@frilansspion Unfortunately, YouTube comments are not the best place to articulate ideas. I ran into the same problem responding to another comment below (which I was slightly forgetting some very important info). You are absolutely allowed to draw conclusions from scientific findings (I don't disagree with that), but your conclusions should be proportionate to what you're studying. If you want elaboration further on what I mean it will have to be out of the mediascape of YouTube.
yeah I agree with discipleoftheteapot and others...hes just renaming the same thing, and in the process undermining dawkins and co and admitting defeat for no real reason. who cares if people are "tired" of debating. theyre trying to raise important questions, important misconceptions about scientific results. people are "tired" of what our kids should be taught in school? seriously?
i have a question for you..............if brain cells regenerate .....then how do i remember the toys of my childhood.
is it like .....one brain cell that knows that the toy was red on his deathbed tells his sucessor...' please remember that the toy was red and pass this on to my grandson before you die' ...........how the hell do we remember things doctor ?
@DyzLecticus That doesn't make sense when you say "Agnostic atheism", which would sum to the opinion that there is no God and we cannot know anything about whether or not God exists. That opinion alone is fine but that is not what possibilianism is in content. It's also not atheism repackaged. It's not saying: "There is no god". Eagleman is stating that this platform works on the ideas of searching for and analyzing information without jumping to rather large claims, which is what science is.
@GMrobsonga you also need some basic philosophical education; 'not believing in god(s)' is not the same as 'believing god(s) do(es) not exist'. The first is agnostic atheism, the second is gnostic atheism (which is basically an unreasonable faith that only very few atheists have).
Eagleman is not really saying anything new or interesting.
@GMrobsonga so youre not allowed to draw conclusions from scientific findings? any arbitrary idea is just as good as those that seem to correspond with reality? what good is it? he equates the idea of atoms with the idea of god. both should get taxmoney for research of course. good luck building a society around that. "rather large claims". yeah yeah. thats all it is
He's dynamic, but he's just bs'ing. How can you test if something is real or false? Take a man and take away his ability to read or write where you could teach him only what you want to teach him, but only teach him the scientific method, he couldn't possibly come of with any of what mythology teaches. He might come up with a theory of "forms" or perfection, but he would know it only as an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Just a mental construct.
A false dichotomy? How is that a false dichotomy, if science is tool to understand the world where as religion take a faith based leap. Yes we admit as scientist and atheist, we do not know certain thing which leaves... " possibilities." But... it doesn't mean religion should fight that possibility. And ofcourse we dont have all the pieces to puzzles, which leaves that vast horizon of things we dont know, but we continue to keep solving the puzzle with the method of science.
also yeah i might not be from the bacooba kingdom, i am civilized and am smart and have studied most religions, and logically only one fits historically and is quite reasonably true
I love Eagleman's brief and matter-of-factly dismissal of all the worlds' religions. That's all the attention they deserve and all that should be needed to convince a rational and open mind that they are indeed absurd.
Well, there is nothing in his definition of possibilianism that the new atheists would oppose, so the term is superfluous. However, I would say that "atheist" is a very lazy and misleading label to put on people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. I liked his talk, but Eagleman needs to realize that his world view is completely in agreement with that of the neo-atheists he is critizising.
Yes, but he emphasizes the exploration of new possibilities; also, Dawkins et fella are more interested in antitheism than he seems to be - the new atheist movement has the more or less declared objective of opposing religion, while Eagleman doesn't seem to even consider it.
The two concepts are not in opposition, but they aren't the same, otherwise Sam harris wouldn't have felt the need to challenge him to a debate.
@ThisOneIsTaken I think Harris' only disagreement with Eagleman is the way the latter represents the views of the former in talks like this. At 4:45, Eagleman is essentially calling the new atheists' attitude to science close-minded and unimaginative. I agree with Sam that this is a severe misrepresentation. I think you're right that Eagleman's attitude is more "positive" - as I said, he quickly dismisses religion to move on to other subjects - but that isn't what Sam's objection is about.
Looking from the outside in (aka, not giving a damn about anything one way or the other), I think he's spot on. You get all sorts of arrogance and certainty that science is right about everything on one side and all sorts of idiocy and ignorance from the other side and they're doing the same thing - fighting to defend their worldview. I love science but I'm not fond of the present "skeptic" movement.
His consepts on consciousness and the subjective illusion of self and understanding of what really drives our brain is beautiful (for me). Se other videos with him. This lecture is a popular take on his ideas and as many comments here indicate it is worded as so.
I had a thought experiment that gave me a vision of why we believed. I had 5 hours contemplating and then started searching for philosophic thoughts, finaly found David and he resonated with me, I know excatly what he is talking about.
This is the worst talk I've heard since Deepak Chopra opened his mouth, this has to be intellectual suicide! His ignorance about the universe is staggering, and how could you dismiss dark matter like that? I study physics, the evidence is overwhelming! We even have several candidates! Thumbs down^100.
probabilism is what all modern atheists teach. maybe he should stick to neuroscience. Though he has right. You are product of your culture and his culture definitely has problems with so called neoatheists. You don't argue with religious people if god exists or not, it obviously exists for them and there is no reason to make them cry. I like him anyway, cause he is very enthusiastic about many things like cosmos etc.
probabilism is what all modern atheists teach. maybe he should stick to neuroscience. He has right tho. You are product of your culture and his culture definitely has problems with so called neoatheists. You dont argue with religious people if god exists or not, it obviously exists for them and there is no reason to make them cry. I like him anyway, cause he is very enthusiastic about many things :)
Secondly, Dr. Eaglemean called himself possibilion, but what about probability?
He equated atheist position with the same probability as theist position. A total nonsense. Of course, atheist position is more probable than Jesus walked on the water or Mohammad was Allah's prophet. I wonder if he is looking for funding from Templeton Foundation.
I was very disappointed with Dr. Eagleman's lie, fraud, deception, poetical correctness. He misrepresented Richard Dawkin, Sam Harris by using the word "certain" about their conclusion. new atheists are never certain. Dawkins did not put himself in 7 in his 1 to 7 scale of believer and atheist. Eagleman knew this but he misrepresented new atheist. Sam Harris is correct to accuse him of "Intellectual Dishonesty".
New atheist are always open to new ideas, but they never forget the probability.
When he said that we are sweeping dark matter under the rug and claiming to know everything, he lost me. The most expensive experiments ever are an effort to explain dark matter, among other things. Dr. Eagleman, if you have a spare $10 billion that you want to sweep under the rug, I promise I can provide a large enough rug.
Dr. Eagleman, you certainly have the gift of eloquence but I think you still need some time and study to let your thoughts crystallize out. I suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger, Dennett et alii a little bit more attentively.
Sam Harris has just released a rebuttal to the Eagleman, specific to this TED talk, on his blog page.
Apparently Eagleman agreed to debate him but never responded to Sam's initial rebuttal. Sam got tired of waiting and published his opening remarks today.
@TheMidwestsk8ter Not a video, it's on his blog. The name of the article is "Wither Eagleman?".
"I recently posted a TEDx talk by the neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain and the subject of a recent profile in The New Yorker. While I admire much of what Eagleman has to say, I wrote that his espousal of “possibilianism,” in lieu of atheism, was intellectually dishonest. I then invited him to discuss the matter with me on this page."
He's refusing to be political about the existence of god(s). Therefore his opinions regarding the debates about the existence of god(s) are irrelevant except to sell HIS theory of possibilianism
imo, possibillionism may be a good thing, considering all the craziness in this world where people of so many different religious beliefs claim to know "The Truth." However, atheists mostly don't claim that they are certain there is no god, only that there is not sufficient evidence to support belief in god(s). There are exceptions, but usually atheists are the voice of reason in this world of religious conflict. And, you will not find many, if any, atheists who don’t support science.
Hmm. False dichotomy indeed. He just created the false dichotomy to find a place for himself. Dawkins is openly a "possibilian"- you can never be 100% certain about the absence of "god." Weak.
He entirely misses that it's possible to make a decision which is "firm, but tentative." That, of course, being what the neo (gnu?) atheists have done. It's possible that Islam or Christianity or whatever is true, but we haven't a single good reason to think that they are. His position seems to just be a slightly different tolerance threshold for excluding certain ideas and then proclaiming it to be the 'correct' threshold.
It appears to me that Dr. Eagleman is simply try to create a space for himself in this debate. Philosophically, I don't see any gap between his position and that of the new atheists with regard to science and uncertainty. Of course, this is based on reading their work and not relying Dr. Eagleman's disingenuous caricature.
as far as I can "possibilianism" is exactly atheism and skepticism repackaged - if you say "psychics might be real but we have to apply skeptical science to it" - that is no different from a Dawkins or a Randi. His entire argument is disingenuous and relies on a straw man
@DannyPhantomBeast but I don't define myself entirely by my atheism - only when the question of religious belief comes up - it makes sense when religion is the dominant force in society - in the same way that when there was conflict over slavery it made sense to call oneself an abolitionist even if that is defining yourself in opposition to something.
@discipleoftheteapot He didn't say that he came with this new term up against agnosticism. He said, that many people started seeing agnosticism as an uncertainty between existing dichotomy(ies), so he felt like naming his POV on the matter with a new term.
Anyway, I think eventually this word will just end up being a more precise synonym for atheism and agnosticism for those cases,when you want to be really sure that your opponent gets you right to elim. p. misunderstanding.
