For early access to episodes, ad-free, support the show at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC

@kenhiett5266

Ай бұрын

2+2=4 is logical, but it's also a product of a system of measurement we created. Evolution provided a tool kit that can handle tasks outside of the pressures that shaped us.

@user-we4vc8ix4z

Ай бұрын

Hey alex i have something really interesting about this video i would like to share with you if you have a sec

@jeffreyjdesir

Ай бұрын

This isn't an explanation for our access to logical statements about reality as a whole when we only had earthly concerns to need adaption to. It's not even clear logical reasoning is a general aide for our survival when there could be intuitions that are far more useful ​@@kenhiett5266

@aguy6771

Ай бұрын

Bro CS Lewis is dead he cant defend himself find someone else to start a fight with

@cameronengel5443

Ай бұрын

You play Devils Advocate so well in this. Such a great convo.

Most descriptions of afterlifes I've ever heard seem to just consist of things and ideas directly lifted from reality. I'm not sure how Lewis turns to desires not of this world. Seems like a bit of a switcheroo in the setup there.

@springroll6758

Ай бұрын

What does it look like to take part in the divine nature? To be in a constant state of willing the will of the other as the other? To unite with God? To become love?

@GameTimeWhy

Ай бұрын

​@@springroll6758we know what it is to serve someone. We have some definitions of what divine means and have writings "showing" it. Most people have probably felt something they call love. What are you arguing here?

@kyrptonite1825

Ай бұрын

The traditional understanding of heaven, as a Catholic, is different. Heaven is the Beatific Vision, or seeing God Face to Face, without an intermediary. We Desire infinite Goods, like Truth, Love and Happiness, and therefore these can only be filled in an Infinite Being. Aristotle actually theorized that the greatest possible happiness is Contemplating the Unmoved Mover.

@oldpossum57

Ай бұрын

This observation of yours, that afterlives are described, surprisingly, as continuations of earthly experience, is an excellent one. I left my parents’ home aged 20. I had a great continuing, growing and developing relation with these lovely people, and I know they relished when I experienced success and love and adventures, and consoled me when I felt grief. I have no desire to spend all eternity in their guest bedroom.

@matthewphilip1977

Ай бұрын

@@kyrptonite1825 Visions; Earthly experience. Face to Face; Earthly experience. Infinite goods? What do you mean? Do you mean infinite truth, infinite love, infinite happiness? If so, what do you mean? Bit of a stretch to say Aristotle "theorized" that the greatest possible happiness is Contemplating the Unmoved Mover. He asserted it. And begged the question while he was at it.

We like cheesecake because it's sweet, it has fat content, both of which we evolved to find enjoyable. But we didn't evolve to seek out cheesecake specifically; it didn't exist. It's a fairly recent human invention, not part of the environment. It's just an extension or a combination of more fundamental elements of human desires.

@ramigilneas9274

Ай бұрын

All of those arguments from Apologists like Plantinga sound suspiciously like they started with their conclusion and then tried to invent arguments to arrive at that conclusion. Humans desire a lot of intangible stuff like justice… so it’s not that strange that we desire justice even after death. We are also aware that we will die one day…. so it makes sense that we desire to live forever… but that doesn’t mean that it’s possible. It’s really not that mysterious.

@cliffordbohm

Ай бұрын

How about this, I desire cheesecake that has 0 calories and no other side effects if I eat as much as I want. So, there you have it, something that does not exist and I which I want. I guess it must exist! Where is it?!

@michaelqiu9722

Ай бұрын

@@cliffordbohmDid you misunderstand my point? My point was that that there's a human desire for something doesn't mean it exists. Because cheesecake didn't exist for most of human history.

@sincereflowers3218

Ай бұрын

@@michaelqiu9722 He steel-manned your position and you missed it. His non-existent, endlessly healthy cheesecake example was a good point. “I want something ideal for me, and perfect otherwise, that there’s no precedent for” is probably the most basic theist desire.

@glowingdjxl5331

Ай бұрын

Cheesecake has existed since the big bang

This full interview did a fantastic job at informing me that Dawkins is not, at heart, a philosopher. This isn't good nor bad, it simply is. But it strikes me as an important distinction.

@alexdale8705

Ай бұрын

I admit I haven't read his books, but in every interview I've ever seen with him he seems to be a much better biologist than a philosopher.

@milliondollarmistake

Ай бұрын

Yeah he's a very literal person it seems. Like you said it's not a bad thing, he just doesn't care about it.

@zelmoziggy

Ай бұрын

Why is he not, at heart, a philosopher, and why is the distinction important?

@kdemetter

Ай бұрын

That doesn't surprise me. Richard Dawkins is a scientist at heart. He's never claimed to be anything else. Not that science and philosophy are necessarily at odds. But some philosophers clearly are.

@mrmaat

Ай бұрын

He’s not a professional autofart smeller, true. But Dawkins does a serviceable job articulating the basic problems with theism for the lay person. Being a philosopher has no bearing on the validity and soundness of an argument and more often is used as an appeal to authority.

Every mathematicians in the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century _really_ wanted to complete the Hilbert's program, a foundation of math based on first principles. Everyone wanted it, it even looked _very_ reasonable to have it, but than 1931 came with a famous publication by Gödel that destroyed any hope. Everyone really wanted to find something, a foundation of our logic thinking the desire of which was built in our system, and it could be _proven_ that instead it does not exist. All the supernatural things we desire are superior version of natural stuff. We do not have a desire for something we cannot explain or understand. We have a desire for _eternal_ life - like our, but longer - flying horses, magic weapons, love elixirs, end of struggles and internal peace: better versions of things we have or magic solutions for issues we have.

@martifingers

Ай бұрын

Good example.

@jackgoff6215

Ай бұрын

i think this was a wonderful explanation, thanks

@John.Christopher

Ай бұрын

Who says God isn't tangible and unable to be intuited?

@richtomlinson7090

Ай бұрын

​@@John.ChristopherChristians often insist on the Supernatural God, and they don't often accept a Naturalistic God. Supernaturalism is of the intangibles.

@laze4534

Ай бұрын

Indeed, we are monkeys in fancy clothing. We can make it all the way into space, but even when we get there, we're still gunna be doing a bunch of dumb monkey shit.

Nice content and thought provoking....thank you from South Africa 🇿🇦

@archbishoprichardforceginn9338

Ай бұрын

Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz cuzinz 🌠 ✋️ 😎

@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper

Ай бұрын

South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as

@mctbaggins2084

Ай бұрын

Like such as 😅 I got that one. Awe from the mother city.

@Jeeth108

Ай бұрын

@mctbaggins2084 awe from century city !!

@Jeeth108

Ай бұрын

@@archbishoprichardforceginn9338 thanks bro

"What if your reasoning evolved to favour survival over facts?" is a really bad question, because we already *know* that this is the case. We're a species that sees faces where there are none, can easily suspend our disbelief to experience a story, and are easily swayed by hundreds of logical fallacies and emotional arguments.

@cassif19

Ай бұрын

What if religion evolved to favour survival over facts?

@wet-read

Ай бұрын

The EAAN is lame.

@AlexanderShamov

Ай бұрын

​@@cassif19 Religion evolved for the survival of religion. It's a parasitic tradition that always preserves itself for its own sake.

