illusion. Without free will we’re just biological computers fulfilling our programming.

[@Rathe6]

@@MrCmon113 and yet at some point today or tomorrow, you’ll feel someone ought to have done differently than they did. Even that they were wrong for not doing otherwise.

[@avatarmufasa3628]

@@Rathe6 And he can do that. Just as they didnt have any choice in their responce, he can just argue he doesnt have any choice with his and consequently takes action to make sure the future leads to events in line with his goals, i guess making that future occur

[@TheGamingRabbitHole]

You are playing a dangerous game Alex

[@Void100-v3x]

What game is he playing?

[@jeffreyrediel]

once you’ve had a near death experience, all this “is God real?” argument flies out the window. I have

[@CrappyGamerHere]

Not everyone who dies and is brought back to life has a NDE and not all NDE are the same. Some people don’t become religious afterwards. Also there’s nothing that’s demonstrable about them. It can all be explained by brain activity, so how are you to convince ppl given humans tendencies towards superstition anyways.

[@joannware6228]

Daily Verse "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust." - Matthew 5:44-45

[@Theactivepsychos]

It’s not for atheists to give people answers it for people to find them. It’s all their in music, art, literature and now in film and TV.

[@Y0UT0PIA]

Hhhm... today I will "act as if" I'm watching this video and commenting on it... delightfully devilish

[@ketongu]

what would God say if I arrived at the pearly gates and said, "But Lord, I acted as if you existed!" straight to the lake of lost souls

[@BlackWolf-uk2yb]

"You don't act as though you don't have Free Will" - yeah, what a crazy thing to say!

[@MrManlify]

Dude, I'm a Muslim and I have been really appreciating your's and Genetically Modified Skeptics views!

[@zhizn_snake]

When I dropped my religion, I felt it right to naturally trust in science instead. 🤷‍♂ Been working fine for me. And no I don't see science as the same as religion nor follow it like a religion. But all science isn't cold facts and numbers, there's also the science of the mind - studying psychology for instance. Just because we don't believe in a "soul/spirit" doesn't mean we don't believe in things like "feelings" anymore or the concept of the "self", we just know it's something of the mind and not in literally "the soul" or " the heart". We can have stories and ideas about good/bad, right/wrong without believing in mythology or dogma. We can even create and take part in social rituals or traditions without having to believe in myths (look at birthdays, Halloween, New Years Day, eclipses even). Why the need to believe that a god is watching you to judge your actions? Why isn't your own conscience and principles, even a sense of duty to your loved ones and society, enough to live up to that you need a god to fear instead? Many religions also argue that "god" is all around is and in everything, just take that literally... the idea that we should literally treat each other and nature as if "god" is present in them actually seems beyond the actions I've seen from most religious people. Hell, just replace "god" with "stardust" and you're actually being factually correct. Stardust may have, in part, created everything, but it's not omnipotent and omniscient, it's even better because rather than it being something beyond our realm of understanding, it's actually easier to understand and relate to as we are all made of the same thing, so rather than "fear" it like a "god" we should respect it and see it as part of ourselves.

[@jordandthornburg]

Why would a sense of duty be something real and not also a delusion if atheism is true? It seems like it is. It is consistent with theism to think you have moral duties to your fellow man that you "ought" to fulfill and if you dont, you are wrong. I dont think that is consistent with atheism.

[@newme1589]

Your first phrase shows you behave to science, like a religion, do not do that ! "Dont trust science", question everything, read the studies, see how they are done, focus on your personal experience, dont take it as truth because "science says so"

[@seanmcmahon9217]

“Living without God is not that easy. And I feel the appeal of religion in that sense.” Steven Weinberg

[@seanmcmahon9217]

@matthewphilip1977 I would agree with both statements. Religion offers hope of eternal life, forgiveness, and cosmic meaning. Atheism offers no supernatural supervision, freedom, and no cosmic demands. Each has their positives and negatives.

[@njhoepner]

Hmm...I find it quite easy.

[@DMG380]

I am now breaking the fourth commandment and committing a mortal sin that is apparently worse than murder. I am working on Saturday. If God existed, I would be fucked.