I am a bit surprised by Sam Harris' attempt at engaging Dr. Eagleman in debate - it seems like Sam should be too busy fighting off the many religious nutjobs who must want him in their cross-hairs. On the other hand, I can see where the annoyance comes from...Eagleman's claim that "If you loose a piece of pinky, you're no diferent, but if you loose a pinky sized piece of brain, you're completey different" This statement is pattently false. Just ask any one who has lost ANY part of their body.
@crazysailr Eagleman is referring to potential loss of global cognitive functioning when he refers to missing a part of the brain the size of a pinky. You seem to be suggesting that the anxiety or grief that an amputee experiences is somehow renders Eagleman's observation false. You just misunderstood his point is all.
He really misrepresents the "new atheists". By his definition, it seems like all the "new atheists" are actually "possibilian". He's only repeating what they say in different words.
Okay, anyone who has read the so-called neo-atheists, recoils at Eagleman's kinpin which supports the stage of his own, self-constructed side show: that they claim science to already know everything. Science already is a subscriber to possibility. How does Mr. Eagleman think Dark matter/energy was discovered in the first place? He's hoaxing his own cultural contribution.
"Dude, man, you know...like, what if the spaghetti monster is really real, or the hokey pokey is what it's all about?" This talk is a cheap play on essentialized skepticism, as if scientists didn't already take open possibilities to be the natural state of things. That's the point of what Dawkins argues, but he actually limits his conversation to what we, if anything, know. "New Atheism" isn't about conceptual doctrine, it's about the novelty of pointing to facts in an urgent, activist manner
Eagleman certainly doesn't understand what he's talking about. The "new atheists", including myself, do not claim to have it all figured out. As I so often tell my theist friends, "I'm not claiming to know. I'm simply asserting that YOU don't". A hypothetical creator being, of any sort, seems unlikely based on what we know. And even it it does exist, the possibility that it corresponds to a character from earthly folklore would be vanishingly small.
I have to thank samharris (dot) org/blog/item/whither-eagleman/ for getting me to this vid and recommend Sam's blog entry for its commentary and rebuttal to it. Though not a deep thinker myself, I enjoy the back and forth this video and that blog provide. Thanks for helping me to continue to have hope for humankind.
I'm not sure what he means by "strict atheism." Wish he'd define it. I'm also a strict a-unicornist, too. But maybe science knows too little for me to strictly say I don't see any evidence for unicorns and therefore I will live my life as if there aren't any.
Wait a second, 90% of what we know of the universe is dark matter? I don't think this is correct. I believe it's 25% dark matter and 75% dark energy, etc.. I will have to check my sources again.
Atheists generally make the case that the "magical" properties attributed to "gods" are phony, there are no magical powers. OK but that's a negative position. A more interesting question is what drives people to postulate gods, still, today. And read some of the new brain science, our logic is built on our subjective, emotional, often unconscious experience. Religion can produce a motivation with awesome, if often misdirected, power. That's why atheists don't get much done. Think positive!
@isadoradoug Atheists don't get much done? What about all the writers, scientists, artists, who are atheists? What about Darwin, Stalin, possibly Hitler? Not that what Stalin and Hitler did was good, but they certainly had enough motivation to get a lot of evil done, although Hitler is likely to be an example that supports your claim of the power of religion as a motivator.
Is Possibilianism a strong or weak form of agnosticism?
Also, I think you're just a philosopher if you claim things are possible (including things beyond the realm of science). You could say causality is merely possible. If you're going to leave gods, fairies and creation myths in the realm of possibility (without getting in to what we consider probabilities), are you really saying anything? Have you allowed science to say its piece? I don't think you have.
Spewing nonsensical goo speaking fees. I know of no serious atheist that limits the possibilities of the unknown or claims to know everything. The speaker either has not read the works of these people or is being deliberately obtuse to attract an audience of chum suckers.
@isadoradoug Actually it seems to me that there is a big difference. They (atheists) are at least willing to be intellectually honest about their position - irregardless of how popular/unpopular that makes them. This guy seems to be bending over backwards to covet popularity.
It's odd that he sets himself up in opposition to Dawkins et al. He only reiterates what they say at the same time as clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting key aspects of their positions. His knowledge of them seems to come from second hand, religious misrepresentations. Sam Harris would eat this guy whole (Harris has invited him to debate).
"The certainty on topics that one cannot possibly be certain on." -- To be an atheist one need not prove there is no God. You only need to understand that the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for werewolves.
I don't know what you accomplish by assigning atheists a position we do not hold, and then presenting the position we do like it's a new thing you just invented. But my fuck-off reflex is kicking in.
He should have read, rather than just shown interest in those books.
it is not truth. Dawkins ask why we give so much posibility to God if we don't do the same with other fairy tale characters like lepricons. We can't prove that those creatures don't exist, but it is not a reason to give to this creatores the posibility to exist, like fifty fifty, it is more like 99 to 1 percent. So we should give the same 1 percent to god as the fairy tale creatures (sorry for my bad english, i am just learning).
what a stupid douchebag! The neo-atheistic position exactly discribes the point he's making: Dawkins cares about the truth. Harris wants a discussion with the words of th 21. century. Harris points out the rational mind. And this little shrink ignores all those positions and claims them for hiself.
I hate it, when guys falsely taking all the credit!
It's always about science vs religion. They're forgetting is philosophy, probably because they jumble it together with eastern religion or wise sayings. But it is that side of knowledge that science doesn't cover, with an extensive history Often when there are problems in science, new discoveries about the brain, or whathaveyou, it's a triviality in philosophy or is really the confusion of a technical approach with what would require something else. I don't have an agenda, I just notice.
So other then coming up with a new term that pretty much is a spinoff of agnostics and buying a website with that name, so he can also now be a founder of a new term. there was not any other crucial facts he came up with.
this is flawed, you are an atheist because you do not see any evidence of a deity,
if something comes up as a deity we will use our science tool to identify it
The Jon Stewart of the secular sphere. Calls out new-atheists for something they didn't claim, and makes a false claim of equivalence between the parties.
Atheists however, have no problem saying that the gods in which we know traits of like the abrahamic god is most likely made up. It may not be 100%, but it's like 99.9998% certainty given all we know about he's said to have done in the holy books and how that can't possibly be right given the knowledge of today. So I have no problem saying that the christian god is most likely bullshit.
A deistic god is impossible to disprove currently, but so is the invisible gnome in my garden.
Atheists can no more say there is absolutely no god or absolute creator in a deistic term than they can say that there is absolutely no norse god poseidon. They can not not say and DO NOT SAY that there is no father xmas or invisible gnome in my garden either. But I am also a-poseidon & a-invisible gnomes.
lack of belief does not translate into a positive affirmation. It is not a knowledge, but a dogmatic position. If there were evidence to suggest existence of gods, we'd then believe.
I truly wonder if Eagleman has even read the neo-atheist books he is referring to. None of them assert certainty, in fact they all basically say the same thing he is saying. There is no need to create a position that means you don't want to commit to any position. If you truly don't know whether there is a God and you don't subscribe to any beliefs about it; you can still be open to the possibility while still not believing. That makes you an atheist in my books.
As a born again Christian, I find this man's logic and honesty quite refreshing! Imagine that, a humble and open neuroscientist! I know he is not saying there is a God, but rather he is admitting that the data being revealed about the universe and the complexity of human beings is so overwhelming that there is obviously a lot that we simply do not know.
A man like this could help a lot of people escape the dogma of the new atheism religion which is deceiving so many.
@sandiegoevangelism - as a born-again christian you cannot take position on the matter of "deception". For the same reason a slave holder of the seventeen century does not belong in a modern discourse about racism.
By the way, the highest level of epistemic development, according to William Perry, is Relativism. This is where one actually commits to an argument and can back it up with sound and robust reasoning.
Eagleman seems to encourage us to do think the way he does: never commit to an idea if you can not have "certainty". He is forever stuck in Scepticism.
Science is about committing (Law of Gravity). Even though there is no certainty in this law, we commit to it so we may move forward.
Eagleman says that many questions are beyond the toolbox of Science, so scientists are happy holding on to many narratives. That is COMPLETELY wrong. Science is EVIDENCE driven. PERIOD.
If there is no evidence, then what we have is a Philosophy. And Philosophy focuses on varied narratives -- not Science!
I think it's unfortunate that Eagleman, who is a scientist, doesn't genuinely understand what Science is. He misrepresents what atheists say and what scientists do.
Eagleman does not "know" there is a not a small, invisible blue man that lives in his eyebrow, but if he was open to that possibility we would see him as delusional. Similarly, if there is not a shred of evidence in support of gods, why we should anyone be open to that possibility?
Did you notice how easily (and humorously) he tosses out ESP because "we've tested these sorts of things and can't find any evidence to weigh in favor of it". I agree. So do the New Atheists.
Eagleman says we don't know enough to be atheists? Maybe we don't know enough to discount the vaguest deist notions; but if we can discount ESP for lack of evidence, we can certainly discount virtually all mainstream religions in the world.
Also (Debate on New Atheists) - I think he may have accused the 'New Atheist' movement wrongly. For instance, Dawkins talks a bit about how life could have come from a comet in the form of frozen bacteria - a 'possibilian' idea, according to Eagleman. I think he may be confusing the rhetoric of the New Atheists vs. Religious groups. One would have to admit the rhetoric sounds a lot like No God vs. God. I think Eagleman may simply presenting Atheism, nicer.