@MikeyCyan

Ай бұрын

​​@@AlexanderShamov its much more useful with primitive humans. We have no need for it with modern perspectives, but in more self intrested times its an effective way to trick people into being better. Some people only understand force, god tricks them effectively "Without god, morality doesnt exsist" is a self report...

@Barri-rj9vt

Ай бұрын

​@cassif19 That's why it's probably better to be a theist (atleast an agnostic theist) than an atheist. In other words, it's better to be deluded in believing God's existence since we can never know if we were deluded anyway. Who knows, if someone starts off like this, they may even have personal experiences that strengthens their faith.

The really interesting part of this video is not Dawkins’ casual tossing aside of Lewis’ argument, but his falling short of even beginning grapple with Plantinga’s. Well done, Alex, as usual, at giving dense interviewees 2ed, and 3ed shots at the same, unmoved target. I’d be genuinely interested in your take on Plantinga’s argument there.

@WillFast140

Ай бұрын

Well Lewis’ argument isn’t worth arguing with even. Why dignify a nonsensical idea with a genuine attempt to combat it? The leap in Lewis’ logic is wider than the Grand Canyon

@MC-ep8cu

Ай бұрын

​@WillFast140 it's so true. Philosophy is sophistry. Science is truth. Philiposophy, which I have a bachelor's in, not that that's impressive but for reference of experience, tries to play tricks with words to abstract reality in ways that push it further from the physical world. Science studies truth, and the physical world.

@AmandaWilson-qz5kl

Ай бұрын

Science was intended to be truth, but it is messy, imprecise, biased, desperate for funding, competitive, flawed, pandering, playing favourites, socially and politically influenced, petty, jealous, knee capped, buried, promoted, lobbied, polished up, over priced and under equipped, spun, and just plain ignored even with very good findings, if it does not fit the right narrative or please the supervisor or funding body. The scientific method is one of the most exquisite, beautiful things humans have created, but ask scientists and they will tell you, rarely is it ever applied well and seen through to the most honest conclusion. So no, science is not usually “truth”

@jacobus57

4 күн бұрын

​@@MC-ep8cu if that's the apprehension of philosophy your college or university left you with, you should ask for your money back🙄

how refreshing to witness a respectful debate where dominating or embarrassing the other person is not the goal.... thank you for this rare experience

It's kinda silly to propose that something MUST exist because people have a desire for it. People have desire for things they've imagined all of the time. I don't see how gods or an afterlife are any different from things like time travel, immortality , magic, and alternate dimensions. No matter how much you want it this isn't an anime, you're not going to another world when you die

@learningisfun2108

Ай бұрын

I really, really desire unicorns and Bigfoot and a flat earth. Alas, I do not always get what I want LOL!

@parchment543

Ай бұрын

Cringe! Save a comment like this for reddit!

@ethanlonchar

Ай бұрын

Lewis didn’t argue God MUST exist. This argument is evidential, not proof

@jeffreyjdesir

Ай бұрын

This is a straw man and isn't helpful to understanding

@bobsbobbs

Ай бұрын

@@learningisfun2108Reddit tier response

I've always wanted to be able to freeze time, be invisible at will, fly, etc. Doesn't mean its related to something that exists.

@iteralithea6861

Ай бұрын

Time, visibility and flight all exist. You’re missing the argument.

@cygnustsp

Ай бұрын

I can do all of it when I'm lucid dreaming. I can breathe under water, see when my eyes are closed, suffer extreme injuries and feel no pain, wake myself up if I'm uncomfortable. See and speak to dead people. Pretty sure that's the basis for Christianity. Dreaming of things that aren't real.

@mrmaat

Ай бұрын

Agreed, this argument is incredibly facile.

@mrmaat

Ай бұрын

@@iteralithea6861Time, flight and invisibility exist as concepts in the human mind the same way gods exist in the human mind. The God concept is a pastiche of social roles, anthropomorphic personality traits and metaphysical musings, all of which can be traced back to human mental states and the human psyche.

@michaelevans4110

Ай бұрын

Try to imagine something that doesn't exist.

The video quality is very good. Excellent!

Great questions Alex! Always thought provoking.

@matthewphilip1977

Ай бұрын

Except for the silly C.S. Lewis one.

Does Dawkins’s suggestion that long-dead Lewis come up with a better argument technically mean he believes in the afterlife?

I like the way Alex phrases questions and genuinely considers arguments without an average-know-it-all-atheist dismissive attitude. On the point of "How do we know that 2+2=4, in the abstract mathematical realm, is just true rather than it being the case that thinking or acting as if 2 + 2 = 4 helps us get to the moon?" "If 2 + 2 is NOT equal to 4 in the abstract mathematical realm, but only appears to be 4 because hypothesizing it serves our goals, then how would we know if it were false indeed? How should one approach and inquire about "the abstract mathematical truths"?"

@AJPemberton

Ай бұрын

I might be missing something here, but while the notations we use for numbers are abstract, the quantities they represent are not. 2 + 2 = 4 maps accurately to the real world. Every time we have added 2 apples to 2 apples, we have ended up with 4 apples.

@mesplin3

Ай бұрын

I figure if we inherently knew that 2+2=4, then there wouldn't be any reason to discover the implications of assuming 2+2 wasn't equal to 4.

@GameTimeWhy

Ай бұрын

Its really hard to tell what you are arguing here.

@GospodinStanoje

Ай бұрын

​@@GameTimeWhy Alex asks:"How do we know that 2+2=4 is not just a useful thing that gets us to the moon, but it's *not* true in the abstract mathematical realm"? And my question is:"If it was a deception indeed, if it wasn't true in the 'abstract mathematical realm', how would we be able to figure that out?" Alex' question presupposes that *it is possible that 2+2=4 is a deception, while not being true in the abstract mathematical realm'. I hope that clears it.

@GospodinStanoje

Ай бұрын

​ @mesplin3 Yes, that is true. Alex' question presupposes that "2+2=4 could be useful" but not *true* in the "abstract mathematical realm" . My question is:"If there could be a disparity, how would we be able to figure that out?"

The 10 coasters 2 glasses interview. Hehe.. Edit: Thank the lord for the table cloth. LMFAO.

Your an incredible individual alex,so enjoy your intellect in discussion with the wonderful richard Dawkins.

Most people seem to not realize the actual desire that Lewis is talking about in his argument. He starts with this indescribable, peak sense of what he calls 'joy,' which is really this fleeting sense that only comes upon a person rarely, where suddenly everything clicks in one's perception and they experience a profound sense of a 'beyond.' Interestingly, in my reading and in conversations with even my fundamental materialist friends, I've discovered that most people do seem to know exactly what Lewis is referring to. The German word is 'sehnsucht.' And when someone experiences this, it is immediately realized as the arch desire of one's life. One can either acknowledge it as meaningful or dismiss it as a strange happening of chemicals. Lewis is saying nothing in the world is the end of that specific desire, which he correlates to the ultimate fount of all desire. Nothing quenches that thirst. So either it's a desire of a phantom nothing or a desire of something, and if something then something beyond the material. It's a romantic argument in the sense that it's based in imagination and perception, and it doesn't claim to be other than that, but it is one based on a reasonable response.

@jeffn8218

Ай бұрын

It's a phantom nothing.

