Why No One Believes Atheism/Naturalism is True

[Ranokian]

How does this prove that God exists? at 4:56 you lost me there. And do you think we have different brains? The brain of an atheist brain has the same structure as your brain, like it or not. What you so strikingly clearly are showing is what the function of religion is: to be able to say to yourself that you cant be wrong, without looking at the arguments. The ultimate crutch, religion.

[Batters56]

1. There's a massive difference between the 'mild paranoia' that prepares us for the unexpected or worst case scenario and 'paranoid delusion' that would make it impossible for us all to live as we do.

2. We are not evolving by natural selection anymore and haven't been in the West for a few hundred years at least. The belief in naturalism gained ground after our fitness to the environment stopped having an effect on the number of children each of us was likely to have.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@Batters56 Natural selection is how we evolved for millions of years, a few hundred years is not going to undo it. There is nothing that proves that since less children die we now know what is true. This is a leap of faith. It is far more likely will still pass on traits that help with survival.

[coyoteself]

As for "Intelligent design," There's quite literally a universe of evidence which disproves that, but which many people rationalize and manipulate into something that fits what they call truth, but begs a question which they have yet to answer. Where did the designer come from? And no, saying that the "Designer is eternal" doesn't work. Not unless you're willing to admit a very uncomfortable concept, which I'll let all of you ponder

[Falcondick69]

@coyoteself "where did the designer come from? and no saying that the "designer is eternal" doesn't work." that doesn't make any sense, the claim is basically you don't like the answer because it doesn't sit with you so you ignore it for no reason other than "I don't like it".

[coyoteself]

@Falcondick69 LOL you missed my point entirely. That or you chose to ignore it. Which is the most likely case since you can't answer the question without the word "Eternal." Even allowing for the concept of an "Eternal Designer," it raises myriads of questions that have yet to be answered in a way that is 100% acceptable. Something I think an Eternal Designer would have accounted for.

[Falcondick69]

@coyoteself the objection you made isn't really an objection at all, there isn't anything illogical with positing a personal self existant being that is necessary in its existence. especially if that is the answer. the objection you make is = to me asking "where did you come from? and no your parents are not a good answer because it doesn't explain anything".

[coyoteself]

@Falcondick69 If you seriously think about it for any time and NOT merely accept what you've been manipulated to simply believe on faith, there is everything illogical about a self existant being. But hey for the first 25 years of my life I never really thought about it. I just accepted what I was told about God. But then I began to look at things critically, logically and most of what I was told to merely accept on faith began to completely unravel. 29 years later, I see a LOT more clearly

[Falcondick69]

@coyoteself I am not sure what it is you claim to see but if you are trying to put it into words to show the concept of a self existant being as impossible or is contradictory and can't exist you sure haven't done it.

[coyoteself]

"How do we know if anything we believe is true?" Simple, we don't. When it comes to God, neither the devout theist or die hard atheist knows what's "True" and there's no proof to either sides claim. Theist may have their doctrine which tells them whats true, which atheists can usually dissect to the frustration of that theist. Theist or atheist; the "Truth" simply is what it is, and not what either one wants it to be.

[unkledanbot]

This is the problem of subjective knowledge and absolute truth.

We approximate objectivity through collective knowledge and rational inquiry.

Approximate truth is as absolute as subjective beings can achieve.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@unkledanbot If you can only approximate truth, then you still have no way of knowing what is right and wrong, and you cannot denounce anything. If truth is based on majority rule then 90% of people could decide it is okay to rape and torture the other 10% and it would be okay, because truth is approximate and we would have to conclude there is nothing immoral about it. I hope this helps.

[unkledanbot]

@InspiringPhilosophy 'approximate truth, then you still have no way of knowing what is right and wrong' That which is approximately true is effectively true for subjective perspectives. Right and wrong are determined personally and socially.

'If truth is based on majority rule' Truth is based on overcoming subjectivity not majority rule, a false equivocation.

'because truth is approximate and we would have to conclude there is nothing immoral'

Moral relativism is not based on approximate truth.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@unkledanbot "That which is approximately true is effectively true for subjective perspectives." ~ How can you claim this statement is true is you don't know what is true?