I first heard of Dr. Eagleman during his interview on Dr. Ginger Campbell's _Brain Science Podcast_ and was impressed both with his ideas and his ethical carriage. I am less impressed with him now. There is something disingenuous and in fact dishonest-seeming about the way he colors Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, et alli, as arrogant and closed-minded. Disappointing.
I think that part of the confusion is a semantic confusion over the word 'atheist'. Dawkins admits to being technically an agnostic and on a scale of 1-7 where 1 represents absolute belief and 7 absolute unbelief, he places himself as a 6 but not a 7. However, he still refers to himself as an atheist because he assigns less probability to the existence of God. Atheism doesn't have to mean a total denial of the possibilty of a God; in fact it seldom does.
Ah, if we are going to accept "i don't know"... then we also need to own up to what "i do know".
Certainly given the history of the religious dogmas and the inception of holy books we can say with almost certainty that they are nothing more than superstition written by archaic humans to fill in the gaps of the unknown.
If there was a creation or catalyst to the Big bang then it is nothing like the God's people claim to know today.
Any term you use for the rational stance that's been propagated by people wanting their beliefs about the world to correlate with reality is going to be straw manned by the religious.There will always be douchebags like this guy who try to make a name for themselves by taking advantage of the confusion this causes. How about if we stop continually renaming ourselves and stick to repeating the arguments that actually lead people to us?
Eaglemen is characterizing neo-atheist falsely. He is polarizing the debate. The supposed "middle ground" he believes he solely occupies actually places him right with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.
As others have said it is irresponsible on Eaglemen's part. He would do well to realize he is simply exploring and advocating a small part of the neo-atheist argument and not *really* creating anything new.
Aside from the above he is an excellent speaker and I look forward to more.
@kevingrr if these new atheist authors say with confidence that there is no god, which would be what makes them atheist, then David Eagleman's description of them is just caricatured, but still accurate. His main argument is that they are the polar opposite of those who subscribe to any one particular religion because they say with confidence that there is no god.
basically, Eagleman is saying he isn't ready to say there is no god, but he can definitely say that organized religion is false.
@justforwatchingcraps You seem to have not read anything that Harris, Hitchens or Dawkins have written. They have all stated numerous times that there may be a God. Their stance can be more accurately summed up as "I don't know if there is a God and neither can you." and this guy seems to feel exactly the same way. You should really fact check things like this on the internet. It'd be a shame to dismiss all of the great books this guy is trashing over his desire to be famous.
They do not say with 100 percent certainty that there is no god. They will however argue that it is unlikely knowing what we do know that the god of Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, etc exists. They are, as Eaglemen says, "removing possibilities." That said they remain open to legitimate verifiable evidence for any religious claims.
What Eaglemen does is dishonest. Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris have all simply admitted to not know.
Given that Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens have all stated at one time or another that they don't believe their approach's are likely to do much to bridge the gap between believers and skeptics, maybe it's not a bad idea to try to create a middle ground, where people can imagine all they want, as long as they check their certainty at the door...probably wouldn't fix the Fundies but might give the young minds an avenue of escape.
@rhyfelur The problem is that he's not offering anything new. He's merely straw manning people who agree with him in an effort to rise above them. If this guy was just saying something like "Hey, let's rename ourselves to make believers more comfortable with us." or something like that, it'd be one thing but he is clearly purporting to have a different and more rational epistemological stance than Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins and explicitly misrepresenting them.
@irreverent79 Ya, i'm not saying that his motives aren't self-serving to some degree, after all, he is trying to sell a book....but then so is everyone else.
I like the Horsemen, and agree with their positions, but i'm not a fan-boy and have my criticisms. One is that their attitudes are, at times, arrogant and condescending, which can be interpreted as certainty, and if your objective is to change the zeitgeist, is not the most rational approach. I don't mind someone pointing that out.
@RiCorr Ya, I could spend my time rummaging thru the 100s of videos I have watched, for specific examples, just so you can say, "that's not arrogant, that's just honest" or something like that, (as if the 2 things are mutually exclusive), but im not inclined to waste my time on it. If you dont get (or agree with) the larger point of what i'm saying, I can live with that.
Google any of their names + words like: delusional, crackpot, ridiculous, idiotic, etc. I'm sure u will find some examples.
@rhyfelur Fair enough. I wouldn't want to waste any of your time. It's just that I'm very familiar with the writing/videos etc of the so-called new atheists. I'm also very familiar with the oft-repeated claim that they are arrogant, but have noticed that those who make this claim rarely cite specific examples of supposed arrogance. I can perhaps understand that the combative character of Hitchens may be misinterpreted as arrogance, but Dawkins, Harris And Dennett aren't arrogant at all.
@RiCorr I guess I shouldn't really say that its a "criticism" that I have, I see their oppositional role in the discussion as completely necessary, but I think at some point it will also be necessary to breech the gap, in a way that gives young people a path, that doesn't require them to carry on the superstitious malarkey on one side, or alienate their entire family on the other. Atheists should be the first to welcome any attempt in that direction, instead of immediately trashing it, imo.
@rhyfelur It sounds to me as though you're trying to defend Eagleman because you see him as bridging 'the gap'. I certainly welcome attempts to bring people together, but what I and most other commentators here object to is Eagleman's trashing of the 'new atheist' authors. He's crudely misrepresenting their views. It's a shame because he's an intelligent man with a lot offer, but he shouldn't resort to dishonesty.
@rhyfelur I agree that there's a need to be sensitive and offending people isn't a good way to bring them over to your view. But if Dawkins honestly believes that religious people are deluded then I think entitling his book 'The God Delusion' is fair enough. It's really not that offensive! If there were such a thing as the Marquis of Queensbury rules for argument then few could be said to follow them as well as Dawkins: he doesn't hit his opponents below the belt!
@rhyfelur I'm sorry, but I disagree. Sam Harris is everything but condescending. He has spoken many times about how it's important to empathize with the religious experiences of those who are religious and not just discount them as delusions of grandeur. Instead, acknowledge them and offer alternative explanations. His principle method is reason and not condescension.
However ppl who use condescension generally try to sway 3rd parties not who they're involved in discourse which is effeective.
He's a good speaker, and what he has to say about the brain is interesting, but he knows nothing about cosmology... he's glib, and he should stop talking like he's an expert on cosmology
Hmmm...would someone that says "I don't know" to the existence of God for some reason make the leap of faith and believe that God exists? That seems strange.
I can understand a certain type of religious individual using the "atheists are certain they're right" strawman, but Eagleman should know better. Also, he seems ironically certain that his misapprehension is true.
GC4 I think, though, it is actually *plausibility* that is the key, not *possibility*.
If I flip a coin and hold it hidden, is it possible that it is heads? I would say we don't know if it is possible. The answer has already been determined. It is impossible that the bottom side is up at that moment, but it is plausible. "Plausible" is our mental world -- the only world we perceive. "Possibilianism" is about the non-mental. Plausibilianism is about all the ideas we can imagine and explore.
GC3 Belief as in momentary enthusiasm for a n idea or a way of seeing, even one that seems quite suspect. As long as you can imagine it, then you should try it.
I think there is also a subversion of literalism in this approach to belief. You don't have to permanently, literally believe the Garden of Eden story to see the world from that perspective. Holding the story in your mind is enough. It is that narrative that becomes a filter for the moment, but you also know that it is just a story.
GC2 The possibilian will try out new beliefs like a suit, while the new atheist maintains uniforms are unneeded. But "belief" is fundamentally morphed in this change. No longer is belief something you hold long-lasting loyalty to. It can no longer keep other plausibilities away. Changing the metaphor, possibilianism is like the desire to wear varying sets of eyeglasses. Sometime, if you're operating from a particular perspective, you might see something no one noticed before. It takes belief.
GC1The criticism here of Eagleman seems to largely be that he is a new atheist as well . . . he just doesn't realize it. It seems to me, though, Eagleman is transcending a common limitation shared by most. That is the belief that we must have *a* belief. Not just on gods, but on everything. The new atheists do refrain from belief in discredited hypotheses, but they also refrain from believing in a panoply of plausibilities because they too lack evidence.
What the fuck did I just watch? He's saying we should rely on science where scientific inquiry is applicable, something I agree with. Then he recommends we're open to any possibility when faced with questions that are outside of the domain of science. In situations where we *truly* do not have access to evidence, I believe *all* the "neo-atheists" would suggest we withhold judgement. This talk is straw man bullshit and it pisses me off. I hope Eagleman doesn't chicken out of the debate with Sam.
@magnusjsolberg I think you have not understood the same message as me from this video. Eagleman was saying that we should be more comfortable with not knowing, how is this a judgement? Did you watch this till the end?
@gobbo241 But he does sort of imply that the "new atheists" are the ones being disingenuous for ridiculing the possibility of something he also thinks is ridiculous.
@magnusjsolberg So science has no proof of morality, so should we withhold judgement of this? There is no proof that there is anything wrong with torture or rape or murder...so should you not have an opinion on them?
It's funny that atheists keep believing that the entire universe occured out of an arbitrary explosion....yet when you ask them why an arbitrary explosion exists and how it could create so much order, the only response you get is attack on organized religion.
@VJWU 1. As with all other things, we need an axiomatic starting point. When we have that in place, science can in principle tell us what is moral behavior and what isn't. You, as a theist, require the same axiomatic starting point. The difference between the two positions is that I don't have to take anything further on faith, and that I can present evidence for what is moral. You cannot.