[@njhoepner]

@@DMG380 On the other hand, if you went out and enslaved three girls to be your concubines, you'd be perfectly godly. It's interesting what is considered a horrible "sin" by this "god," and what isn't.

[@DMG380]

@matthewphilip1977 So is "You shall not kill." Does this mean that I can murder people without going to hell, because it's Old Testament? Not to mention that the "Observe the Sabbath" is the 4th commandment and and is clearly more important than the 6th.

[@spud8137]

It is obviously ridiculous to state there definitely is a god, and yet equally ridiculous to state there definitely is no god. Both positions are clearly untenable.

[@kappasphere]

The difference is that I've never actually heard the latter voiced out, without referring to which god it is that definitely doesn't exist. Because various god concepts range from tautological to logically/physically impossible, though the latter applies the most frequently when someone talks about a specific god concept

[@tobycokes1]

No one states the latter

[@davenchop]

master of the obvious

[@MultiMustafa7]

Well to be fair if there is a 'Big G' he likely would not be the Tri-Omni God.

[@λιμινιλ]

Incorrect. There is not 50/50 probability in all things. Is it possible that an ancient Chinese teapot is orbiting Pluto? It’s possible, but it’s not likely. With no stakes you can say “well it’s possible.” But if you were asked to make a bet for a million dollars, you’d put your money on the probability that there is no ancient teapot out there. What is the probability that Zeus exists? What about Poseidon? What about Thor? What about Molech? What about Ishtar? Would you bet a million dollars on their existence? No, you wouldn’t.

[@Sal1981]

The only way to defeat an idea is to come up with a better idea.

[@NickDrinksWater]

Some of the comments are telling me that they didn't even bother watching more than 5 seconds of the video

[@njhoepner]

I would say a few things: 1) Realizing that religion is a myth does not entail a responsibility to replace it. When I take out the trash I don't immediately take someone else's trash to replace it. 2) The need to "replace it" is merely falling for the evidence-free claim that we need religion, in particular that "you can't have morality without religion." Pure nonsense. Morality predates religion...and religion does not provide anything that could rationally be considered morality. We can do better, and in fact we repeatedly have. 3) The decline of religion may have something to do with the fact that we're better off and our lives are more stable - I fail to see how that is a bad thing. I'd like to see that spread to the entire world. I think the bottom line is that Bertrand Russell was right - if something is true we should believe it, and if it is not we shouldn't believe it. Pretending to believe something because it's supposedly socially useful a la Jordan Peterson (in reality, by "socially useful" he means "it reinforces the bigotries I want imposed on the world") is just living a lie. I can't see any sense in that.

[@ronaldbaginski]

Better off with the decline in religion, you must be joking. Secular society around the world aborts/kills 70 million babies a year. We are allowing children to mutilate their bodies permanently in the name of transgenderism. A person can change their gender on a daily basis. Look at sam Smith, he changes his gender pronouns on a regular basis. To believe that we are better off without God and moral absolutes is nothing short of myopic.

[@petersielski4591]

wow you are so very right and correct....i am with you in all you say

[@JamesR1986]

This isn't a conversation about morality (and I would agree with you that we do not need religion to form morality) it's about meaning, and comfort and community. It's about answering the most important question of all "how do you spend your limited time on this world." I am reminded of the end of the Matrix trilogy (where the Matrix itself is a direct metaphor for religion) where the normies are not all unplugged from the Matrix, rather they are given the choice to unplug themselves from the Matrix. Thank God for that. The world outside the Matrix is harsh, brutal, hostile, and miserable. It may be "the true world," or perhaps truer, but in all other ways life inside the Matrix is superior. And maybe in the long run the people outside the Matrix will build something even better then life inside the Matrix, but that project will take many lifespans and I won't fault anyone who would prefer spending their limited time in the Matrix, rather then working on a project who's ending they will never see, and who's goals are neither defined or agreed upon.

[@njhoepner]

@@JamesR1986 I won't deny that myths can be comforting, especially myths with a community of followers. If it were possible for all people, or a majority, to live in a myth without harming the rest, all well and good. I haven't seen any of the Matrix movies, but I gather that might be the case there. For us, though, the people embedded in their myths often do harm others specifically because of their myths. That being the case, I think the harsh truth would be better.