If right and are wrong are determined socially then I guess it is okay for african tribes to oppress, torture, enslave, and rape women.

[jericanderson]

This video is total nonsense. The very purpose of Scientific experimentation is to remove the natural, animal bias we have a organic beings. Empirical methodologies exist to remove this bias, and they clearly work. The belief in God will never get you to surf the internet, fly in an airplane or cure polio. Science does. The paradox the producer wishes to expose as a flaw in atheist logic is nonexistent. Show me some of Charles Darwin's writings where he "struggled" with this. You can't.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@jericanderson Did you watch the whole video? I quote Darwin at 2:45. Besides, you didn't refute the logic, you just claimed our cognitive faculties work. That is not an argument.

[jericanderson]

@InspiringPhilosophy I don't claim they work. This is philosophy 101 stuff. The Greeks philosophers talked about senses and knowledge. I.E. The stick that looks bent when you put it in water, but looks straight when you take it out. Science adjusts and corrects for this biases that come from our sense organs and our humanity. Your video is specious. It's bullshit masquerading as logic. There is a clear divide in human history. Living with science and without it. You should stop, fool.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@jericanderson If you are going to be rude and swear I'm going to remove you, simple as that. Besides, I don't see you refuting the logic, just yelling outright. Please explain how I miss quoted Darwin and how you know you senses work, instead of of just saying they do. Also I admit in the video that this argument doesn't prove God's existence, I do that in other videos. This video just shows that if you believe in naturalism you can't claim that your senses are truly accurate.

[jericanderson]

@InspiringPhilosophy Ok, I apologize for my rudeness. I guess the best way to explain it is this. Logical "if/then"syllogisms work. Yours has the appearance of one, but it is flawed. I totally agree that our senses are not reliable. I have from the beginning, and somehow you have assumed I disagreed with you on this. I don't. However you leap the grand canyon when you conclude if our senses are not reliable, then science is not reliable. That's where your argument breaks down.

[jericanderson]

The very purpose of science is to gain knowledge based on truth without the bias of perspective, or the limits of our sense organs. That's why it works. You equate them as the same thing. Your argument hinges on it. That is it's fatal flaw. It's a specious argument. Our senses, and perspectives are not the same as science. If you went back in time 100 years with just about any commonplace piece of technology it would be magic to the people from the past. That is the miracle of science.

[jericanderson]

@jericanderson And god has nothing to do with it. The myth of god is old world culture. Used to explain things we don't understand. With science we actually endeavor to understand them. It's a superior iteration of the human being. Jesus did not help John Armstrong walk on the moon. Scientists and engineers did. They used the knowledge of things they knew because they could prove them scientifically. The results are irrefutable.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@jericanderson If you agree that our senses are not reliable then how can you conclude that you know anything about science? How do you know science works? You have to assume that your senses work before you can empirically observe the world. I am not argues that science doesn't work, only that naturalist can't conclude they work unless they assume there brains can be something other than a muscle for survival.

[jericanderson]

@InspiringPhilosophy How do I know science works? You have got to be kidding. Let's see you make a video about that. Instead of jumping the grand canyon logically and concluding that "if our senses are unreliable then science is unreliable" make a video that demonstrates your idea that science just might not work. It might be all BS. We perceive the results of scientific endeavor with our 5 senses, so who knows?  It might be just a grand illusion. Responding to your question is silly.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@jericanderson Exactly, it might all be a grand illusion, so don't claim you have absolute proof they work, or that your belief is objective and without faith. You have no idea what is real or not unless you assume your brain works for something other than survival. Thank you.

[jericanderson]

@InspiringPhilosophy Sure dude whatever you say. Using digital media technology to make videos that question whether science works. Using (flawed) logical syllogisms to disprove the ability to know anything. Wow. Clearly, someone needs to think there is a invisible man in the sky that loves him to survive. Discrediting self evident truths for the comfort of the antiquated notion of God. By the way I'll compare knowledge in the field of philosophy with you anytime. You're welcome.