2. I'm not talking about proof. We rarely have proof of anything. I'm talking about evidence.
@magnusjsolberg Axiom = "a statement that is assumed to be true". You don't consider assuming something to be true to be faith? Let's just do one easy example: From a atheistic scientific viewpoint, why is it moral for someone to decide not to have kids but it is immoral to kill someone?
@VJWU Which is why is wrote "take anything *further* on faith". You see the distinction? Reading comprehension, dude.
In general, I would consider having kids, or not, a morally neutral thing.
Killing is not always an immoral act.
My axiomatic starting point would be that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. We should try to avoid that. Also that the greatest levels of well-being for as many people as possible for as long as possible, is something we should strive for.
@magnusjsolberg I think you didn't really answer my question straight on. Let's say a serial killer randomly kills off 5 people who were all good samaritans quickly without any pain. Why is that morally worse than a married couple who decides not to have any kids?
You said your assumption is that the greatest levels of well being is something we should strive for. But if humans are just physical atoms with no spirituality, what difference does it make to you if people are alive or dead?
@VJWU I hate that I have to do your thinking for you.
1. If the serial killer kills 5 people, it would cause immense suffering to the victims' friends and family. Also, the good samaritans would be unable to continue doing good deeds.
2. It would reduce well-being for all of society if you might, on any given night, be killed in your sleep. We'd all be terrified.
If everyone you know today were killed tomorrow, would it make a difference to you in this life, before you die and go to heaven?
@magnusjsolberg First of all you have assumed that I'm religious, which I'm not which makes it almost impossible to respond to anything you say. Or is that another one of your "axioms" where it's okay to assume things as long as you don't "take anything further on faith"? See, that's your fallacy right there. If you assume the axiom to be true but it isn't, it doesn't matter if you take anything further on faith. If you first assume the sky is red, then everything after is wrong.
The point is you're doing what so many theists do, claiming that because something doesn't have an eternal cosmic significance, then it doesn't matter here on earth in our lives at this point in time.
@magnusjsolberg So if the killer killed everyone on a deserted island it would be ok because that would include friends/family? You say you'd care about them doing good deeds or maybe that's another arbitrary axiom. Why would you be terrified of this killer if you think that death is just a peaceful sleep anyway? So if you don't think that spirituality matters, do you care if you throw out an old telephone? You should try to keep it alive since you care so much about electrons and protons.
@VJWU At this point your argument has devolved into sheer stupidity. Either you're dishonest, or there's some sort of cognitive disability involved. Either way, I have no interest in continuing this exchange. I would suggest you read some moral philosophy that's not written by genocide advocates like William Lane Craig. Maybe someone more patient than myself will continue this, but I doubt they will have more luck getting through to you.
@magnusjsolberg You said that someone getting killed was immoral only because of the grief to their friends/family/society. I guess you have no moral problem with having homeless people secretly killed off since they wouldn't have friends/family mourning their death. Don't worry I don't actually expect you to try to answer these. It has already created too much cognitive dissonance for you to respond. It's best you go back to reading atheist books since you don't believe in free will either.
@VJWU There is no cognitive dissonance on my part. With regard to the homeless person, I would say that's wrong because of two reasons:
1. Preference utilitarians like Princeton's Peter Singer would argue that the person's preferences should be taken into account. I agree with that. If the homeless person does not want to be killed, we shouldn't kill him.
2. Don't you think it would reduce the well-being of homeless people in general if they could be killed every time they go to sleep?
I don't think we have such a thing as free-will. That's true. Not contra-causal free-will anyway. If you're talking about compatibilist free-will, then I would say we do have that. However, I don't think that's a useful definition of the term 'free-will'.
We can only hope that the indulgent and way to mild barely even scolding tone with which Mr. Harris addresses this lightweight on his blog (unfortunately giving him even more entirely undeserved stature and publicity) is the quiet before the shitstorm of intellectually disemboweling whoop-ass that Sam has lying in wait for him.
why is this talk confusing so many people?!?! he's just saying that atheists often (and yes, in the talks i've heard, they do) claim to know. that their language is too absolute. he's not standing up for religion AT ALL. no, any made up story that people choose to believe is no different than stories of the easter bunny. he's not opposing atheism... he saying that the way we dialog could use an update and i AGREE... i mean... just look at the stupid comments on here from "atheists" freaking out.
@Liteboyiam - Care to give quotes and examples. Btw, if Dawkins explain the nature of existence, it's the science of evolution and biology, not atheism, talking. When the big bang is said to be the birth of our Universe, it's a theoretical model given by cosmology science. If you think religion gives us a better understanding of reality you are a sad human being, it doesn't even gives a model close to reality, it's all bullsh*t, from a physical point of view and a moral one. Facts > fiction.
@frilansspion Unfortunately, YouTube comments are not the best place to articulate ideas. I ran into the same problem responding to another comment below (which I was slightly forgetting some very important info). You are absolutely allowed to draw conclusions from scientific findings (I don't disagree with that), but your conclusions should be proportionate to what you're studying. If you want elaboration further on what I mean it will have to be out of the mediascape of YouTube.
GMrobsonga 11 hours ago
yeah I agree with discipleoftheteapot and others...hes just renaming the same thing, and in the process undermining dawkins and co and admitting defeat for no real reason. who cares if people are "tired" of debating. theyre trying to raise important questions, important misconceptions about scientific results. people are "tired" of what our kids should be taught in school? seriously?
frilansspion 5 days ago
i dont let anybody enter my mind with dirty feet. ..........mahatama gandhi
sketchup73 5 days ago
i have a question for you..............if brain cells regenerate .....then how do i remember the toys of my childhood.
is it like .....one brain cell that knows that the toy was red on his deathbed tells his sucessor...' please remember that the toy was red and pass this on to my grandson before you die' ...........how the hell do we remember things doctor ?
sketchup73 5 days ago
Comment removed
GMrobsonga 2 weeks ago
@DyzLecticus That doesn't make sense when you say "Agnostic atheism", which would sum to the opinion that there is no God and we cannot know anything about whether or not God exists. That opinion alone is fine but that is not what possibilianism is in content. It's also not atheism repackaged. It's not saying: "There is no god". Eagleman is stating that this platform works on the ideas of searching for and analyzing information without jumping to rather large claims, which is what science is.
GMrobsonga 2 weeks ago
@GMrobsonga you also need some basic philosophical education; 'not believing in god(s)' is not the same as 'believing god(s) do(es) not exist'. The first is agnostic atheism, the second is gnostic atheism (which is basically an unreasonable faith that only very few atheists have).
Eagleman is not really saying anything new or interesting.
DyzLecticus 2 weeks ago
@GMrobsonga so youre not allowed to draw conclusions from scientific findings? any arbitrary idea is just as good as those that seem to correspond with reality? what good is it? he equates the idea of atoms with the idea of god. both should get taxmoney for research of course. good luck building a society around that. "rather large claims". yeah yeah. thats all it is
frilansspion 5 days ago
"Possibilian" is the philosophically ignorant word for "Agnostic atheism"
People that talk about "New" (or "Neo") atheists are typically ignorant about basic philosophy.
DyzLecticus 3 weeks ago
@DyzLecticus 10:41
KingMe1220 2 weeks ago
He's dynamic, but he's just bs'ing. How can you test if something is real or false? Take a man and take away his ability to read or write where you could teach him only what you want to teach him, but only teach him the scientific method, he couldn't possibly come of with any of what mythology teaches. He might come up with a theory of "forms" or perfection, but he would know it only as an abstract concept that doesn't exist. Just a mental construct.
kryptonbornson 1 month ago
i have a book signed by him :)
driftking2point0 1 month ago
A false dichotomy? How is that a false dichotomy, if science is tool to understand the world where as religion take a faith based leap. Yes we admit as scientist and atheist, we do not know certain thing which leaves... " possibilities." But... it doesn't mean religion should fight that possibility. And ofcourse we dont have all the pieces to puzzles, which leaves that vast horizon of things we dont know, but we continue to keep solving the puzzle with the method of science.
xaxjx88 2 months ago
the paradox of someone creating a religion by saying ~ i don't believe a certain religion.
razaelielm 3 months ago
Possibilianism is OK until I am asked to keep an open mind to pulling some guy in the sky out of my ass to explain the beginning of things.
LiberalElitistMedia 3 months ago
also yeah i might not be from the bacooba kingdom, i am civilized and am smart and have studied most religions, and logically only one fits historically and is quite reasonably true
j4manasseh 3 months ago
Christianity is the largest religion and the most wide spread
j4manasseh 3 months ago
Comment removed
j4manasseh 3 months ago
I love Eagleman's brief and matter-of-factly dismissal of all the worlds' religions. That's all the attention they deserve and all that should be needed to convince a rational and open mind that they are indeed absurd.
andreasdrg 4 months ago
Well, there is nothing in his definition of possibilianism that the new atheists would oppose, so the term is superfluous. However, I would say that "atheist" is a very lazy and misleading label to put on people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. I liked his talk, but Eagleman needs to realize that his world view is completely in agreement with that of the neo-atheists he is critizising.
andreasdrg 4 months ago 2
@andreasdrg
Yes, but he emphasizes the exploration of new possibilities; also, Dawkins et fella are more interested in antitheism than he seems to be - the new atheist movement has the more or less declared objective of opposing religion, while Eagleman doesn't seem to even consider it.