[@wchenful]

I agree with your premise but disagree with your conclusions. Let's assume that morality can exist without religion - that doesn't mean that the same morality can't be derived from religious beliefs. If religious stories are simply a fictional vessel used to teach morality, that would still have great utility. Maybe the best analogy here is to compare a religious person with a narcotics addict. When a hospital or clinic takes that addict into care and confiscates their drugs by force, they are taking on a duty of care. It is a fact that the addict will suffer from withdrawal - and the hospital has an obligation to provide a replacement - whether that be a regimented quitting program, medication or anything else that might help. And to be clear, I'm not talking about a gradual trend that the world is going through or your own personal beliefs. I'm talking more specifically about the leaders and philosophers who go out of their way to debunk religion.

[@someguyusa]

Alex should consider the Higgs boson or "god particle" as it was called. Scientists thought it should have one value or another within a certain LCH experiment, which would more or less prove or disprove the likelihood of a god entity. However, the results were a number almost exactly in between the two anticipated candidate values. So, if a more precise, tangible, demonstrable science in physics can be so close and yet so far away from the "true" answer to something, then it's perfectly reasonable that humans in our philosophies, religions, and spiritual beliefs can be so close and yet so far away. It wouldn't surprise me if so-called "free will" is similarly complex. And the gun being loaded is such a stupid analogy to make an argument over. It's literally a gun safety rule, not a case for how to live. It's essentially saying to not take an unnecessary risk and to avoid building bad habits in case you are mistaken or accidentally do have a loaded gun one day because it can kill someone, but Alex is basically just strawmanning that whole thing to build his case. It's rather disappointing to me because I like his ideas for the most part. He basically doesn't have an answer, but he is kind of shuffling the cups around to seem like he does. Basically acting just like the neoatheists he criticized.

[@DundG]

You should read why the higgs boson was called god particle. It has nothing todo about the existence of god. Just google it.

[@omp199]

I agree that Alex seemed to miss the point about gun safety. I'm not sure I get what you mean about the Higgs boson, though. Experiments aimed at finding evidence for the Higgs boson would tell you nothing about the existence or otherwise of "a god entity". The fact that silly journalists like referring to the Higgs boson as "the god particle" should not mislead you into thinking that it has anything to do with a deity. As for "free will", I have yet to be convinced that anyone discussing it has any coherent concept in mind to which to attach the term. What does it mean for will to be free? Free from what? Free from the laws of physics? The laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive. Scientists want to know what happens in the universe. In the hypothetical event that a person does something that seems to defy the laws of physics, all that would mean is that one or more of their supposed laws of physics was not actually a law in the first place.

[@jjkthebest]

I think I'm missing the point too then, because the gun analogy seemed to hold up in my eyes. You act as if the gun is always loaded when the bad outcome can only occur when it is loaded, but the moment the good outcome requires the gun to be loaded, you're gonna make sure to act in accordance with reality. If you relate the question in the title, you can act as if god exists when it is the safe thing to do, but when acting as if god exists requires you to make serious sacrifices, the person who doesn't believe in god isn't gonna do that.

[@someguyusa]

@omp199 I'm not saying the boson has to do with God. My point is that the value scientists discovered was almost exactly between their predictions. So if they can get it wrong and be baffled, so can philosophy thinkers. It doesn't mean he's right or that others are dumb. It means the topic is difficult and complex.

[@someguyusa]

@@jjkthebest I already explained myself. You can't apply a physical safety rule to a philosophical point like that. It's apples to oranges and is stupid to do so.

[@lrvogt1257]

If I say X doesn't exist... why on Earth should I provide a substitute for the things others built on that false idea? If people want a substitute for a religious community then organize a non-religious community of like-minded individuals based on other common interests. Education, healthcare, social justice. Why would that be my duty?

[@thomaspickin9376]

It's not your reponsibility, just because you made that statement, but the point is if we're creating a culture where everyone is just 'a critic' and there's no solutions from anyone then we're not really moving forward. We'll either end up going backwards or just stay where we are. Yes it's easier to point out flaws, but coming up with solutions is what is needed and we need to encourage that from more people rather than just negativity.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@thomaspickin9376 : I agree with that principle but I'm questioning how that works in practice. There is "being a critic" and simply pointing out that something is objectively false. I don;t think they are equal. Must I provide an alternative to there being no trolls?