[crlsjvrm]

@jericanderson " Using digital media technology to make videos that question whether science works."

He is not doubting whether science works. Did you pay attention to the video? Theists have a reason to think that what we perceive is the actual truth! On the contrary, he is showing how atheism/naturalism is self defeating, and it is the atheist/naturalist the ones who should doubt the validity of science!

[jericanderson]

@jericanderson You should at the very least get an undergraduate degree in philosophy before tackling issues of this weight. The issue of perspective, bias and empirical truth has already been addressed by the greatest minds in history. And you are blissfully ignorant of their work. You actually just typed a question that challenges the validity of science into a computer that sent the text using low voltage binary code across a global computer network. Don't quit your day job.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@jericanderson LOL, and you clearly don't know of philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, or refuters or positivism like Karl Popper, or Richard Feynman. LOL

[ApeLuck]

I don't see how this cancels out science, which we can just redefine as the study of the phenomena we experience.

I don't see how it is useful to say everything we experience is not necessarily the TRUE world, when we would have no way of knowing what that true world is. Our experience exists, and that much we know, so we can explore that experience. To say "it's not how things REALLY are" is meaningless to me.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@ApeLuck Well, the purpose of this video isn't to cancel out science, it is too show that you can't believe in naturalism and believe that you know anything about science.

2nd, I don't think you can classify science as a phenomenal experience. If science is nothing but the phenomena we experience, then you have no idea of what is right and wrong about the world, so how can you claim that anything you believe is right, including the comment you just made is right?

[silentalertjj]

@ApeLuck Thank you good sir!

[agents1986]

well done

[FoliesdEspangne]

Around 4:14 you state a position known as psychologism, which was refuted by Frege and Husserl. How minds came into being does not affect the instrisic validity of logic.

Your argue in a circle. The ultimate cause or causes of the human condition are not self-evident, which you admit (otherwise why need ARGUE toward the existence of God?) If you can't depend on logic's intrinsic validity, but it depends on a condition you can't know in advance, you can't rely on it to deliver that condition.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@FoliesdEspangne Question, are you accusing me of using the argument for God's existence? Because I thought I clear that we all have assume that our cognitive faculties work, and if we do then we cannot assume that naturalism is true.

[FoliesdEspangne]

@InspiringPhilosophy If naturalism is claiming that the conditions of evolution cannot under any circumstances allow for the emergence of a being that can independently recognize truth, I would agree with you. Has it claimed that? "Truth take the hindmost" is not an assertion of its absolute impossibility.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@FoliesdEspangne Naturalism doesn't directly, but survival info. doesn't entail truth, even if it is likely, that doesn't mean proof. So there is no assurance. Therefore, you cannot assume that your logic is truth-telling. You have to 1st assume that it only offers survival information. Is it impossible that naturalism could be true because of this argument? - Of course not, that is not what the argument is claiming. It is claiming that the 'belief naturalism is true' shoots itself in the foot.

[FoliesdEspangne]

@InspiringPhilosophy Besides, where did I say one can ASSUME naturalism is true (any more than theism)? What you probably meant to say was if our cognitive faculties work, then naturalism or godless evolution, is necessarily false.

It seems a little too cheery when you conclude since God created our minds, it allows us to experience the world "as it truly is." Does theism underwrite naive realism? Has God saved us from the existence of false opinion? The Biblical God is not above deceit.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@FoliesdEspangne I agree, I don't believe one can assume naturalism is true anymore than theism. This argument is only trying to show the contradiction in naturalism and the idea that theists and atheists alike take what they believe on an assumption that there belief forming factors work. Neither is pure objective. My argument from all my videos is, simply, to show it takes more faith to believe there is no god than to believe there is a god. I think we agree more than we disagree here.

[jericanderson]

@FoliesdEspangne Exactly. You can't use logic to disprove the validity of logic. It's an argument that collapses under it's own weight. You would have to create a new, more advanced system of deduction that makes current models obsolete. The producer of this video does not understand this. He is accusing atheists of living some sort of hypocritical paradox, but in fact it is HIS premise to postulate that which is contradictory. He isn't dumb, but clearly, he's no genius either.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

I think I can make a response to this one too.