@bike4aday

Ай бұрын

The irony is that feeling of joy (assuming we are talking about the same phenomenon) only arises when we STOP desiring anything. It's a brief moment where we actually just exist with whatever is happening without fighting it. The fight, the desire, the resistance, that is the thirst. And through practice, we can stay in that state of nonresistance because it is our most natural state. Of course we know it!

@hero3717

Ай бұрын

My guess is CS Lewis never tried some of the more potent pharmacueticals. They provide the satisfaction to the desire for "something greater." This is well documented.

@collinmassie4966

Ай бұрын

It still seems like people aren't fully understanding the thing Lewis is referring to. I'm thinking I might not have described it properly. Those who experience it can only ever describe it as a desire itself but a desire that itself is more desirable than achieving any other desire in life. It's not the same thing as a zen or a Buddhist sense of peace or oneness. That is rightly called an absence of desire and also something of an absence of self. Lewis's 'joy' is essentially the opposite of that. It's being whole in an I-Thou relationship, and sensing a definite Thou. And an important part of it is its being a product of an extreme soberness. Drug-induced euphoria is not the same thing.

@hero3717

Ай бұрын

You can define CS Lewis' 'joy' however you'd like (personally, your/Lewis' definition seems entirely mystical and non-specific, but maybe I'm just stupid), but as far as a global human phenmomenon (which is what he/the argument is appealing to) of a 'desire for something greater,' 'meaning to life,' etc. etc. is 100% realized in drug-induced euphoria. Edit: I re-read your description of 'joy' in your second comment and you are almost verbatim describing pharmaceutical experiences. Seriously, google 'trip reports' for any number of popular recreational compunds and you will see very similar language describing the subjective feelings and experiences of those taking them. [End of edit]. Once again, this is well documented. Another thing to note is that in this euphoria you often feel completely sober even though you're not. As an aside; sleep and other forms of physical deprivation (e.g. fasting), dim light, colored lights (stained glass), incense, music, physical proximity and contact with others, extreme cultural conditioning (e.g. eternal salvation/damnation, and other facets that fall far short of what most would consider 'cult' behavior), and many other factors all contribute to many individuals' religious experiences along the lines of Lewis' 'joy,' which I would argue is also not extreme soberness (and many of these are also common themes in drug-induced journeys lol).@@collinmassie4966

Who keeps letting Richard Dawkins have these conversations. Alex knows that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed here and Dawkins doesn't have the philosophical sophistication and humility to address the issue seriously. If Lewis were alive he would absolutely obliterate Dawkins in a debate.

@evancohen1503

Ай бұрын

Give up. It’s over your head.

@user-dn3mc1fj2w

Ай бұрын

@@evancohen1503 😂

Most of us struggle with CPTSD whether we're aware of that or not. The desire for something "bigger" is simply the desire for the unconditional love and acceptance most of us haven't received from caregivers/parents. It's all about unmet emotional needs regardless of how perfect the family looks from the outside or whether we remember the abuse/neglect or not.

Desire for eternal survival, and desire for an ultimately protective parent figure. Both survival and parents who protect and we can look to for answers exist.

Alex Bhai Ram Ram 🙏 as usual you are best listen to but you have grown so wise since started listening to you since 2017

@ashhart6792

Ай бұрын

ram ram bhai.

I think a great way to address the evolved rationale challenge is quantum mechanics. It is absolutely true that there are problems our mind can't find answers for and so we create more intuitive (but less correct) answers. But reasoning and testing has revealed to us some answers that we can continually show work (in at least some areas) better than competing theories. Our intuition rejects them, but we can reason that something about them must be 'true' -- because they work.

As a Phil BA, i believe that the desire is for something that one can imagine, a teleporter, for example. This concept could be actualized, but is not in this world or time. Herego, I desire a teleporter, and would desire an alternate dimension/timeline in which simultaneously I and this transporter exists. Far from an analysis of void desire or the desire of nothing.

Lewis promoted his anglican god belief using his skill as a writer but he never did provide proof of his god's existence.

@in_paradiso_58

Ай бұрын

Maybe, just maybe, he actually did, but it's somehow just gone right over the top of your head...Av a gud un...

@TheDragonageorigins

Ай бұрын

I'm convinced thoroughly that no amount of evidence is sufficient to convince most atheists. You're stuck in your position and you dont find a reason to find yourself outside of it. That's fine.

@paulbeardsley4095

Ай бұрын

@@TheDragonageoriginsYou Christians talk as if there’s ANY evidence.

@NathanPK

Ай бұрын

You atheists talk as if there is NO evidence…

@TheDragonageorigins

Ай бұрын

@@paulbeardsley4095There is Paul. Dont be disingenuous and say there isnt any. If it doesn't convince you that's fine, go with that argument.

Evolution doesn’t care if we have desires we can’t satisfy.

@martifingers

Ай бұрын

Great point. Clearly C S Lewis didn't truly understand evolution.

@302indian

Ай бұрын

Does evolution care about anything?

@brianholly3555

Ай бұрын

@@302indian reproductive success

@cunnylicious

Ай бұрын

U were born because 2 people were horny

@MrBrille91

Ай бұрын

well evolution is only a theory, its never been proven

Even the value of our desires is historically situated and likewise determined. When life no longer exists on this planet nothing of absolute value will have transpired.

2 plus 2 equals 4 because we define 2 as a number which when added to itself equals 4.

@rl7012

Ай бұрын

You miss the point.

You should discuss Scientology on your show.

I feel like Dawkins profoundly misunderstood the first question. It wasn't a matter of "if you want something, it must be true," but WHY would you evolve to want something - specifically something outside the physical world - if something outside the physical world would serve no evolutionary benefit to you.

@bdnnijs192

Ай бұрын

Why not? 👋 🎤

@placebojesus5652

Ай бұрын

Well addictive drugs come to mind

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Ай бұрын

There is a theory explaining very clearly that gods, angels, demons, etc. are mere side effects of the cultural evolution that made human beings conscious. We didn't want these things, we got stuck with them.

@ramigilneas9274

Ай бұрын

It starts with hyperactive agency detection… which is definitely evolutionary advantageous. And believing in made up supernatural beings that will reward or punish you if you follow the rules that were invented by the shamans of your tribe can certainly help you build a functioning society.

@Nick-Nasti

Ай бұрын

We want things. Wanting something beyond what is possible is a logical extension of this. If we can imagine it, we can want it. Me wanting a billion $ is essentially the same thing as wanting a heaven.

I have been following you for a long time. I have recommended your channel to countless friends. Given that I feel somewhat invested, I am proud of your success and increasingly excellent content. Thank you. Great work!

To me, it makes perfect evolutionary sense for desire to never be satisfied. Think of things that inspire "awe". There is some evidence that the experience of "awe" is linked to learning. The desire for finding the beautiful, the numinous, the grand connections between things I think is part of a drive for survival and learning. If these desires could be satisfied then I don't think there would be much of a drive for the expanding of intelligence and seeking enrichment.

@bike4aday

Ай бұрын

I don't know. In times where I've been most satisfied, I still wanted to do things, only instead of being out of this feeling of lack or impending doom it was out of this feeling of love or abundance. I wanted to serve because I was satisfied rather than take because I was unsatisfied. I was doing things because I wanted them to happen rather than because I feared them not happening. Even effort felt effortless. There seems to be an unnecessary suffering in desire, somewhere, however hard it is to pinpoint.