[@kappasphere]

Even if X doesn't exist, the idea of it still could have been useful for something, so if you remove it, there might be some previously fulfilled need that now has nothing left to grant it. An example would be how germ theory replaced miasma theory (the idea that sickness is caused by bad air), and then people stopped worrying about airborne diseases, causing infections to spread where there originally would have been fewer. A relatively simple solution would have been to critically assess the "metaphorical truth" of the previous theory, and see which parts were actually useful and which ones really were just useless baggage. But making that distinction is something you should do when proposing to throw stuff out.

[@thomaspickin9376]

​@@lrvogt1257 I'd maybe say "being a critic" is if all you do is point out problems but never offer any solutions. No of course you don't have to offer a solution 'every' time you point out a problem with something, it's about balance. But if we encourage that culture of just picking flaws rather offering solutions, we probably won't get as many solutions as we like. Maybe in practice we should encourage people to take a step back a bit more, think "Am I adding anything new to this?", "Am I saying this in a kind or compassionate way?" or "Am I just trying to be right/win?". I'd also say in regards to stuff being "objectively false", people always need convincing, no matter what it is or how obvious it is to you. It's good to keep that in mind and the other person's perspective.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@kappasphere I wish them well but I am not invested in some stranger’s delusions.

[@briancavan8116]

Zizek says if you met someone who really believes you would find them mad.

[@benwilcox1484]

This guy really needs to get Stephen Meyer on his show. Would be a very interesting conversation.

[@BigHeretic]

How seriously can we take the answers to the hypothetical A Million $ and someone is killed, given that the question is impossible? Isn't any answer as hypothetical as the question? One can pretend to jump a dangerous gap, but does that mean that someone would do it in reality?

[@neniugrava]

How is the question impossible? A super wealthy Bond villain bad guy could easily arrange for someone random to die and for you to get a million dollars. I think fewer people would actually go through with it for real, but given that people already kill each other for far less I have no doubt that many would push that button.

[@KiltedGreen]

@@neniugravaIndeed. The president/PM whatever is supposedly prepared to push that button and incinerate a lot more than 1 person. And they don’t even get $1m for doing so.

[@BigHeretic]

@@neniugrava You're missing the point; it's a hypothetical question which makes the answer hypothetical. If you don't like this example, choose one with time travel or something which *is* impossible... how useful is any given answer?

[@neniugrava]

@@BigHeretic You made it quite clear in your original comment that the fact that it was impossible was somehow relevant. But I also reject the idea that all hypothetical questions/answers are useless. They may not reflect what you'd do if the hypothetical became reality, but what you believe you'd do in that situation is still useful. For example, if anyone that I know seriously answered that they'd take the money then I would likely cut ties with them. It is certainly possible that I'd struggle to follow through on this if it became reality, but even that thought is a useful outcome of pondering the original hypothetical. But if you restrict "useful" to mean "accurately predict reality" then maybe hypotheticals are useless. But even then that would have to ignore mundane hypotheticals like "what will you do if it rains tomorrow".

[@BigHeretic]

Thank you for your thoughts. You'll notice that my OP is questioning the utility of an impossible hypothetical, idk myself; it just occurred to me that answers may only be as true as the question, which in some cases is not true at all 😊​@@neniugrava

[@tentalagim]

It's very dishonest to think an alternative should be provided. "Here's a demonstrably bad thing, get rid of it." "BuT i NeEd aN AlteRnaTive!" "No you don't...?"

[@omp199]

That's dangerous talk. To take just the most egregious possiblity, all the people who were only refraining from killing on the basis that they thought their god had told them not to kill would suddenly have no reason not to kill. You could say, "Well, their consciences should take care of that." But what if they don't? You've just turned a bunch of people into killers.

[@tentalagim]

@omp199 ah yes, the old, "it's your fault I did a bad thing!" Argument. More people kill BECAUSE of religion. If those people didn't have the religion telling them it's okay, they wouldn't kill. Religion causes net harm.