[OWC2000]

@EnlightenedReader Yes I did read what you wrote. One sentence of 'discussion', three of trash talk. Like I said I am here for respectable debate not meaningless posturing.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@EnlightenedReader

"Natural selection is only concerned with survival. Not truth. Get it?"

Stating that natural selection is "concerned" with anything is merely you anthropomorphizing natural processes. 

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@EnlightenedReader

"dilemma"

You're not solving anything by invoking gods, since the same problem remains: how can we trust our cognitive faculties enough to conclude (a) god(s) exist and made our cognitive faculties? There could be gods that deliberately make themselves imperceptible to us. How would we be able to find out?

At least we can repeatedly test our notions against reality and see if they hold up. We can't do the same with gods.

[Falcondick69]

To the Atheist sint he comments arguing "science shows us truth" the problem witht hat on naturalism is that any conclusion you draw from science is based on using logic from your mind, if you can't trust your mind you can't trust any view or conclusion or theory derived from scientific evidence. so realistically anything you affirm to be "true" under naturalism is a leap of faith.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@EnlightenedReader

"how can we trust our faculties and senses to produce true beliefs? "

You are coming very close to a solipsistic view.

"It's only concerned with producing beliefs that are useful for our survival. "

Natural selection is not concerned with anything. You seem to think that the process has some sort of end goal in mind. It doesn't. Populations with traits that aid survival are kept, and those without are discarded. It's that simple, really.

[OWC2000]

@EnlightenedReader What is your problem? I am having a respectful discussion here, if you have something meaningful to say, then say it, otherwise keep your shit to yourself, thanks.

[damntull]

Is this basically Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? Has anyone seen Stephen Law's reply? Is it convincing?

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@EnlightenedReader

I like your argument. I'm confused as to how this "Science is better than religion" argument even related to the video.

[FredSavageish]

I love the ways atheists are trying to weasel around this argument! Hilarious!

[punishalltrolls]

@FredSavageish a strawman argument and faulty generalization sure are hilarious.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Our senses, reasonings, etc, are prone to error. You're arguing that this undermines everything our senses and reasonings tell us. Does it? Don't we already understand how to get getting reliable results by accomodating such uncertainties? Aren't all the cannons of scientific practice designed to mitigate human error? In particular note the public & reproducable requirements. What's the 1st thing you'd say if you thought you might be hallucinating? Perhaps it's "hey buddy, do you see that too?"

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

The problems with Plantinga's Naturalism & Evolution aren't compatible argument are multiple. First, his analysis of evolutionary selection can only be called comical - the stuff that comes out of Christian philosophers that would make evolutionary biologists howl with laughter. Second, the proper retort to his argument - that approximately accurate sensing, judging, and reasoning are selected for - is only answered by his absurd evolutionary scenarios.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo 1st off, fair warning, keep your comments to a minimal. I don't agree with comment hogging. 2nd, people who hallucinate can be argued to have a dysfunctional view of survival, or perhaps they have a proper view of it, or even reality. If naturalism is true, you have no way of knowing. 3rd, the amount of quotes I left out of naturalists who admit this problem is far greater than you know. 4th, I'm not arguing 100% skepticism, I'm arguing on the basis of what evolution teaches.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Isn't it a fact that people sometimes do hallucinate, and that our sense are sometimes unreliable? Since you claim that theism implies the contrary, don't those facts *directly* refute theism? Oh dear...

[Christheatheist1]

Where do we get the idea of right and wrong? From our parents, and teachers and mostly our CONSCIENCE. Even newborns feel empathy for other babies. We know what is true and real by investigating. That is what science does. It is the tool humans use to determine what is real vs what isn't. Making that determination requires reading and educating yourself. Religion want you to stay in ignorance and be spoon fed ideals. Religion = superstition and ignorance.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

If the maker of this video indeed maintains that we have no way of knowing whether we really know something, this would also apply to any claims about gods. He could even argue we might just be brains in a vat. Yes, that may be possible, but it's also completely unfalsifiable.