"I was angry at god for not existing" - BS Lewis. Pretty much says it all. He, like many others, were compelled , not by reason, logic, or a desire to seek what's actually true, but for emotional reasons and immediately reassuring answers. Albeit those "answers" are entirely fallacious.

@lmr1049

Ай бұрын

“BS Lewis” lol stealing that 😭

@jaromsmiss

Ай бұрын

give me justification for your worldview.

@danw5760

Ай бұрын

Reason has limits, does your search for truth end at those limits? Do you have any interest in things that could be true but are beyond the reach of scientific enquiry?

@SydBodeker

Ай бұрын

BS Lewis got me 😂

@phillystevesteak6982

Ай бұрын

As an atheist, this is a bad take by c.s. But he actually has a lot of well-reasoned philosophical positions - that are logically sound. You can plainly see how the need to somehow ground your belief in a God can get you twisted, even if you're brilliant otherwise

He simply dosen't understand a single word Alex is saying. Every question goes over his head. He rambles incoherently. The patience shown here is to be applauded.

@periruke

Ай бұрын

The more videos of Dawkins I watch, more am I astonished by number of people that outsourced their thinkig to him.

Alex your follower( shall i say subscriber) from 🇪🇹 Ethiopia I have a question for you.( may be not directly related to this video) if free will doesn't exist and we are determined, there is no way we know anything for sure, because if we think some claim is true, it is because we are determined to think so, not necessarily because that claim is true how can i be sure about the claim " Free will doesn't exist" if you are determined to say so( you say it because you are determined to say it, not because it is necessarily true)

At the end there, Alex, somewhat unwittingly it seems to me, touches upon the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered. His train of logic, drawing on Planting, offers an intriguing path to the conclusion that mathematicians who believe maths are discovered (which is most mathematicians, I think) are religious.

As an atheist who became a Christian and thought Christianity was silly, please have an open mind, all.

@zenon3021

Ай бұрын

so you embraced fantasy, realized your beliefs were "silly" (your words)... then what happened? Back to atheism? Spiritual-but-not-religious type? Still stubbornly clinging to silly beliefs?

@bobsbobbs

Ай бұрын

@@zenon3021shush

@excalibro8365

Ай бұрын

You too. Leaving Christianity is what happened not long after I started to have an open mind about religious beliefs.

@John.Christopher

Ай бұрын

@@excalibro8365 I'm sorry to hear that. It took me finding intellectually stimulating sources and an open mind to really figure out what earnest and intellectually honest Christians believed. I'm glad I did, although believe me - I'm still quite a hypocrite. But there's an aim and plenty of reason for faith because of it.

@zenon3021

Ай бұрын

@@John.Christopher but are you intellectually honest enough to agree the Bible has direct quotes supporting slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape, and homophobia? You HAVE read the entire book haven't you?

Lewis’ argument is completely missing the point. We don’t desire something because it exists, we desire something because the satisfaction of that desire would be beneficial to our survival. In other words, there has to be an evolutionary reason for that desire to exist, but the object of desire does not necessarily have to exist. If suddenly all food disappeared from the universe, would we not get hungry?

@kjts9846

Ай бұрын

Not gonna jump at it, but instead ask if you would expand on "we desire something because the satisfaction of that desire would be beneficial to our survival.". Because I can think of quite a few things one would call desires that would not be beneficial to survival

@GOD_62817

Ай бұрын

I am not sure that’s the case. Not everything we desire is for the good of our survival and beneficial and that desire may be evil. For example I may have the desire to do drugs. That’s not beneficial for my survival and even if something is beneficial for my survival we can still take it to far. Such as the desire to have sex is bad if we don’t do it right. Which can lead to them feeling damaged mentally, which is not good if both parents is needed for a development for a child. So I think that C.S Lewis is saying is that our desire is from a source of something like addiction, the need for surviving that can be traced from this world. If we have a desire that can’t be traced from this world it must be from other world or somewhere like GOD.

@litterpicker1431

Ай бұрын

It is reproduction that is selected for, not survival - it just happens that an organism's reproduction is usually dependent on its survival (though the occasional mantis might lose his head over it). While there are certainly desires which are not beneficial to reproduction or survival, I would argue that such impulses stem from desires which are. A "desire to do drugs" exists in someone who is dissatisfied because their needs are not being fulfilled. "Recreational" drugs serve as an alternative to physical or mental suffering, where the avoidance of suffering is a drive which serves the purposes of survival, and therefore of reproduction, in most instances.

@michaelnewsham1412

Ай бұрын

@@GOD_62817 Take drugs (an example, not a recommendation): an Indian chewing coca leaves high in the Andes can get a boost; poppy seeds in milk can ease toothaches etc. It's when human ingenuity leads to extraction of cocaine or opium/heroin when you get problems

Alex O’Connor seems to understand the nuances and strengths of Lewis and Plantingas arguments. I always felt that Dawkins was a weak philosopher whenever he waded into that realm whereas O’Conner has honed his intellectual skills quite well.

The eternal discussion about the possibility of the impossible. 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏿🤦‍♀️🤦🏾🤦🏽🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏿‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️ Plumbers are a lot more useful than any philosopher.

I can't believe I used to take C.S.Lewis seriously. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️

@amacnaughton85

Ай бұрын

Too bad you think you've outgrown him. I imagine you think you're very sophisticated in your thinking now that you've put all that religious mumbo jumbo behind you. Screwtape is cackling with glee!

@skepticalcentral8795

Ай бұрын

​@@amacnaughton85 I still love The Screwtape Letters, but I've never met a fellow Atheist who wasn't at least somewhat disappointed with Lewis' apologetics. He is certainly one of the greatest Christian writers of the 20th century, just not one of the best writers in general. His notes and essays are where the real meat are, and they're far more C of E related, a church that I am happy is utterly antithetical to what he would have wanted it to be.

@rbaxter286

Ай бұрын

@@amacnaughton85Twain's Letters from the Earth and follow-ons are FAR superior to anything from this conservatory plant.

I believe many people have this unexplainable yearning for something that is not tangible or imaginable even. There is this void, emptiness inside us that we crave to fill constantly, most often in the moments of despair or when we feel lost. I'm not a theist but not an atheist either, more of an agnostic. I don't believe literately in stories from bible or quran, but there are interesting analogies to be found in them. In any case, how can we be so sure that there is nothing outside this perception of life as we have it now, while we live. Even the greatest scientists should have modesty to admit that we don't know everything. How can you even claim anything with 100% certainty when we cannot completely define what consciousness is, and all is a happening in consciousness?

@dmitriy4708

Ай бұрын

It seems your view of atheism is that atheists are certain there is no supernatural etc. A strange view. Do you believe in God/gods? If yes you are a theist, if no you are an atheist. Do you know whether God/gods exist or not? If yes you are a gnostic, if no you are an agnostic. Pretty easy, however not all encompassing. I am an igtheist, so I would answer - please give me a coherent definition of God first, otherwise the question makes no sense and even answering no is wrong, because it assumes I accept the very idea of God as coherent, and I don't.

