Creationism Meets Philosophy Part 1: Knowledge, Jusitification, and Belief

Argues against the notion that intelligent design is required for human knowledge to be reliable. The video gives a basic outline of knowledge-related paradigms of justification, and shows that the aim of our beliefs should be consistency with our experience instead of absolute certainty.

For more information, visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

All material used in the making of this video that was not produced by the filmmaker is either public domain to the best of the film maker's knowledge or is intended to be used in accord with title 17 section 107 of the U.S. Code pertaining to fair use for education, comment, and criticism:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Note: My paraphrasing of Descartes' first principle as "I doubt therefore my consciousness must exist" is a charitable reading of his argument. I think it is the one that is the more philosophically plausible. The less charitable reading 'I think (doubt) therefore I exist' implies that there must be a single substantive self. David Hume notes that the self appears to be just a bundle of various experiential impressions, so there is not necessarily a single substantive entity that I can call myself. (SEE: A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1, Chapter 4 Section 6). Despite Hume's objections, I think this charitable reading better captures Descartes' central insight: we cannot deny that we have conscious experience, even if this is conscious experience of an illusion.

Youtube Credits:
Thundefoot:
LIVE LIFE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X88PPmnqsU8
Have you ever told a lie and Other stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjEC3DTUyxs

Aronra:
The 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

Potholer54:
The Theory of Evolution Made Easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=channel_page

VenomfangX:
Refuting Atheistic Naturalism [Part 1]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3nEhIlkFV8&feature=channel_page

Academic Credits:

Rene Descartes. Discourse on Method and the Meditations. Translated by John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books, 1989. Pg 79.

"Epistemology" Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

The Brain From Top to Bottom: http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/index_a.html

Clip Art:

http://www.pdclipart.org/
http://www.wpclipart.com/index.html

Photos/Paintings:

http://www.public-domain-photos.com/

wikipedia.org

wikimedia commons

Dude4Reason & SillyPanda85

Sound Effects (for title):

http://www.pdsounds.org/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Philosophy
• Epistemology
• Coherentism
• Coherent
• skepticism
• belief
• foundations
• foundationalism
• God
• Christianity
• Christian
• Atheism
• Agnosticism
• Reason
• Thought
• Logic
• Knowledge
• Abstract
• VenomfangX
• Venom
• Creationism
• Fallacy
• Flaw
• Think
• Argument
• Philosophical
• Refuting
• Atheistic
• Naturalism
• Descartes
• Hume
• Wittgenstein
• Kripke
• Web
• Network
• Evolution
• Certainty
• Certain
• Knowing
• Believing
• Belief
• Faith
• Thunderf00t
• Thunderfoot
• potholer54
• AronRa

[eulercircles]

In your coherentist model, you have your belief web being modified by experience. Would this not be foundational upon beliefs formed from sense experience then?

I ask because I don't see that foundationalism and coherentism must be mutually exclusive.

[Dude4Reason]

As I understand it, the prime difference between foundationalism and coherentism is that foundationalism depends on a basis that is unquestionable. In the coherentism I discuss, (based primarily on its formulation from Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"), experience is in a sense "foundational," but coherentism in the form is not equivalent to foundationalism. The validity of experience can be questioned. We can misinterpret our experience or even outright mis-perceive.

[Dude4Reason]

Further, we determine that we make such errors on the basis of our beliefs. The more central portions of the web allow us to question our interpretations and perceptions. In this way, beliefs, interpretations, and perceptions are emergent, codependent, and co-arising. There is nothing that is unquestionable, and that is the difference between coherentism and foundationalism.

[jystyle]

this is propaganda

[Dude4Reason]

Propaganda is unreasoned, accepted as self-evident. How is this video propaganda?

[mucaad3]

At 7:04 "There is no absolute certainty."

This even brings the concept how can you still know that? Second, if there is no such thing as an "absolute", then where is the proof? This is called self-refuting dilema.

[CJFXChris45]

Have you ever thought that life understood by us, is truly meaningless? That we as Humans have families, day-to-day jobs, and understanding, yet we all die in the end. Why would nature play a role in something that will just end up being recycled? Seems pointless to me.

[Swaggajackaaaaa]

You say that God is a father, poet, creator and judge...all things that we are familiar with, can understand, and therefore create a figure who is all of these. This is perfetly valid. However, you failed to complete the trinity with the holy spirit. How can you justify your theory on a human created "God" who is a combined figure of preexisting familiarities when humans have no familiarity with and cannot even completely understand the holy spirit?

[steinarb77]

Are you absolutely certain that, as you said, "the aim of our beliefs should be consistency with our experience instead of absolute certainty"? How can you be absolutely certain that it is impossible to be absolutely certain. That is absolutely and certainly absurd.

[adrastea]

You're a great communicator. - newsub

[VitoPossilipo]

I think the main question should be, if there could be a real form of existence beyond our subjective world. Could that objective world be called existence? Doesn´t we understand by "existent" being there in respect to our mind? If I imagine an objectively existent world, I would remain the subject in that imagination.

If one asks, if something is that way or another he can simply ask, if it is so in his subjective world, because that´s the world he originally call reality.

[DamienZshadow]

I applaud your clear and concise explanation, good sir.

[luckyluciano310]

I am who i am. the one who is called i am has sent to you. tel the esraelites that I, the LORD, the God of their ancestors, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Have sent you to them.

[joeybroco]

@joeybroco so, yah i trust only myself and will investigate to MY satisfaction what is truth. and when i feel i dont have enough facts or evidence to make a complete case then...i simply will continue the investigation...i will not rely on trusting merely existing 'patterns' ...'interpret reality successfully'? lmao... how bout we for once..get real..and say the truth as best we know it...'we temporarily interpret reality successfully enough it seams'... and history proves we are already wrong

[joeybroco]

trust our current cognitive abilities? no thanks last time someone suggested that, they got burnt to the stake! quick history class will show collectively the human species is very always quite wrong in its perception of matter, time, space, life. because it seams beyond our scope or grasp or 'current' tools. Flat earth, center of universe, 80ft animals lol come on people...how fast does earth spin? how fast does solor system rotate?, distance between stars? visable spectrum of light...