[SPR4GOD]

@MomoTheBellyDancer I believe you have not read Descartes carefully enough. Also, is this Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@SPR4GOD

"I believe you have not read Descartes carefully enough."

Appeal to authority. Thanks for playing.

[SPR4GOD]

@MomoTheBellyDancer

No it's not. Lrn2philosophy.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Our faculties indeed originally evolved to aid in our survival as a species. Now we use the same evolved faculties to try to find out how the universe works. For that, we indeed have to overcome the burden of our biological inclinations to use intuition to piece facts together. It's a huge hurdle, but it's not impossible to overcome, which is evidenced by the immense success of the scientific method.

Science simply WORKS, whereas religion has never produced any kind of knowledge AT ALL.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@MomoTheBellyDancer You have no proof that what was used for survival can be used for anything else. You're now on the same level as a theist, because what you believe is based on a faith assumption that your cognitive faculties work.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@InspiringPhilosophy

"You have no proof that what was used for survival can be used for anything else."

The proof is in the pudding: we know its true, since we can see it work. The computer you're using to type your comments is a testament to the fact that our faculties that once merely aided survival can now be used for other purposes. Denying that is denying reality, pure and simple.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "The proof is in the pudding: we know its true, since we can see it work." ~ That is an assumption. Just because you really really think it works, doesn't mean it does. Your belief is based on faith, just like the rest of us. My ability to use the computer could just be something that helps with mental survival, but that isn't proof, it's an assumption.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@InspiringPhilosophy

"That is an assumption."

No , it's not an assumption. We can SEE IT WORK. We have come a long way since we started using the scientific method.

"My ability to use the computer could just be something that helps with mental survival"

I never made such a claim. But actually, the proper use of our mental faculties HAS lead to a much higher survival rate than, say, 200 years ago.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Just because we see something and think it works (from our perspective) doesn't mean it actually works. If, "the proper use of our mental faculties HAS lead to a much higher survival rate," then you have answered your own question. Ou cognitive faculties lead to survival, instead of telling us what is true. By the way, I'm arguing from the perspective Churchland's book.

[RationalConclusion]

How do we know whether what we believe is true? Evidence.

[LogicalStatements3]

Generalization fail.

[MrNoepoe]

As far as I know, nobody's cognitive functions are 100% correct all the time. But if all of reality is questioned, it's everyone's problem - including theists. If reality is questioned, theists must question the deity they believe in, as this deity exists in a reality outside of themselves.

The human belief system is fallible, and I acknowledge certain base assumptions I make about reality as there's nowhere to go otherwise. But God providing faculties to sense God relies on circular reasoning.

[matthewtaylorbrown]

... Are you saying that a god gave us rules of 'rights' to follow and 'wrongs' to not follow? Or did that god give it to us built-in to our species? If it was built in, it is ineffective. It was written down and given to us, it is also ineffective. What is the point of an absolute, but ineffective list of rights and wrongs? We don't own slaves anymore and the Bible does not speak out against it, it uses it as an example of how to serve. We suffer the witch and the gay. We are more moral today.

[matthewtaylorbrown]

I don't understand. Not all of us are science-based atheists. My disbelief in gods is based on other things, other than science. Some science does seem to support the notion that parts of holy books contain myths or untrustworthy narrations.

All the gods can be dismissed as mythical, it is nothing person to the Christian and the god they believe exists.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@matthewtaylorbrown Well, that is not the argument this video is making, that would be a different topic. The argument is, where do you get the idea of what is right and wrong? Where do you get the idea of what is true and real if there is no God?

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@InspiringPhilosophy Well, I don't have a scientific explanation for why man got the idea of right and wrong. An evolutionary or naturalistic answer would seem to be nonsense. Why would I know the answer to this question? I can't prove that man has polished what it thinks is right and wrong over the time of man's existence. If one assumes that a god issues right and wrong, then how could you possibly perceive of an alternative? I see no gods and have to lay blame and credit to man. ...