The two concepts are not in opposition, but they aren't the same, otherwise Sam harris wouldn't have felt the need to challenge him to a debate.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
@ThisOneIsTaken I think Harris' only disagreement with Eagleman is the way the latter represents the views of the former in talks like this. At 4:45, Eagleman is essentially calling the new atheists' attitude to science close-minded and unimaginative. I agree with Sam that this is a severe misrepresentation. I think you're right that Eagleman's attitude is more "positive" - as I said, he quickly dismisses religion to move on to other subjects - but that isn't what Sam's objection is about.
andreasdrg 4 months ago
@andreasdrg
You are right, I checked Harris's objections.
This said, I still believe that while they share the same core values, the two simply have different aims.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
Looking from the outside in (aka, not giving a damn about anything one way or the other), I think he's spot on. You get all sorts of arrogance and certainty that science is right about everything on one side and all sorts of idiocy and ignorance from the other side and they're doing the same thing - fighting to defend their worldview. I love science but I'm not fond of the present "skeptic" movement.
HadeanAgent 4 months ago in playlist Possibilianism
His consepts on consciousness and the subjective illusion of self and understanding of what really drives our brain is beautiful (for me). Se other videos with him. This lecture is a popular take on his ideas and as many comments here indicate it is worded as so.
I had a thought experiment that gave me a vision of why we believed. I had 5 hours contemplating and then started searching for philosophic thoughts, finaly found David and he resonated with me, I know excatly what he is talking about.
VogonJ 5 months ago
David: Best career advice you will ever receive....Stick to fiction.
panther451 5 months ago
Evolution by natural selection is a fact.
Evolution by natural selection is not just a possibility.
Cultures also has and will evolves.
chiropra1 5 months ago
This is the worst talk I've heard since Deepak Chopra opened his mouth, this has to be intellectual suicide! His ignorance about the universe is staggering, and how could you dismiss dark matter like that? I study physics, the evidence is overwhelming! We even have several candidates! Thumbs down^100.
iasedu 5 months ago
@iasedu 1^100 thumbs down? ;)
andreasdrg 4 months ago
@andreasdrg Yes.
iasedu 4 months ago
probabilism is what all modern atheists teach. maybe he should stick to neuroscience. Though he has right. You are product of your culture and his culture definitely has problems with so called neoatheists. You don't argue with religious people if god exists or not, it obviously exists for them and there is no reason to make them cry. I like him anyway, cause he is very enthusiastic about many things like cosmos etc.
fryciu111 5 months ago
probabilism is what all modern atheists teach. maybe he should stick to neuroscience. He has right tho. You are product of your culture and his culture definitely has problems with so called neoatheists. You dont argue with religious people if god exists or not, it obviously exists for them and there is no reason to make them cry. I like him anyway, cause he is very enthusiastic about many things :)
fryciu111 5 months ago
I bet this guy, if he looks at the comments here, is a bit shellshocked at the drubbing he is getting. No wonder he is getting them though...
SuperRobertoboy 6 months ago
Secondly, Dr. Eaglemean called himself possibilion, but what about probability?
He equated atheist position with the same probability as theist position. A total nonsense. Of course, atheist position is more probable than Jesus walked on the water or Mohammad was Allah's prophet. I wonder if he is looking for funding from Templeton Foundation.
Dr. Eagleman is playing politics with science.
Timf1234 6 months ago 2
I was very disappointed with Dr. Eagleman's lie, fraud, deception, poetical correctness. He misrepresented Richard Dawkin, Sam Harris by using the word "certain" about their conclusion. new atheists are never certain. Dawkins did not put himself in 7 in his 1 to 7 scale of believer and atheist. Eagleman knew this but he misrepresented new atheist. Sam Harris is correct to accuse him of "Intellectual Dishonesty".
New atheist are always open to new ideas, but they never forget the probability.
Timf1234 6 months ago 5
Good talk, but he's lost when it comes to atheism! may be just scared by the word atheist
sokklei 6 months ago
When he said that we are sweeping dark matter under the rug and claiming to know everything, he lost me. The most expensive experiments ever are an effort to explain dark matter, among other things. Dr. Eagleman, if you have a spare $10 billion that you want to sweep under the rug, I promise I can provide a large enough rug.
sesho03 6 months ago
Dr. Eagleman, you certainly have the gift of eloquence but I think you still need some time and study to let your thoughts crystallize out. I suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger, Dennett et alii a little bit more attentively.
ridelo 6 months ago
Atheism is the worst possible position one could commit to.
HomuncuIus 6 months ago
@HomuncuIus It's not a position, it's a belief more justly validated then any religion one could believe in based on evidence at hand.
SinceretheGhost 6 months ago
Quite disappointing. This guy is really overrated... And I'm not even talking about his wishy-washy stance on religion...
exp9r 6 months ago
He comes off as wishy-washy. Also notice this talk is TEDxHouston, Texas where religion is valued over critical thought.
dhaworth75 6 months ago
Sam Harris has just released a rebuttal to the Eagleman, specific to this TED talk, on his blog page.
Apparently Eagleman agreed to debate him but never responded to Sam's initial rebuttal. Sam got tired of waiting and published his opening remarks today.
2LegHumanist 6 months ago 13
@2LegHumanist Where can i find this? is it a video?
TheMidwestsk8ter 3 weeks ago
@TheMidwestsk8ter Not a video, it's on his blog. The name of the article is "Wither Eagleman?".
"I recently posted a TEDx talk by the neuroscientist David Eagleman, author of Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain and the subject of a recent profile in The New Yorker. While I admire much of what Eagleman has to say, I wrote that his espousal of “possibilianism,” in lieu of atheism, was intellectually dishonest. I then invited him to discuss the matter with me on this page."
2LegHumanist 3 weeks ago
@TheMidwestsk8ter You can find it on samharris dott org
2LegHumanist 3 weeks ago
He's refusing to be political about the existence of god(s). Therefore his opinions regarding the debates about the existence of god(s) are irrelevant except to sell HIS theory of possibilianism
crowesarethebest 6 months ago 3
imo, possibillionism may be a good thing, considering all the craziness in this world where people of so many different religious beliefs claim to know "The Truth." However, atheists mostly don't claim that they are certain there is no god, only that there is not sufficient evidence to support belief in god(s). There are exceptions, but usually atheists are the voice of reason in this world of religious conflict. And, you will not find many, if any, atheists who don’t support science.
lc237 6 months ago 2
He explained how stupid religion is pretty well,
Its very unusual he claims to have a middle ground against his profession and absurdity.
Does he not realize religion is a terminator of the scientific method?
Disappointing for TED.
meadowsirl 6 months ago 2
Hmm. False dichotomy indeed. He just created the false dichotomy to find a place for himself. Dawkins is openly a "possibilian"- you can never be 100% certain about the absence of "god." Weak.
GRITTYGORDI 6 months ago 5
He entirely misses that it's possible to make a decision which is "firm, but tentative." That, of course, being what the neo (gnu?) atheists have done. It's possible that Islam or Christianity or whatever is true, but we haven't a single good reason to think that they are. His position seems to just be a slightly different tolerance threshold for excluding certain ideas and then proclaiming it to be the 'correct' threshold.
pitbone62 6 months ago
It appears to me that Dr. Eagleman is simply try to create a space for himself in this debate. Philosophically, I don't see any gap between his position and that of the new atheists with regard to science and uncertainty. Of course, this is based on reading their work and not relying Dr. Eagleman's disingenuous caricature.
gqorwell 6 months ago 3
as far as I can "possibilianism" is exactly atheism and skepticism repackaged - if you say "psychics might be real but we have to apply skeptical science to it" - that is no different from a Dawkins or a Randi. His entire argument is disingenuous and relies on a straw man
discipleoftheteapot 6 months ago 13
@discipleoftheteapot Even so, the term "atheist" defines itself by what it isn't.
(I am not a non-stamp collector, for example. )
Possibilianism might be more specific as atheism can represent a wide spectrum of disbelief in God, and exactly WHAT you disbelieve about God.
DannyPhantomBeast 1 month ago
@DannyPhantomBeast but I don't define myself entirely by my atheism - only when the question of religious belief comes up - it makes sense when religion is the dominant force in society - in the same way that when there was conflict over slavery it made sense to call oneself an abolitionist even if that is defining yourself in opposition to something.
discipleoftheteapot 1 month ago
@discipleoftheteapot He didn't say that he came with this new term up against agnosticism. He said, that many people started seeing agnosticism as an uncertainty between existing dichotomy(ies), so he felt like naming his POV on the matter with a new term.
Anyway, I think eventually this word will just end up being a more precise synonym for atheism and agnosticism for those cases,when you want to be really sure that your opponent gets you right to elim. p. misunderstanding.
NetIncarnate 1 day ago
I am a bit surprised by Sam Harris' attempt at engaging Dr. Eagleman in debate - it seems like Sam should be too busy fighting off the many religious nutjobs who must want him in their cross-hairs. On the other hand, I can see where the annoyance comes from...Eagleman's claim that "If you loose a piece of pinky, you're no diferent, but if you loose a pinky sized piece of brain, you're completey different" This statement is pattently false. Just ask any one who has lost ANY part of their body.
crazysailr 6 months ago
@crazysailr Eagleman is referring to potential loss of global cognitive functioning when he refers to missing a part of the brain the size of a pinky. You seem to be suggesting that the anxiety or grief that an amputee experiences is somehow renders Eagleman's observation false. You just misunderstood his point is all.