@YoungJustice1997

Ай бұрын

Bro stop making your own definitions and trying to wiggle out of things, atheists say God doesn't exist 100%. Theists say God exists 100%. If you are unsure then you are agnostic. You either believe or you don't its simple. @@dmitriy4708

@RecOgMission

Ай бұрын

I think the greatest scientists are among the first to acknowledge that we don't know everything. So often, they had to go against what "we thought we knew" to arrive at their discoveries. People who "know and understand" the most are generally most acutely aware of how many gaps there truly are. From my experience, most atheists do not say "we absolutely know there is no God", but rather "I have not seen enough evidence to convince me, absolutely, that there is a God." Some people say "I don't know enough, and I won't fill those holes in knowledge until I'm convinced by something, therefore I can't say that I absolutely know God exists", while others say "I don't know enough, and I'll fill those holes in knowledge by (insert belief here), therefore I absolutely believe (my) God has to exists."

@DK-uh8nk

Ай бұрын

@@dmitriy4708Hey there. I do not believe in existence of Gods as described in Bible, Quran or any European, Indian or other mythologies, and i believe that no one will probably ever prove their existence. However, i find some daoistic, budhistic and hinduistic beliefs (or let's rather call them philosophies) intersting and possible/true. Concept that "God" is everything and everywhere (universe) isn't that far fetched is it now? It doesn't mean that there is a bearded man in the sky.. Also "God" can be a state of your being, when you are "true to yourself", in peace, clarity, without any desires, judgments etc.etc. Some would call this state "nirvana" i guess. Anyways, there are many things that we cannot explain completely, not through science or philosophy or any other means. As i said, we cannot define consciousness and we live "in it", so for me i'm always leaving that little bit of a doubt concerning everything i see, hear, think, feel, believe and so on. Ofc. we can say without a doubt that orange is orange, but questions about the existence of universe and us as part of it are far more complex for anyone to be making claims that anything is true 100%. My opinions all this, not here to debate. Cheers.

@matthewphilip1977

Ай бұрын

How do you know your yearning is for something intangible or imaginable? How do you know it is not for one or more of the things we have evolved to rely on, like, acceptance, security, love, etc?

Some people consume for comfort ( eating, shopping , the such) a quick fix. Others are in it for the long haul, and hope for a treat at the end.

could be just a desire for entrainment into cycles beyond our narrow ego. into cyclical nature beyond our temporal and spatial understandings.

From the womb of our mothers, we were under constant auditory bombardment. Heart beat, mother's voice, intestinal noises, and the list goes on. All in the darkness of the womb's universe. Then we're born. You can't see very well, and your new sense of hunger causes you to cry for help. Out of seemingly nowhere, a being shows up to comfort you. Could this be the subconscious yearn or expectation of something outside of us? A supposed born knowledge of a god? Any thoughts on this?

@ppiron6

Ай бұрын

Good points. These also beg and lead to the question why life at all? Push that back and then suppose desires only exists as means of survival mechanisms as Alex suggests. If this was the case, why not the carry window for a mother's womb be 2 months, 5 months? After all this would throughout history ensure a higher rate of survival both for the mother and the unborn. Thus 9 months is far too long to be chosen out of strictly a desired means by way of survival.

@WE_R_DNA

Ай бұрын

@@ppiron6 I'm not begging the question of "why life at all?" It's more in relation to the "we're born with the intuition of a god/ higher power/ entity/ ghosts/ supernatural" discussion that they touched upon here.

@DUDEBroHey

Ай бұрын

Yes the first god in our lives is our parents. We worship them as babes. Then as we grow up we worship God, find something to worship or seek be worshipped.

@dmitriy4708

Ай бұрын

@@ppiron6 "why not the carry window for a mother's womb be 2 months, 5 months?" Do you understand that survival of even less capable infant in the outside world is very unlikely? Humans are born extremely underdeveloped compared to most of the other mammals, it is the case because we need to have such a large head and we are bipedal, so women has problems giving birth to a large baby, so we are born like that, however we can learn stuff with our huge brain more easily. So, infant is at risk of dying be hypothermia due to his small size and underdeveloped temperature control, it cannot move at all by itself for at least half a year and in need of constant care when it can die in the sleep by suffocating itself with it's own weght. You have some strange questions.

@montagdp

Ай бұрын

@@ppiron6 Huh? There are very well known biological reasons for why the human gestation period is 9 months. Carrying for shorter or longer would not improve the survival rate. As for why humans evolved to have a gestation period of 9 months, the answer is simply because it works for our species. Other species have different length gestation periods for different reasons. After all, there is not an "ideal" evolutionary solution to life; there are many diverse ones.

It's also important to remember we spent most of our time evolving in a much leaner environment. That's why we're often so unsatisfied. The way we think of needs and scarcity in the context of the Western world is a perfect example. Irrational is putting it mildly.

I think Alex and Richard Dawkins are rather overintellectualising Lewis' point here. Lewis is drawing attention to that desire for the transcendent, for ultimate meaning, purpose and value, which is the deepest, most fundamental experience we have as humans. It lies behind so much of our great art, literature and thought. Certainly, our longing for the transcendent does not logically guarantee its reality, as Lewis recognises by using the word "probable". It is, however, wholly consistent with it, and is, shall we say, not surprising if the transcendent is actual. As William James said, with typical caution, of religious experiences, this desire points "with reasonable probability to the continuity of our consciousness with a wider spiritual environment". If, of course, we are the incidental by-products of a mindless, purposeless, valueless material universe, then we have to accept that our deepest longings are essentially evolved illusions - and it will, I think, be hard to live a truly human life after that. As Chesterton observed, "Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural".

I love these sort of conversations. It’s a shame that usually its only one party that seems to be able to set aside their opinions and predictions and beliefs to have an abstract conversation about a thing we can’t yet fully understand. If your job security and reputation among your peers will waiver in the face of such a conversation, then something’s gotta give. It’s a waste of time otherwise.

CS Lewis desired for a god. He got what he desired. He invented one for himself.

@davidtagauri2034

Ай бұрын

If you read his autobiography you will see that the last thing he wanted was God. In fact, untill his conversion, he was an active atheist mocking his religious friends. That statement is simply wrong.

@gsp3428

Ай бұрын

I would say its more Dawkins desire like Hitchens and Krausse for there not to be a God. They have all said it, Hitchens said it in his debate with Craig, Dawkins said he didnt want God to be the answer, and Krausse labels himself as an anti theist. I would say the desire for God not exist is much much stronger for atheists. Atheist Thomas Nagel himself said this himself, he didnt want it to be true, and called it the cosmic authority problem.

@kdemetter

Ай бұрын

@@gsp3428 I think you've misunderstood that. Atheists don't really spend their time "wanting" there to be no god. We just don't believe a god exists given the current evidence, so we don't really spend time on it. However, if at some point evidence would confirm that a god does exist, then we would still be against that god. As in, we would recognize that the god exist but also the evil that the god represents (a celestial dictator as Hitchens would call it) That opposition would be futile (given that a god is omnipotent), but it would still be the morally correct thing to do. It might mean that we atheists spend eternity in hell with the knowledge that at least they are more moral than the god that puts us there for the crime of not believing and not worshiping it.

@ramigilneas9274

Ай бұрын

@@gsp3428 And pretty much every Christian ever believed primarily for emotional reasons. Apologists like William Lane Craig openly admit that they lowered their standards for Christianity because they wanted it to be true for emotional reasons.

@gsp3428

Ай бұрын

@@davidtagauri2034 Oh the guy who called God the vindictive ebloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, the mysogygnistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal, genocidal, pestulental, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic capricious bully. Sure sounds like a guy who wants God to exist.