[FredSavageish]

@matthewtaylorbrown You are changing the subject. This video is not about right and wrong, it's about logic. How do you know if anything (not just issues of morality) are real if everything you have is for survival? Check out other videos that my friend InspiringPhilosophy has. Right and wrong can't be subjective because we cannot define good and evil as the same thing. That is logically absurd.

[Gnomefro]

@FredSavageish We also have an extraordinarily good reason to believe that they do. Namely this: Truth has the property of not contradicting other truths. This is a huge evolutionary advantage in terms of being able to build a system incrementally, because new truth can be added without creating problems. Falsehoods OTOH, can cause all manner of contradictions and would cause an exponentially increasing probability of contradiction as the system grows.

[Gnomefro]

@FredSavageish From a mathematical standpoint, it's fairly clear that experiences built mostly on false beliefs could never expand incrementally and remain useful for long.

[Gnomefro]

@FredSavageish "Right and wrong can't be subjective because we cannot define good and evil as the same thing. That is logically absurd."

Nah. They're just not as absolute as you strawman them to be. What we call right and wrong is ultimately rooted in subjective responses to stimuli(what we like or not), but is tempered by the needs of humans to function in a social environment. Such environments require us to form somewhat voluntary agreements for the society to be stable.

[Gnomefro]

@FredSavageish This means that there are hard, objective, limits to what kind of cooperative societies that can survive. You see this in things like the golden rule etc. They follow directly from the fact that some agents have evolved to the point where they see the value in cooperation, which forces them to value the values of others to some extent. Which leads to compromise and common definitions of right and wrong, decided upon and enforced, by societies.

[Gnomefro]

@FredSavageish This is why, for example, the west and the muslim world has so different ideas about what's right and wrong. It's not any inherent evilness of one party, although there may be objective truths about the extent any given system of values can accomplish in terms of advancing human flourishing. And one system might be better than another in that sense.

People fight wars about the right to define right and wrong all the time, so this view meshes well with experience.

[FredSavageish]

@Gnomefro If morality is decided by what makes a society stable, then perhaps a global society could decided that population control would create a more stable society, therefore, we should kill 10% of humans so society is stable? Therefore, killing is moral, by your definition. Perhaps society would be more stable is 10% enslaved the other 90% so there was more control? Morality is not decided by stability, because the US south was more stable when they had slavery.

[FredSavageish]

@Gnomefro So is rape always wrong? What if a nation takes control of the world and decides that rape is a good thing. Does that make rape moral?

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@FredSavageish I've reviewed the video and both the comments of you and the poster. We seem to be beating around the bush. Are you both saying that man is incapable of the logic or coming up with the ideas presented in the video? If your view is that it could only have come from a deity, than no amount of discussion will change your mind. If you posit that there is only one way, through a god, that man could be moral, then say so. I see your logic. I just don't understand it.

[FredSavageish]

@matthewtaylorbrown No, man is incapable of knowing if the ideas he comes up with are true - if naturalism is true. Since I don't believe naturalism is true, then I think man is capable of coming up with ideas and knowing they are true. No, InspiringPhilosophy says in the video this argument doesn't prove that God exists. Our logic could of come from another source, however, the burden to show this isn't on me, and since there are no other possible sources, (other than evolution or God) well...

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@FredSavageish That is more open-minded than I usually get. It is all a matter of perspective. What the truth is might actually escape us.

[FredSavageish]

@matthewtaylorbrown Well thank you, I appreciate your honesty. My view is that every belief is based on faith and assumptions. It is not a matter of what we know to be true, it is a matter of where the evidence points and what is the most logically coherent.

[AtheistTalk99]

@InspiringPhilosophy

God is useless as a standard for right and wrong because everything you or anyone else claims to know about god would be filtered through the same imperfect sensory experience you claim everyone suffers from.

So god is not necessary and not helpful in determining right and wrong in this case even if the god you are talking was real.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@AtheistTalk99 Sensory experience is not imperfect to me because I believe in theistic evolution. Therefore, the senses did evolve to tell us what is true, because we are not dictated by natural selection alone.