Explorer766 6 months ago
He really misrepresents the "new atheists". By his definition, it seems like all the "new atheists" are actually "possibilian". He's only repeating what they say in different words.
vicweb1978 6 months ago 3
Okay, anyone who has read the so-called neo-atheists, recoils at Eagleman's kinpin which supports the stage of his own, self-constructed side show: that they claim science to already know everything. Science already is a subscriber to possibility. How does Mr. Eagleman think Dark matter/energy was discovered in the first place? He's hoaxing his own cultural contribution.
MrFaraday 6 months ago 2
"Dude, man, you know...like, what if the spaghetti monster is really real, or the hokey pokey is what it's all about?" This talk is a cheap play on essentialized skepticism, as if scientists didn't already take open possibilities to be the natural state of things. That's the point of what Dawkins argues, but he actually limits his conversation to what we, if anything, know. "New Atheism" isn't about conceptual doctrine, it's about the novelty of pointing to facts in an urgent, activist manner
theseanze 6 months ago 4
Eagleman certainly doesn't understand what he's talking about. The "new atheists", including myself, do not claim to have it all figured out. As I so often tell my theist friends, "I'm not claiming to know. I'm simply asserting that YOU don't". A hypothetical creator being, of any sort, seems unlikely based on what we know. And even it it does exist, the possibility that it corresponds to a character from earthly folklore would be vanishingly small.
yottalogic 6 months ago 2
I have to thank samharris (dot) org/blog/item/whither-eagleman/ for getting me to this vid and recommend Sam's blog entry for its commentary and rebuttal to it. Though not a deep thinker myself, I enjoy the back and forth this video and that blog provide. Thanks for helping me to continue to have hope for humankind.
Elaina43 6 months ago 2
I'm not sure what he means by "strict atheism." Wish he'd define it. I'm also a strict a-unicornist, too. But maybe science knows too little for me to strictly say I don't see any evidence for unicorns and therefore I will live my life as if there aren't any.
Zimmerscope 6 months ago 2
Wait a second, 90% of what we know of the universe is dark matter? I don't think this is correct. I believe it's 25% dark matter and 75% dark energy, etc.. I will have to check my sources again.
bariswheel 6 months ago
Atheists generally make the case that the "magical" properties attributed to "gods" are phony, there are no magical powers. OK but that's a negative position. A more interesting question is what drives people to postulate gods, still, today. And read some of the new brain science, our logic is built on our subjective, emotional, often unconscious experience. Religion can produce a motivation with awesome, if often misdirected, power. That's why atheists don't get much done. Think positive!
isadoradoug 6 months ago
@isadoradoug Atheists don't get much done? What about all the writers, scientists, artists, who are atheists? What about Darwin, Stalin, possibly Hitler? Not that what Stalin and Hitler did was good, but they certainly had enough motivation to get a lot of evil done, although Hitler is likely to be an example that supports your claim of the power of religion as a motivator.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
Hmm, he pretty much has the same views as the neo-atheists really, Sam Harris makes very similar points.
RupertVids 6 months ago
He speaks a lot of truth. However im not sure what his main point is all about. SCIENCE is already 'possibilian'.
KingMushroom 6 months ago
Is Possibilianism a strong or weak form of agnosticism?
Also, I think you're just a philosopher if you claim things are possible (including things beyond the realm of science). You could say causality is merely possible. If you're going to leave gods, fairies and creation myths in the realm of possibility (without getting in to what we consider probabilities), are you really saying anything? Have you allowed science to say its piece? I don't think you have.
ReX342 6 months ago
Disengenuous muppet.
go1godfurther 6 months ago
Spewing nonsensical goo speaking fees. I know of no serious atheist that limits the possibilities of the unknown or claims to know everything. The speaker either has not read the works of these people or is being deliberately obtuse to attract an audience of chum suckers.
Nhurm 6 months ago
This talk is utter nonsense.
geojonny84 6 months ago
I don't see any conflict between him and the professional atheists. Except perhaps that he isn't so angry.
isadoradoug 6 months ago
@isadoradoug Actually it seems to me that there is a big difference. They (atheists) are at least willing to be intellectually honest about their position - irregardless of how popular/unpopular that makes them. This guy seems to be bending over backwards to covet popularity.
go1godfurther 6 months ago
It's odd that he sets himself up in opposition to Dawkins et al. He only reiterates what they say at the same time as clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting key aspects of their positions. His knowledge of them seems to come from second hand, religious misrepresentations. Sam Harris would eat this guy whole (Harris has invited him to debate).
geojonny84 6 months ago 2
i do not know is 3 words?
vcwammes 6 months ago
"The certainty on topics that one cannot possibly be certain on." -- To be an atheist one need not prove there is no God. You only need to understand that the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for werewolves.
I don't know what you accomplish by assigning atheists a position we do not hold, and then presenting the position we do like it's a new thing you just invented. But my fuck-off reflex is kicking in.
He should have read, rather than just shown interest in those books.
Tatarize 6 months ago
it is not truth. Dawkins ask why we give so much posibility to God if we don't do the same with other fairy tale characters like lepricons. We can't prove that those creatures don't exist, but it is not a reason to give to this creatores the posibility to exist, like fifty fifty, it is more like 99 to 1 percent. So we should give the same 1 percent to god as the fairy tale creatures (sorry for my bad english, i am just learning).
PABLOMUNOS 7 months ago
what a stupid douchebag! The neo-atheistic position exactly discribes the point he's making: Dawkins cares about the truth. Harris wants a discussion with the words of th 21. century. Harris points out the rational mind. And this little shrink ignores all those positions and claims them for hiself.
I hate it, when guys falsely taking all the credit!
TheSysDef 7 months ago
It's always about science vs religion. They're forgetting is philosophy, probably because they jumble it together with eastern religion or wise sayings. But it is that side of knowledge that science doesn't cover, with an extensive history Often when there are problems in science, new discoveries about the brain, or whathaveyou, it's a triviality in philosophy or is really the confusion of a technical approach with what would require something else. I don't have an agenda, I just notice.
scavengedfantasyname 7 months ago
So other then coming up with a new term that pretty much is a spinoff of agnostics and buying a website with that name, so he can also now be a founder of a new term. there was not any other crucial facts he came up with.
this is flawed, you are an atheist because you do not see any evidence of a deity,
if something comes up as a deity we will use our science tool to identify it
and then believe it.
Cause we cannot believe in what we cannot see.
izaccy 7 months ago
The Jon Stewart of the secular sphere. Calls out new-atheists for something they didn't claim, and makes a false claim of equivalence between the parties.
danielpaul22 7 months ago 48
Atheists however, have no problem saying that the gods in which we know traits of like the abrahamic god is most likely made up. It may not be 100%, but it's like 99.9998% certainty given all we know about he's said to have done in the holy books and how that can't possibly be right given the knowledge of today. So I have no problem saying that the christian god is most likely bullshit.
A deistic god is impossible to disprove currently, but so is the invisible gnome in my garden.
SoFlyCee 7 months ago
Atheists can no more say there is absolutely no god or absolute creator in a deistic term than they can say that there is absolutely no norse god poseidon. They can not not say and DO NOT SAY that there is no father xmas or invisible gnome in my garden either. But I am also a-poseidon & a-invisible gnomes.
lack of belief does not translate into a positive affirmation. It is not a knowledge, but a dogmatic position. If there were evidence to suggest existence of gods, we'd then believe.
SoFlyCee 7 months ago
I truly wonder if Eagleman has even read the neo-atheist books he is referring to. None of them assert certainty, in fact they all basically say the same thing he is saying. There is no need to create a position that means you don't want to commit to any position. If you truly don't know whether there is a God and you don't subscribe to any beliefs about it; you can still be open to the possibility while still not believing. That makes you an atheist in my books.
TheSilverDragon 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheSilverDragon 7 months ago
As a born again Christian, I find this man's logic and honesty quite refreshing! Imagine that, a humble and open neuroscientist! I know he is not saying there is a God, but rather he is admitting that the data being revealed about the universe and the complexity of human beings is so overwhelming that there is obviously a lot that we simply do not know.
A man like this could help a lot of people escape the dogma of the new atheism religion which is deceiving so many.
sandiegoevangelism 7 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism How can you be a born again Christian,
just that you have reaffirmed your position as a christian.
if you choose that religion, what made you choose that religion over the other 1999 religions.
what crucial evidence did Christianity provided you, that made you say okay this is it
this is the real deal.
izaccy 7 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism - as a born-again christian you cannot take position on the matter of "deception". For the same reason a slave holder of the seventeen century does not belong in a modern discourse about racism.
lalaurentide 7 months ago
By the way, the highest level of epistemic development, according to William Perry, is Relativism. This is where one actually commits to an argument and can back it up with sound and robust reasoning.
Eagleman seems to encourage us to do think the way he does: never commit to an idea if you can not have "certainty". He is forever stuck in Scepticism.
Science is about committing (Law of Gravity). Even though there is no certainty in this law, we commit to it so we may move forward.
dweeper1020 7 months ago
Eagleman says that many questions are beyond the toolbox of Science, so scientists are happy holding on to many narratives. That is COMPLETELY wrong. Science is EVIDENCE driven. PERIOD.
If there is no evidence, then what we have is a Philosophy. And Philosophy focuses on varied narratives -- not Science!
dweeper1020 7 months ago
I think it's unfortunate that Eagleman, who is a scientist, doesn't genuinely understand what Science is. He misrepresents what atheists say and what scientists do.