[@tentalagim]

@omp199 yeah, couldn't care less about their conscience. More people kill BECAUSE of their religion. Nothing I said is "dangerous talk." You have to be stupid, ignorant, or both to think getting rid of religion would be more harmful than good.

[@wchenful]

The issue is that religion is demonstrably one of the foundational pillars of our society (and to that point, most atheist philosophers do not dispute this, they simply argue that it need not be). So I think it's very dishonest to think that a replacement isn't necessary.

[@tentalagim]

@wchenful Religion is a very specific type of socialization that isn't necessary. Atheists DO NOT need to offer up alternatives in order to get rid of it. Alternatives will arise naturally. Communities form automatically around many things without any atheist ever in history having to give alternatives. I am an atheist, I needed no alternative to my old religion. Also, religion isn't a pillar of all societies, USA is built on secular grounds with specific provisions against religion. SlaVerY iS a piLLar oF SoCIEty! Hur de dur, abolishionists must give us an alternative! The alternative is getting rid of slavery.

[@mogznwaz]

I’m an atheist - but yes, you can. If you think someone’s watching then you can’t escape the consequences of your actions. Whether you believe this is the voice of your human conscience or a god the result is the same, you modify your behaviour.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Since you don't know what that person wants, it could be literally anything. Thus, you are not incentivised to act in any way or another. For example, you are not incentivised to save life ⚕ or kill 🗡🩸 it.

[@robertblackwell8611]

But if you don't believe in god then you don't really think that someone is watching, even if you're trying to act "as if" god exists. If you really wanted to steal from an empty shop, out of desperation, but lived your life acting as if CCTV was always watching, but you didn't actually believe CCTV was watching. The desire to steal in this case is likely to override the desire to act "as if" something you don't really believe to be true, is true.

[@jackkrell4238]

@@robertblackwell8611 It's just like how one can't be "moved by reason" as Daniel Dennett put it when Alex was speaking at the Oxford Union assembly, as someone simply doesn't have the ability to agree with something fundamentally unfounded/flawed( and, since free will doesn't exist, our perceptions and axioms are always influenced by past behaviors and predispositions.)

[@mogznwaz]

@@robertblackwell8611 Yes it’s a choice.

[@mogznwaz]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Due to Enlightenment values, scientific rationality, a mix of philosophies to learn from and our innate human abilities we have been able to discern that killing and stealing are wrong 👍

[@scottymeffz5025]

That was brilliant. Thank you.

[@Candyliz2003]

Our society has determined that we need laws that tell us what is right from wrong. As small children we learn about "right vs wrong" based upon how people react to us: happy, sad, angry, in pain. Religion is not necessary to know these things.

[@samjall9216]

We don’t know if there is a God

[@jzargo1709]

Profound

[@ballisticfish1212]

No one has ever made that point in any of Alex’s videos or comment sections.

[@user-soon300]

Yes that's true but always remind yourself we are nothing towards this great universe

[@MrGwandrin]

nor do we know if there is an Easterbunny

[@t-rizzle0509]

Speak for yourself.

[@THE_Quiz_Channel2412]

nah the critics are crazy imagine listening to him and just going "Of course you can"

[@benwolf2929]

Jordan Peterson isn’t going to like this.

[@rickardarvidsson4659]

Jordan Peterson only likes himself, no harm done

[@hashgames01]

Literally

[@daveyofyeshua]

🔬Science tells us 'what' we are, ✝️ Faith tells us 'who' we are

[@jason-iy7vs]

Your free will take is not fully thought through

[@Dialogos1989]

How so?

[@avatarmufasa3628]

This feels like youre missing what it should be

[@jason-iy7vs]

​@@Dialogos1989 @avatarmufasa3628 "No free will" is a logical conclusion to the starting point that Alex & others assume, but instead of saying "that's it! we have no free will," you should say "hmm.. if thats the only conclusion from my starting point, maybe im starting in the wrong place." The constraints of their presuppositions make "no free will" the only answer. its not.

[@Dialogos1989]

@@jason-iy7vs everything about my experience is consistent with determinism. Libertarian free will is incoherent

[@jason-iy7vs]

@@Dialogos1989 the thoughts that came to your mind that inspired that comment were consistent with determinism?

[@islamvibe2]

A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. - Francis Bacon.

[@chrisfedde4032]

I am the most random person.