[AtheistTalk99]

@InspiringPhilosophy

This is also an appeal to consequence, a logical fallacy. The existence of god is irrelevant to having an idea of what is true and real or what is moral or immoral.

[markderosa]

Great video

[MrRedDragon]

If survival requires our senses to see the world for what it truly is, then naturalism is true and you can believe in it at the same time.

[OWC2000]

The problem is that what is actually true is irrelevant. What matters is what is true for us as a species. We have no better way of determining 'truth' other than our naturalist senses and a belief in god does not exempt you from this.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@OWC2000 But see, Kant debunked this idea a long time ago. If everything we know comes from experience then where do we get the knowledge of what an experience is?

[Gnomefro]

@InspiringPhilosophy You can object to the theory as being circular if you want, but the thing is, you'd have to present me evidence within my experience to prove me wrong about any given topic. Or make me care about anything at all. Further more, we can actually demonstrate that it's true by studying human nature within the system of our experiences. You'd be forced to resort to brain-in-a-vat scenarios to seriously challenge it, which will lose out due to Occam's razor.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@Gnomefro Well 1st off, fair warning, I ask you to not over comment. Say what you want in 2 or less comments. I don't agree with people hogging comment space. 2nd, does the statement, "something must have empirical verification," have empirical verification? You have to accept knowledge outside of experience, or you can't even know what an experience is. 3rd, how do you know anything you experience is true?

[OWC2000]

@InspiringPhilosophy Genetics, something Kant had no knowledge of and thus could not debunk. A baby is born without knowledge or experience of breathing, but is genetically wired to do so once it encounters air.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@OWC2000 Ah, but we only receive genetics that are good for survival, not genetics that tell us what is true. You still have no way of knowing if your genetics or experiences are true.

[OWC2000]

@InspiringPhilosophy Correct, we can never know if our experiences are true and belief in a deity does nothing to change this as you can not account for a god.

Truth is irrelevant to survival, reality is not. However there is no better way to determine a 'truth' than the scientific method, based on our understanding of universe. Which is subject to change the more we discover.

Religion is not a path to truth, if it was, everyone would believe in the same god.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@OWC2000 I don't use this argument to account for God, in fact I admit this in the video, I prefer the OA. This video shows that no one believes naturalism is true if one operate as if your cognitive faculties work. So naturalists can't logically argue that naturalism is true. You are assuming that the scientific method tells you something other than survival information. You are also assuming the humans are logical beings and seek truth. Hume taught that we are beings of passion first.

[OWC2000]

@InspiringPhilosophy Of course humans are logical because our logic is unique to us and as such we get to define what is logical. Logic is not universal. No other animal can share our logic.

Humans do seek truth which is why we study science and evidence. The fact that we can no define 'truth' does not stop us from searching.

To say that naturalism is not true is to say nothing is true, at some point you have to make an assumption. " I think therefore I am"

[InspiringPhilosophy]

@OWC2000 Yes, exactly! At some point you do have to make an assumption. So tell me why do theists need to prove that God exists if you admit that we have to accept some things on assumptions? Atheism is also based on faith. 2nd, like it or not, based on what natural selection dictates if you assume that your logic tells you what is true then you are also saying naturalism is false. Because you cannot get around the idea that everything you know is only for survival.

[OWC2000]

@InspiringPhilosophy No, we only have to assume ONE thing, that we and the universe exists. All knowledge, like the tree of life, comes from that one assumption. Everything else is learned and subjective including belief in a god.

I never assume my logic is true, only that it is true for me as I have no other way to determine 'truth'. So no atheism is not based on faith, in fact for me it is not even a choice.

Our evolved self-awareness gives us the ability to think beyond survival.

[Falcondick69]

@OWC2000 "I never assume my logic is true only that it is true for me" if you assume that truth is subjective then that means that God exists because while you don't believe in God others do. Also if you assume your logic and cognitive faculties may not be true anything you go derive off of them to be true is based on faith. statements like "Our evolved self-awareness give us the ability to think beyond survival" as a naturalist to make that claim is a leap of faith.

[lonematrix48]

Very good video I liked it thanks alot for this I subbed.