Dawkins' third button is undone

This was a surprisingly fun video, I love a good devil's advocate discussion

Wanting things that don't exist is pretty common. Artists, writers, creatives, scientists always imagine and strive for things that don't yet exist.

Mr Dawkins is just brilliant

@John.Christopher

Ай бұрын

He's rudimentary

@matthewphilip1977

Ай бұрын

Yes, Dawkins cuts through the crap. Even Alex knew this was a silly one.

@yancooper3008

Ай бұрын

@@John.Christopher Very rudimentary.

@realistic_delinquent

Ай бұрын

@@John.Christopher when you say “rudimentary” do you mean that he refuses to engage in sophistry? Is efficiency being mistakenly identified as rudiment?

I want the most perfect pizza, and I know I will have it after I die. Uh, that doesn’t work for me. All the Christian promises are to be delivered postmortem. I will believe Christians really believe this when Churches open banks where I can borrow money that I pay back when I die.

@oldpossum57

Ай бұрын

Absolutely! And mega church preachers have solved your mystery. Joel Osteen, net worth in excess of $50M, is investing the money christians pay into his Bank of Jesus’s & the Sweet Bye and Bye, , and living high off the interest.

@dyobodiu

Ай бұрын

You are misinformed: not all the Christian promises are delivered postmortem. Far from that.

CS Lewis argument should be called the Aladdin Argument. "I have wishes therefore..."

Humans can want whatever they can imagine. If I share my notion that you can live forever, you can now imagine it. You will likely want it to be true enough to convince yourself it is true.

When I was a teenager, I wanted Middle Earth and Gandalf and the hobbits to be true. According to CS Lewis, this is evidence that the Lord of the Rings is ontologically true. I mean, come on. This is literal wishful thinking.

@BUSeixas11

Ай бұрын

Right. Lewis should know better, since he wrote Chronicles of Narnia himself.

@Thekeninger

Ай бұрын

God, I hope Middle Earth and Gandalf are among the possible options after death.

@henriquepereira2811

Ай бұрын

But you only had that desire after you read the books. In the case of God, you are born with the desire.

@mrmaat

Ай бұрын

@@henriquepereira2811 This is false. No one is born with an innate desire for the Christian god. Missionaries have to preach and translate ideas, exactly like Tolkien’s work must be translated for the gospel of Frodo to spread. If you meant that I was born with agency detection, primate socialization needs and a general inclination to believe in the supernatural, I’d grant your point but counter that none of those traits are unexpected given evolution, and are no way demonstrate the existence of the spiritual.

Alex seems to think there's a mechanism we evolved that kicks in when it's beneficial to believe a false fact. That isn't what's happening. All that's happening there is that our brain considers all available data and comes to the wrong conclusion - either based on bad or incomplete data or an insufficient ability to process the data.

@markgordon5266

Ай бұрын

In addition, we tend to prefer a faulty or mistaken explanation to no explanation. Couple this tendency with a proclivity to over-assign agency and our capacity for self-deception, and it's not difficult to see how religions developed and evolved culturally.

@bengreen171

Ай бұрын

@@markgordon5266 yep, good point. We're naturally insecure and we always want an answer to any question, even if that answer is flawed. And we have a rampant imagination.

@zimpoooooo

Ай бұрын

We do filter and distort the data, though. We are very far from just being logical.

@bengreen171

Ай бұрын

@@zimpoooooo yes, but that's not a deliberate evolutionary mechanism, it's a failure of the brain to function perfectly - like a pen full of dodgy ink that sometimes spatters and sometimes stops flowing.

@yonatanbeer3475

Ай бұрын

Why would you assume that misjudgements are always about insufficient ability, rather than delusions being advantageous?

It's just as easy to say that we need abstraction in order to continue.

Even understanding irrational beliefs may in some scenarios actually give us an advantage is an extension of rationality which gives us a survival advantage. We can know that such beliefs exist, we can know that they give an advantage, we can know why they give us an advantage, and we can know that they are wrong . . . each step increases our survivability and each step is attained through some means of rationality.

Zizek makes the point that Desire's purpose IS precisely to be unfulfilled. As soon as one gets what is desired, the desire ends (the Lacanian idea of desire as a "productive force") Therefore it seems reasonable to say desire is actually about the impossible. Fantasies are almost always better as fantasies.

@yonatanbeer3475

Ай бұрын

This is an excellent answer, and I am somewhat shocked that the guest didn't bring it up nor any other element of psychology

@periruke

Ай бұрын

This remark could benefit Lewis argument. He talks about desire which nothing in this world can fulfill, that most people can identify with. No matter how rich or powerful you are, how many women can you be with, how many drugs are at your disposal. All other desires, in broad sense desiring to feel pleasure/good, can be fulfiled by earthly things. So if all other desires can be fulfilled, why this one cannot. He could answer this question by special pleading to certain desires, or by opening the possibilty of another world where this desire would be fulfilled (in Christian sense by God).

@yonatanbeer3475

Ай бұрын

@@periruke I would question if other desires can always be fulfilled, tbh.

@periruke

Ай бұрын

@@yonatanbeer3475 for some desires we know for sure they can be fulfilled. For example desire to be full when we feel hunger on daily basis we successfully fulfill with food. Desire for company, when we are lonely, is dealt with friendly conversation... Which desire was on your mind that can't be fulfilled?

@ye_zus

Ай бұрын

@@periruke I think you are selling short the desire felt before temporary cessation. Lacan's point is that there is no "total satisfaction" of desire. When we are ravenously hungry we imagine all the wonderous things we will eat, we could eat a mountain, we fantasize about different foods, we feel powerful and alive. But when it comes to actually eating, well...our eyes were bigger than our stomach. As another aphorism says "foreplay is better than the sex." Much of the productive fantasies, that striving feeling of desire, are left by the act itself, unfulfilled. There is a unavoidable melancholy following desire's cessation.

How can we "know" that Plantinga talks the most absurd nonsense ? Because he is evidently in love with the idea of a spirit world, in which his favoured spirit is the Boss !

@rbaxter286

Ай бұрын

Yep, he's the home town favorite for certain groups of small towns. And, the saying goes, there's a reason small towns are small.

@oldpossum57

Ай бұрын

And not, I hasten to add, Bruce Springsteen.

Is the desire (from some) for 'eternal life' not just an extension of self preservation with death being the ultimate, inescapable conclusion to that ultimately futile pursuit?

if believers insist one cannot argue that reason is evolved for both veracity and utility, but only utility all the time, then based on the fact that religiosity is culturally predominant and popular, religious doctrines cannot be said to have been justified with reason

Women desire things that don't exist all the time. Checkmake CS Lewis! Checkmate!

well, he's dead, so that aint happening

@nogoodusernames100

Ай бұрын

Does truth exist?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Ай бұрын

@@nogoodusernames100 Truth and the meaning of this sentence exist in the same way.

@nogoodusernames100

Ай бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL In what way is that?

@sh0k0nes

Ай бұрын

@@nogoodusernames100u need to define what u mean first. Truth. Exist.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Ай бұрын

@@nogoodusernames100 "In what way is that" Abstractly.

indeed!

It's admirable the justice you do to Lewis and Plantinga in this section. You're a true Socratic. Do you have a follow-up to challenge Lewis's argument from desire and Plantinga's argument against naturalism by evolution?