Eagleman does not "know" there is a not a small, invisible blue man that lives in his eyebrow, but if he was open to that possibility we would see him as delusional. Similarly, if there is not a shred of evidence in support of gods, why we should anyone be open to that possibility?
dweeper1020 7 months ago
Maybe he should explore the possibility of actually reading the books of the "neo" atheists
danieldrehmer 7 months ago 39
He says the same every "neo" atheist says, but do so accusing them of not being open-minded.
danieldrehmer 7 months ago
I had top comment on this thread with about 80 likes, but my comment has disappeared. Did someone delete it?
RiCorr 7 months ago
@RiCorr No, I think there is a time limit for top comments or something...happens to me sometimes
rhyfelur 7 months ago
He's smarmy in a repellent way. His claims about what "neo-atheists" represent are half-baked and misleading. Two thumbs down.
mkaen 7 months ago 2
Eagleman is charming, but ...
Did you notice how easily (and humorously) he tosses out ESP because "we've tested these sorts of things and can't find any evidence to weigh in favor of it". I agree. So do the New Atheists.
Eagleman says we don't know enough to be atheists? Maybe we don't know enough to discount the vaguest deist notions; but if we can discount ESP for lack of evidence, we can certainly discount virtually all mainstream religions in the world.
MrBeauquilter 7 months ago 2
More bro's should be scientists.
Also (Debate on New Atheists) - I think he may have accused the 'New Atheist' movement wrongly. For instance, Dawkins talks a bit about how life could have come from a comet in the form of frozen bacteria - a 'possibilian' idea, according to Eagleman. I think he may be confusing the rhetoric of the New Atheists vs. Religious groups. One would have to admit the rhetoric sounds a lot like No God vs. God. I think Eagleman may simply presenting Atheism, nicer.
hopscotchfever 7 months ago
I first heard of Dr. Eagleman during his interview on Dr. Ginger Campbell's _Brain Science Podcast_ and was impressed both with his ideas and his ethical carriage. I am less impressed with him now. There is something disingenuous and in fact dishonest-seeming about the way he colors Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, et alli, as arrogant and closed-minded. Disappointing.
ggudding 7 months ago 2
He just defined what an atheist is.
luchogallardoleon 7 months ago
I think that part of the confusion is a semantic confusion over the word 'atheist'. Dawkins admits to being technically an agnostic and on a scale of 1-7 where 1 represents absolute belief and 7 absolute unbelief, he places himself as a 6 but not a 7. However, he still refers to himself as an atheist because he assigns less probability to the existence of God. Atheism doesn't have to mean a total denial of the possibilty of a God; in fact it seldom does.
RiCorr 7 months ago
Ah, if we are going to accept "i don't know"... then we also need to own up to what "i do know".
Certainly given the history of the religious dogmas and the inception of holy books we can say with almost certainty that they are nothing more than superstition written by archaic humans to fill in the gaps of the unknown.
If there was a creation or catalyst to the Big bang then it is nothing like the God's people claim to know today.
clancyben1 7 months ago
Any term you use for the rational stance that's been propagated by people wanting their beliefs about the world to correlate with reality is going to be straw manned by the religious.There will always be douchebags like this guy who try to make a name for themselves by taking advantage of the confusion this causes. How about if we stop continually renaming ourselves and stick to repeating the arguments that actually lead people to us?
irreverent79 7 months ago
Eaglemen is characterizing neo-atheist falsely. He is polarizing the debate. The supposed "middle ground" he believes he solely occupies actually places him right with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.
As others have said it is irresponsible on Eaglemen's part. He would do well to realize he is simply exploring and advocating a small part of the neo-atheist argument and not *really* creating anything new.
Aside from the above he is an excellent speaker and I look forward to more.
kevingrr 7 months ago
@kevingrr if these new atheist authors say with confidence that there is no god, which would be what makes them atheist, then David Eagleman's description of them is just caricatured, but still accurate. His main argument is that they are the polar opposite of those who subscribe to any one particular religion because they say with confidence that there is no god.
basically, Eagleman is saying he isn't ready to say there is no god, but he can definitely say that organized religion is false.
justforwatchingcraps 7 months ago
@justforwatchingcraps You seem to have not read anything that Harris, Hitchens or Dawkins have written. They have all stated numerous times that there may be a God. Their stance can be more accurately summed up as "I don't know if there is a God and neither can you." and this guy seems to feel exactly the same way. You should really fact check things like this on the internet. It'd be a shame to dismiss all of the great books this guy is trashing over his desire to be famous.
irreverent79 7 months ago
@justforwatchingcraps please see irrevents's reply below.
They do not say with 100 percent certainty that there is no god. They will however argue that it is unlikely knowing what we do know that the god of Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, etc exists. They are, as Eaglemen says, "removing possibilities." That said they remain open to legitimate verifiable evidence for any religious claims.
What Eaglemen does is dishonest. Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris have all simply admitted to not know.
kevingrr 7 months ago
Given that Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens have all stated at one time or another that they don't believe their approach's are likely to do much to bridge the gap between believers and skeptics, maybe it's not a bad idea to try to create a middle ground, where people can imagine all they want, as long as they check their certainty at the door...probably wouldn't fix the Fundies but might give the young minds an avenue of escape.
rhyfelur 7 months ago
@rhyfelur The problem is that he's not offering anything new. He's merely straw manning people who agree with him in an effort to rise above them. If this guy was just saying something like "Hey, let's rename ourselves to make believers more comfortable with us." or something like that, it'd be one thing but he is clearly purporting to have a different and more rational epistemological stance than Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins and explicitly misrepresenting them.
irreverent79 7 months ago
@irreverent79 Ya, i'm not saying that his motives aren't self-serving to some degree, after all, he is trying to sell a book....but then so is everyone else.
I like the Horsemen, and agree with their positions, but i'm not a fan-boy and have my criticisms. One is that their attitudes are, at times, arrogant and condescending, which can be interpreted as certainty, and if your objective is to change the zeitgeist, is not the most rational approach. I don't mind someone pointing that out.
rhyfelur 7 months ago
@rhyfelur Interesting. Can you please give a few specific examples where their attitudes are "arrogant and condescending," Thanks!
RiCorr 7 months ago
@RiCorr Ya, I could spend my time rummaging thru the 100s of videos I have watched, for specific examples, just so you can say, "that's not arrogant, that's just honest" or something like that, (as if the 2 things are mutually exclusive), but im not inclined to waste my time on it. If you dont get (or agree with) the larger point of what i'm saying, I can live with that.
Google any of their names + words like: delusional, crackpot, ridiculous, idiotic, etc. I'm sure u will find some examples.
rhyfelur 7 months ago
@rhyfelur Fair enough. I wouldn't want to waste any of your time. It's just that I'm very familiar with the writing/videos etc of the so-called new atheists. I'm also very familiar with the oft-repeated claim that they are arrogant, but have noticed that those who make this claim rarely cite specific examples of supposed arrogance. I can perhaps understand that the combative character of Hitchens may be misinterpreted as arrogance, but Dawkins, Harris And Dennett aren't arrogant at all.
RiCorr 7 months ago
@RiCorr I guess I shouldn't really say that its a "criticism" that I have, I see their oppositional role in the discussion as completely necessary, but I think at some point it will also be necessary to breech the gap, in a way that gives young people a path, that doesn't require them to carry on the superstitious malarkey on one side, or alienate their entire family on the other. Atheists should be the first to welcome any attempt in that direction, instead of immediately trashing it, imo.
rhyfelur 7 months ago
@rhyfelur It sounds to me as though you're trying to defend Eagleman because you see him as bridging 'the gap'. I certainly welcome attempts to bring people together, but what I and most other commentators here object to is Eagleman's trashing of the 'new atheist' authors. He's crudely misrepresenting their views. It's a shame because he's an intelligent man with a lot offer, but he shouldn't resort to dishonesty.
RiCorr 7 months ago
@RiCorr Im not saying they are wrong..Im saying that when you tell people that they are delusional, even if its true, they rarely agree with you...)
rhyfelur 7 months ago
@rhyfelur I agree that there's a need to be sensitive and offending people isn't a good way to bring them over to your view. But if Dawkins honestly believes that religious people are deluded then I think entitling his book 'The God Delusion' is fair enough. It's really not that offensive! If there were such a thing as the Marquis of Queensbury rules for argument then few could be said to follow them as well as Dawkins: he doesn't hit his opponents below the belt!
RiCorr 7 months ago
@rhyfelur I'm sorry, but I disagree. Sam Harris is everything but condescending. He has spoken many times about how it's important to empathize with the religious experiences of those who are religious and not just discount them as delusions of grandeur. Instead, acknowledge them and offer alternative explanations. His principle method is reason and not condescension.
However ppl who use condescension generally try to sway 3rd parties not who they're involved in discourse which is effeective.
SoFlyCee 7 months ago
Comment removed
Olsonic 7 months ago
He's a good speaker, and what he has to say about the brain is interesting, but he knows nothing about cosmology... he's glib, and he should stop talking like he's an expert on cosmology
Olsonic 7 months ago
I don't see any difference between him and Dawkins or others; just uses different word. I wrote about "I don't know!" couple of years back...
ecortext.blogspot.com/2009/07/knowledge-speaking.html
ecortext 7 months ago
Pop pseudo-scientific drivel.
FantasticBabblings 7 months ago
@FantasticBabblings which part?