[M3PanoS]

Great video; it really shows the inconsistencies you run into when you use naturalism as your basis for knowledge.

Also, I'm thinking that there's a logical thread that can take the individual from ANY epistemological assumption, such as the fact that I am a brain in a vat, or a computer simulation, etc., to the conclusion that God is the author of it all, whatever "it" (my assumption) is. This is an idea that I'll have to investigate further, but it makes sense in my conception of it so far.

[AtheistTalk99]

False. You stated "Then everything we know is only for survival". This would be incorrect. We can certainly know things that do not have anything to do with survival. It also ignore how 'what we know' changes over time. While it was essential to know how to forage and hunt animals in one century might be unneeded in another.

Science is not about 'truth' but about getting the best knowledge possible via scientific method.

[FredSavageish]

@AtheistTalk99 How do you know? Just because you know something and you can't find the reason why it helps you survive, that doesn't mean it isn't for survival. Your belief in naturalism could be for your mental sanity, which is better for survival.

[AtheistTalk99]

@FredSavageish

Did you read what you wrote? If belief in naturalism was helpful for mental sanity we would know it because we can compare it to people who had a belief in the supernatural and look at their survival rates.

[FredSavageish]

@AtheistTalk99 But the act of comparing things is just something you do for survival. Scientific observation and investigation only tells you survival information. It doesn't tell you what is true.

[AtheistTalk99]

@FredSavageish

Ok, I think we have a problem with the word 'truth'. I think you are conflating truth with reasonable certainty. Most theistic definitions of truth require omniscience, which we do not have. So the best we can do are developing methods of investigation into the world that are more reliable then what we had previously.

When people talk about 'truth' I worry because it's, more often the not, an unobtainable goal.

[FredSavageish]

@AtheistTalk99 I think we are finally getting some where. Reliability isn't proof. You still have no ways of proving that your cognitive faculties work, and thus, have no way of knowing if what you know is true. Besides, evolution doesn't teach that our cognitive faculties need to work properly, as long as the organism survives. But the main point of all theistic arguments (especially this 1) is that it takes just as much faith to believe there is no god, as to believe in God.

[AtheistTalk99]

@FredSavageish

"Proof" is a mathematical concept, such as 2+2=4 or 5-x=2 so x is 3. Science is all about reasonable certainty given a margin of error and never an absolute 'truth'.

Since we both seem to agree that truth is a unobtainable concept, I see no reason why you bring it up.

Next, that answer is no. It takes for more faith to believe in most theistic gods, since we should see evidence of their interactions with the world but we don't.

[FredSavageish]

@AtheistTalk99 That is your opinion, and it isn't based on proof. An overwhelming majority of people disagree with you. Besides, how do you know it takes more faith to believe in God? Your brain is just telling you that because it is better for your survival.

[AtheistTalk99]

@FredSavageish

Well you've resorted to solipsism which means I win, thanks :)

[FredSavageish]

@AtheistTalk99 If that is what you need to tell yourself to help with your survival then go ahead and believe it. :)

[philosophizer149]

@EnlightenedReader well he claimed toward the end of the video that in order to refute the ontological argument you have to reject logic, which simply isn't true.

[FredSavageish]

Love it!!!! Great job!

[philosophizer149]

no offense dude, but I think you give way too much credit to the ontological argument. Premise one is highly controversial in logic, as it is uncertain whether or not God exists necessarily in some possible world. It is clear that it is possible that God exists, but not so clear that it is possibly necessary that God exists.

[FredSavageish]

@philosophizer149 I disagree, I think when the ontological argument is understood it is the most reliable argument for God's existence, because it goes beyond fallible evidence. But I understand why people don't get it. I think Stephen Parrish's explanation of the argument is the best though.

[robtbo]

It is possible I am a brain in a vat, but subscribing to that notion has zero practical value. Ultimately, everything is a belief based on probability.

Upon inspection, our senses, memories and deductions operate consistently support each other. We accept that any of these attributes can yield unreliable data, but generally yield a homogeneous synopsis. To believe this is NOT reality, one must have a pretty good reason, because the alternative is to imagine reality.