You could say every religions God is just their idea of an ideal authority figure and the desire for a perfect authority figure does make evolutionary sense. God is just a conglomeration of desires for things which do exist like love, justice etc, we see a lack of these things in our world, grow hungry for them and create a being which promises us all these things, which our hunger for do make evolutionary sense, this also goes for belief in the afterlife too, very often it's just a hunger for retribution, reward or simply more life, all of which you could argue make evolutionary sense.

Reading CS Lewis makes me lose at least two IQ points per each sentence

@itsnevertoolatetodotherigh3271

Ай бұрын

Ohhh please drama king ..am guessing yr IQ was never high to begin with ,so don't worry nothing worse can happen to yr IQ then already is.

@ashhart6792

Ай бұрын

😂

I find that there is no point in asking "2+2=4" or any kind of math question because all of math is built upon a bunch of postulates and everything else comes from logical reasoning from that. So the only two things you can really refute are: 1) the basic assumptions you start with 2) logic itself

8:36 ....or that they understand more than they do. If we're fundamentally wrong about the nature of the universe, but our incorrect notions have kept us alive and evolving, does objective truth matter to our actual existence? Or is the truth of our existence irrelevant to our understanding of the universe, and therefore a matter beyond our observational capabilities, and thus the refusal of general acceptance, especially by scientists that want to observe the observer.

The argument says that every universal human desire (eg. hunger, thirst, sex, communication) has its means of satisfaction. You can't say that one of them (divine fulfillment) is completely false and made up lie. That is inconsistent, irrational, and has no supporting evidence.

@richarddoan9172

Ай бұрын

We don't believe food exists because people are hungry. We already know that food exists and we can explain why humans want it. (These explanations apply to all animals -- nothing special about human desires.) We can also come up with naturalistic explanations for religions, just like desire for food, water, etc. And you have to do a lot of work to show that "divine fulfillment" is universal (let alone define it). Not all religions believe in a god, like Buddhism. Can you infer the existence of a god from that? Or from a belief in many gods? Or from a belief that objects in the natural world have souls? (animism) And not all people are religious. Atheism is growing in the modern world. There are millions of non-religious people. How do you explain that? Doesn't feel so universal. It happens to coincide with increased knowledge of the world, making supernatural explanations unnecessary. You know what's also near universal? Superstition. Does that tell us that superstition is grounded in reality? That lucky numbers and lucky shirts actually have power?

@markgordon5266

Ай бұрын

@@richarddoan9172 Good point regarding superstition, and it dovetails nicely with the power of self-deception.

@jackforeman2742

Ай бұрын

@@richarddoan9172most or many theists would argue that atheism or any worldview tends to have a few or even a lot of overlap with the nature of religious beliefs. Of course that’s up for debate. It does seem to me that pretty much everyone is trying to scratch an itch that’s just out of reach. Ultimately coming to believe a certain way about that which can’t be known exactly. And either which way they believe nearly all seem to act as if it really matters. The mattering strikes me as I imagine it probably did Lewis. The mattering of things would not be so fleeting as our physical lives. And if it matters, what we do in accordance with that may likewise be eternal.

@richarddoan9172

Ай бұрын

@@jackforeman2742 , so you're saying that people have things that are important to them. It's not clear how that suggests anything about the nature of reality. If you interpret that within the framework of a particular religion (say, your favorite monotheistic religion), or any religion, and try to argue something from it, you're really begging the question.

@oldpossum57

Ай бұрын

That means I have to accept your premise that the thing universally desired exists. Your reasoning begs the question. Grantthe desire is universal. (On examination it may not be not be: how would you operationalize these terms?) If the desire can be shown to be the product of many more elemental desires and habits of mind, it need not exist at all. An analogy: universally, humans believe in cause and effect, and in agents and action. The peasant in Checkov thinks the tree sways to make the wind. You say, no, the agent here is the sun, which radiates energy, causing circulation of gases in the atmosphere. The peasant asks, why does he feel cold on a windless sunny winter’s day. The peasant’s landlord praises god for the sun. You then explain to the landlord that the sun and the solar system are just haphazard possible arrangements of space, time, energy and matter that are consequences of the settings adopted by this particular universe as it expanded out of the Singularity. Other universes, perhaps infinite in number, would also exist if the multiverse theory is correct, in which case in many of those universes there could be no time, space, energy or matter.

“That’s a very odd argument” Dawkins way of saying ‘wow, good question, I’ve never really thought deeply about this before, I just wanted your viewers to buy my book’.

@mangleman25

Ай бұрын

And above we have a perfect display of what C.S. Lewis dubbed "Bulverism"

@JasonWilliams89

Ай бұрын

He explained immediately after why it was a terrible argument though

@Tomyum19

Ай бұрын

@@JasonWilliams89 And it was a sad attempt at that. Wanting to be with a beautiful woman? A beautiful woman EXISTS lol

@JasonWilliams89

Ай бұрын

@@Tomyum19 I mean the part where he said it's a natural extension of not wanting to die

@Tomyum19

Ай бұрын

​@@JasonWilliams89 Which is exactly the explanation you'd expect an atheist to say. Especially one who has never been a Christian in the past. It's some half hearted evolutionary explanation of the deepest desires of the human consciousness. And don't get me wrong I love evolution and the science of it, but its not the right tool to explain something like this.. "Yeah its because we dont want to die" like give me a break. Because Christians, for the most part, aren't Christian just because they 'don't want to die'. They're Christians because they also desire justice for the things that have happened in this world and a chance to redeem themselves knowing full well that without God we are all unredeemable sinners. I mean even for myself, when I think of dying I don't think "oh thank God I'm a Christian, I'll never die" lol. Rather, I think more like "thank God I'm a Christian, all the evil in this world will be vanquished, the corrupt will be punished, the righteous rewarded and the tears of the innocent will be wiped away and the horrors committed against them will be burned away in the fires of justice.' It's something to that effect. And because we have that prospect, that chance, it makes this life so much more meaningful and makes the suffering of this world bearable. When I see a child abuser get away with it, I think yeah buddy you didn't get away with anything, youll get yours. An atheist can only say, "well he got his pleasure and got away with it. If he's never caught he's just worm's food at the end of it all and the child's suffering meant nothing to anyone. And furthermore, as an atheist, who am I to say absuing children is even wrong, morality is subjective etc etc.'.

Shout out to the cinco de mayo table Cloth - love it - represent

I will forever scorn the name CS Lewis. Not for his religious BS but because I LOVED his "Chronicles of Narnia" UNTIL I read the concluding novel "The Last Battle" which sucked rhino balls.

Lewis's argument regarding a desire for God indicating the reality of a deity is daft. However it is almost a prediction of Terror Management Theory.

@Datbiolaguy

Ай бұрын

Maybe you haven’t really considered the argument well enough. It may have holes but it is definitely not a daft argument.

@zelmoziggy

Ай бұрын

@@Datbiolaguy It’s pretty weak.

@Datbiolaguy

Ай бұрын

@@zelmoziggycan you tell me what the argument is as you understand it?

@matthewphilip1977

Ай бұрын

@@zelmoziggy Yes, weak nonsense. C.S. Lewis had an easy time of it due to when he was around. Imagine him in the internet age, being laughed out of town.