Olsonic 7 months ago
Possibilianism? That sounds cool , I guess i'm a Possibilian.
TehraniTX 7 months ago
Hmmm...would someone that says "I don't know" to the existence of God for some reason make the leap of faith and believe that God exists? That seems strange.
PainefulMass 7 months ago
I can understand a certain type of religious individual using the "atheists are certain they're right" strawman, but Eagleman should know better. Also, he seems ironically certain that his misapprehension is true.
CosmicFish 7 months ago
I wonder Dr. Eagleman realize that Buddism came up with the term 'I don't know' 2,500 years ago as a teaching?
ciarandevenney808 7 months ago 2
GC4 I think, though, it is actually *plausibility* that is the key, not *possibility*.
If I flip a coin and hold it hidden, is it possible that it is heads? I would say we don't know if it is possible. The answer has already been determined. It is impossible that the bottom side is up at that moment, but it is plausible. "Plausible" is our mental world -- the only world we perceive. "Possibilianism" is about the non-mental. Plausibilianism is about all the ideas we can imagine and explore.
gregconquest 7 months ago
GC3 Belief as in momentary enthusiasm for a n idea or a way of seeing, even one that seems quite suspect. As long as you can imagine it, then you should try it.
I think there is also a subversion of literalism in this approach to belief. You don't have to permanently, literally believe the Garden of Eden story to see the world from that perspective. Holding the story in your mind is enough. It is that narrative that becomes a filter for the moment, but you also know that it is just a story.
gregconquest 7 months ago
GC2 The possibilian will try out new beliefs like a suit, while the new atheist maintains uniforms are unneeded. But "belief" is fundamentally morphed in this change. No longer is belief something you hold long-lasting loyalty to. It can no longer keep other plausibilities away. Changing the metaphor, possibilianism is like the desire to wear varying sets of eyeglasses. Sometime, if you're operating from a particular perspective, you might see something no one noticed before. It takes belief.
gregconquest 7 months ago
GC1The criticism here of Eagleman seems to largely be that he is a new atheist as well . . . he just doesn't realize it. It seems to me, though, Eagleman is transcending a common limitation shared by most. That is the belief that we must have *a* belief. Not just on gods, but on everything. The new atheists do refrain from belief in discredited hypotheses, but they also refrain from believing in a panoply of plausibilities because they too lack evidence.
The possibilian, otoh, will believe.
gregconquest 7 months ago
What the fuck did I just watch? He's saying we should rely on science where scientific inquiry is applicable, something I agree with. Then he recommends we're open to any possibility when faced with questions that are outside of the domain of science. In situations where we *truly* do not have access to evidence, I believe *all* the "neo-atheists" would suggest we withhold judgement. This talk is straw man bullshit and it pisses me off. I hope Eagleman doesn't chicken out of the debate with Sam.
magnusjsolberg 7 months ago 13
@magnusjsolberg I think you have not understood the same message as me from this video. Eagleman was saying that we should be more comfortable with not knowing, how is this a judgement? Did you watch this till the end?
gobbo241 7 months ago
@gobbo241 Did you read my post? I don't think you did.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@gobbo241 But he does sort of imply that the "new atheists" are the ones being disingenuous for ridiculing the possibility of something he also thinks is ridiculous.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg So science has no proof of morality, so should we withhold judgement of this? There is no proof that there is anything wrong with torture or rape or murder...so should you not have an opinion on them?
It's funny that atheists keep believing that the entire universe occured out of an arbitrary explosion....yet when you ask them why an arbitrary explosion exists and how it could create so much order, the only response you get is attack on organized religion.
VJWU 6 months ago
Comment removed
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@VJWU 1. As with all other things, we need an axiomatic starting point. When we have that in place, science can in principle tell us what is moral behavior and what isn't. You, as a theist, require the same axiomatic starting point. The difference between the two positions is that I don't have to take anything further on faith, and that I can present evidence for what is moral. You cannot.
2. I'm not talking about proof. We rarely have proof of anything. I'm talking about evidence.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg Axiom = "a statement that is assumed to be true". You don't consider assuming something to be true to be faith? Let's just do one easy example: From a atheistic scientific viewpoint, why is it moral for someone to decide not to have kids but it is immoral to kill someone?
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU Which is why is wrote "take anything *further* on faith". You see the distinction? Reading comprehension, dude.
In general, I would consider having kids, or not, a morally neutral thing.
Killing is not always an immoral act.
My axiomatic starting point would be that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. We should try to avoid that. Also that the greatest levels of well-being for as many people as possible for as long as possible, is something we should strive for.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg I think you didn't really answer my question straight on. Let's say a serial killer randomly kills off 5 people who were all good samaritans quickly without any pain. Why is that morally worse than a married couple who decides not to have any kids?
You said your assumption is that the greatest levels of well being is something we should strive for. But if humans are just physical atoms with no spirituality, what difference does it make to you if people are alive or dead?
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU I hate that I have to do your thinking for you.
1. If the serial killer kills 5 people, it would cause immense suffering to the victims' friends and family. Also, the good samaritans would be unable to continue doing good deeds.
2. It would reduce well-being for all of society if you might, on any given night, be killed in your sleep. We'd all be terrified.
If everyone you know today were killed tomorrow, would it make a difference to you in this life, before you die and go to heaven?
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg First of all you have assumed that I'm religious, which I'm not which makes it almost impossible to respond to anything you say. Or is that another one of your "axioms" where it's okay to assume things as long as you don't "take anything further on faith"? See, that's your fallacy right there. If you assume the axiom to be true but it isn't, it doesn't matter if you take anything further on faith. If you first assume the sky is red, then everything after is wrong.
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU
Part 2:
The point is you're doing what so many theists do, claiming that because something doesn't have an eternal cosmic significance, then it doesn't matter here on earth in our lives at this point in time.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg So if the killer killed everyone on a deserted island it would be ok because that would include friends/family? You say you'd care about them doing good deeds or maybe that's another arbitrary axiom. Why would you be terrified of this killer if you think that death is just a peaceful sleep anyway? So if you don't think that spirituality matters, do you care if you throw out an old telephone? You should try to keep it alive since you care so much about electrons and protons.
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU At this point your argument has devolved into sheer stupidity. Either you're dishonest, or there's some sort of cognitive disability involved. Either way, I have no interest in continuing this exchange. I would suggest you read some moral philosophy that's not written by genocide advocates like William Lane Craig. Maybe someone more patient than myself will continue this, but I doubt they will have more luck getting through to you.
There's nothing in this for me.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@magnusjsolberg You said that someone getting killed was immoral only because of the grief to their friends/family/society. I guess you have no moral problem with having homeless people secretly killed off since they wouldn't have friends/family mourning their death. Don't worry I don't actually expect you to try to answer these. It has already created too much cognitive dissonance for you to respond. It's best you go back to reading atheist books since you don't believe in free will either.
VJWU 6 months ago
@VJWU There is no cognitive dissonance on my part. With regard to the homeless person, I would say that's wrong because of two reasons:
1. Preference utilitarians like Princeton's Peter Singer would argue that the person's preferences should be taken into account. I agree with that. If the homeless person does not want to be killed, we shouldn't kill him.
2. Don't you think it would reduce the well-being of homeless people in general if they could be killed every time they go to sleep?
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
@VJWU
Part 2:
I don't think we have such a thing as free-will. That's true. Not contra-causal free-will anyway. If you're talking about compatibilist free-will, then I would say we do have that. However, I don't think that's a useful definition of the term 'free-will'.
magnusjsolberg 6 months ago
We can only hope that the indulgent and way to mild barely even scolding tone with which Mr. Harris addresses this lightweight on his blog (unfortunately giving him even more entirely undeserved stature and publicity) is the quiet before the shitstorm of intellectually disemboweling whoop-ass that Sam has lying in wait for him.
fctchk 6 months ago
we are like blind kittens wondering around the universe.
jalks1 7 months ago
Dark Matter = Science of the Gaps.
simplynumba1 7 months ago
@simplynumba1 You're an idiot. Read more.
magnusjsolberg 7 months ago
@magnusjsolberg why so serious???
simplynumba1 7 months ago
@magnusjsolberg nvm don't answer that i can answer that myself...
simplynumba1 7 months ago
@cnestudy1 - Easier for whom? Easier than what?
lalaurentide 7 months ago
why is this talk confusing so many people?!?! he's just saying that atheists often (and yes, in the talks i've heard, they do) claim to know. that their language is too absolute. he's not standing up for religion AT ALL. no, any made up story that people choose to believe is no different than stories of the easter bunny. he's not opposing atheism... he saying that the way we dialog could use an update and i AGREE... i mean... just look at the stupid comments on here from "atheists" freaking out.
Liteboyiam 7 months ago
@Liteboyiam - Beside claiming they don't believe in the existence of a god, or many gods, what are they claiming to know?
lalaurentide 7 months ago
@lalaurentide
they too often claim sum up the nature of existence. listen for it... it's there.
Liteboyiam 7 months ago
@Liteboyiam - Care to give quotes and examples. Btw, if Dawkins explain the nature of existence, it's the science of evolution and biology, not atheism, talking. When the big bang is said to be the birth of our Universe, it's a theoretical model given by cosmology science. If you think religion gives us a better understanding of reality you are a sad human being, it doesn't even gives a model close to reality, it's all bullsh*t, from a physical point of view and a moral one. Facts > fiction.
lalaurentide 7 months ago