[@YukonV]

you really are

[@sum8601]

bro chill with that randomness, its too much.

[@zimpoooooo]

Have a random like.

[@alsecen5674]

2:26 I was raised a Christian and attended Catholic School for 8 years. The myth of God and religion was NEVER the reason i got up in the morning. I don't know where that lie originated. Religion is a crutch to use when you are scared. Some people go "all in" and believe they are saving up for a bright eternal future in Disneyworld after they die, but the vast majority of theists only use God when they have no where else to turn. When i realized i was on my own and God was for the weak minded who couldn't cope with the big bad world was a day of freedom for me. My life improved tremendously when i realized praying to have a good life was preventing me from actually having a good life.

[@HoD999x]

Every time 'act as if' is good, there is necessarily a better option

[@holdenstrausser]

The bit about the "kill a random person for $1M" is interesting because in his discussion Alex ignores the fact that the answer to this poll would probably be the same no matter when the poll was taken. It's not related to growth of technology or decline of religion. People have a basic tendency towards selfishness and disregard towards others.

[@amphernee]

I’d be interested to know the religious beliefs of the people asked as well as how some variables would affect the outcome. Asking about religious beliefs before posing the question might tilt the outcome.

[@zimpoooooo]

If you thought you would go to hell the answer might be different. But how many people really believe that when a million dollars is on the table…

[@adaptivelearner6162]

Alex O'connor hasn't provided any compelling evidence that absolute Determinism is true.

[@thomasseichter5670]

That is true. And on top he hasn't even claimed it.

[@TheTrueRandomGamer]

He also hasn't reconciled his treatment of others with this worldview, even if true. Morality is functionally useless under it because the child that gets an A on their test and the person who cures cancer are no more culpable for their actions than the child who cheats or the person who enacts/endorses genocide. They could never be anyone other than the people who would do those things. Empathy, consideration, and introspection now exist as vestigial organs for the human experience.

[@camilobulla]

It does not need absolute determinism for free will not to exist. Even if there is a random aspect, it still does not exist. kzbin.info/www/bejne/inqYd4CgaqlssLcsi=-RKFz6Etf4JV_Mgc and kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnfKYqypf5aii9Usi=OeYaOQg04b_fanRt

[@360.Tapestry]

you didn't have a choice whether you were going to make that comment or not

[@tobycokes1]

It's just rational for to not believe it.

[@user-soon300]

I know people who didn't believe in god but once they have a bad situation they're acting like believers 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@konyvnyelv.]

This further proves god is a coping mechanism

[@360.Tapestry]

@@konyvnyelv. that's not how reasoning works, but that proves how simple your logic is🤷‍♂

[@Moxieboggs]

@@konyvnyelv. That's an end route believer for instance, maybe your group of people started to believe in God when they got threaten by the sword and can be stated by such of the same denomination even though you claim it over others.

[@Moxieboggs]

@@360.Tapestry dependable but again. What logical premise are your determining factors

[@jffrysith4365]

the gun is loaded part is so true. You treat every gun like it's loaded. except we don't really believe it's loaded (when it shouldn't be). So (for example) when we are at a firing range and we want to shoot the gun, we first load it, even though we're assuming it's loaded! Therefore even though we treat it like the gun is loaded, we don't really believe it is.

[@sirnunez7923]

And then you become Brandon lee

[@JamieStott-b7e]

The JP one i find mental is the amount of people who claim his ideas lead them to God, but his own ideas aren’t enough to lead himself to God. It’s a paradox.

[@Ben-bg2lp]

Ironically, realizing Jordan Peterson's biases is a sign of maturity, which he advocates for so much.

[@ah59817]

Peterson’s arguments about faking Christianity even if you don’t believe it bug me like no other argument. Purposely living your life as a lie has to be the most masochistic, devoid of any self-respect thing a person can do

[@stayahead09]

@@ah59817 He's a fraud.

[@hellomate639]

@@stayahead09 He's neither a fraud, nor perfect.

[@brianmoren3780]

​@@stayahead09 So you don't know what fraud means.

[@brianmoren3780]

​@@ah59817He never said anything about faking Christianity, but hey, of course it's easier to prove something is ridiculous if you distort it