@zelmoziggy

Ай бұрын

@@Datbiolaguy Humans desire something that doesn’t exist in this universe. Therefore, humans were designed to exist in a universe where it does exist. The problem is that he doesn’t give a specific example. Dawkins correctly states that it probably all flows from the evolutionary imperative to survive, i.e., humans don’t desire a god except insofar as that god offers them something they want. In the case of Christianity, that thing is eternal life.

One of the best days of my life was when I stopped believing in Heaven and Hell. What a weight lifted knowing I won't be living forever, let alone be judged on my permanent record. Part of me still wishes it were true, though, just so I could be judged beside the religious people in my life and have God tell us once and for all who the good one really was. What I wouldn't give to see the look on their faces as he lets me through the pearly gates while casting them out.

Nice discussion. I would like to add that a desire for things that do not exist is exactly why we invent things. We are able to transform our environment because we can imagine things that do not exist (yet). This si of course an evolutionary advantage.

The filmstar in the next world would wouldn't allow this person to find them,Haha

The human brain is the most complex thing that has evolved. We know that it's resulted in the construction of illusions so It's hardly surprising that it's resulted in these inexplicable beliefs.

@martifingers

Ай бұрын

I don't think they are inexplicable. in particular Terror Management Theory has a very good explanation.

@laze4534

Ай бұрын

*Most complex thing ever discovered in the universe so far, thank you very much. As a brain myself, the details are important.

As a reformed fedora-atheist and an agnostic who years for this something "from beyond this world" I heard many give high praise to Lewis, but reading Mere Christianity was really underwhelming experience.

Interesting topic. Maybe it comes from childhood. As adults we no longer have a greater power watching over us.

Whatever rubbish Plantinga talks about evolution, it's evident that the process worked well enough to get us to our current situation. Stranded with Plantinga on a desert island, he would be too busy counting sand grains, than to be collecting coconuts.

@theunknownatheist3815

Ай бұрын

Plantinga is as ridiculous as he looks. His arguments are absolute garbage. He clearly either doesn’t understand evolution, or he’s a liar. Probably a little of both.

@EmporerFrederick

Ай бұрын

Lol, Plantiga just says what biologists say about evolution. Do you mean biologists talk rubbish?! He is not adding anything to evolution, he is addressing its relation to naturalism.

"Clarity is not born of logic." J. Krishnamurti

@duewest1987

Ай бұрын

Then what is it born of?

@Frac_lives_matter

Ай бұрын

@@duewest1987suffering

@duewest1987

Ай бұрын

@@Frac_lives_matter Can you elaborate

@bike4aday

Ай бұрын

@@duewest1987 It is born of mindfulness and observation. If you want to know something, be mindful and observe it. You can think about it a little at the end if you want to put it into a conceptual model or communicate it with language, but this is a waste if you haven't sufficiently observed something first.

"CS Lewis," "A bit silly," Sacrilege. What about the ability to evolve imaginary things so that we might find use for them? Like colours and emotional context to sequences of sounds. The mind doesn't play tricks on you for the fun of it, it does so because that is how it works.

The argument from desire is referring to inate desires that all humans have. It’s not speaking of any-and-all idiosyncratic desires that people can individually come up with. How is this obvious fundamental premise of the argument completely misunderstood by so many in this comment section?

When a dog get sick, it hides under the table or behind a chair. It cannot understand something hurting inside, so it think some unseen force outside is hurting it.

@goonofhazard2203

Ай бұрын

That's a wild assumption. Do you also think humans hide in their beds when they are sick because they think some unseen force outside is hurting them?

@dizzy6656

Ай бұрын

@@goonofhazard2203 we don't hide, do we? you go to bed to get rest / comfort; to recover. not a great analogy

@goonofhazard2203

Ай бұрын

@@dizzy6656 so does the dog.

Alex does a characteristically excellent job of presenting a good steelman(ish) presentation of C.S. Lewis's argument ... and characteristically Dawkins bends over backwards misunderstanding it and responding to a strawman version. Same goes for Plantiga's argument ... he doesn't even seem to understand the argument. Awesome content.

You can't figure the infinite out through your mind and Intellect. It's absurd. You have to EXPERIENCE. Not bellieve. CS Lewis knew. It's obvious when you read the awesome Narnia chronicles. He talks from experience.

"I just wanted to get your thoughts and I'll be interested to see what people make of your reply". Was that a low key burn? It came across as "I asked you a question expecting a certain level of intellectual depth and understanding in response. I've even gently prompted you for greater detail but you seem to not be capable of getting my point. I don't want to labour this point too much (as informed by the experience during the Peter Hitchens interview and his accusations of the interviewing style) so I will draw this line of question to a close and leave it to the comments section to discuss." It was a nicely phrased final line in the clip that conveyed quite a bit :)

More like it sounds absolutely silly

the 'desire' for food is a fundamental need. It's not the same as a 'desire' for God. We evolved a consciousness with the ability to consider abstract concepts. Hypothesising there might be something that can 'save us' isn't too much different from hypothesising that food will end our hunger. Alex is weirdly missing the point when he says 'it's a desire for something that doesn't exist'. All desires are desires for something that doesn't exist. When you're hungry, you desire a full belly - which, at the time you desire it, doesn't exist.

It could also be a desire for an explanation (meaning of life, etc.). Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong as long as you believe it..

gotcha!

The “wisdom” of this world is foolishness in God’s sight!

@John.Christopher

Ай бұрын

Yup

@chamicels

Ай бұрын

lean not on your own understanding you should be studying the bible not watching educational videos

The argument from desire is originally from St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis didn’t have anything new to say. Rick is a confused man. No one within a system can truly understand it. That is why we desire to transcend any system, we want to know the ultimate true which is beyond the system. That is the desire for God. No one who is part of a system can know it’s ultimate truth.

@oldpossum57

Ай бұрын

Some people don’t bother themselves with unanswerable questions. They get on with it. Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A. The dinosaur.

I have never understood what people mean when they ask these hypothetical questions such as "what if 2+2 is not 4". The definition of "2" is something very tangible and can be observed, exactly like the definition of "4". They are concrete things, very much like the planes that fly. What is their basis of questioning this idea? What is the purpose of asking pointess questions like "what if gravity didn't work?" Well it does, why are even questioning it?

6:00 overlooking the unintended side effects or “spandrels” that emerge out of otherwise advantageous evolutionary processes. Being able to think in abstract ways that manipulate symbols and postulate imagined possibilities has profound advantages,, while also eliciting false beliefs based in wishful thinking and misapplied categorical rules as ways of trying to assuage existential anxiety, vulnerability and lack of control. Related to this, as humans gathered in larger and larger groups, shared religious beliefs was one way of creating order and having a basis for common legal/moral values. So we can argue there was some utility there, which also rode on the cost tails of the ubiquitous human tendency to fill in gaps in knowledge with supernatural explanations, and an imagined monarchical power structure that extended beyond the physical world. We’re there benefits? In relative terms, sure…. But the history of post enlightenment societies has been one of replacing those theocratic and monarchical systems with democracy, education, human rights, and a rational view of the world.

Richard Dawkins doesn't have a clue about philosophy, none of his "knock down" arguments ever seemed to go past a High School lunch table level of scrutiny..

@ztrinx1

Ай бұрын

What a useless comment. Philosophy is as useful as literature in terms of moving the world forward. If you want innovation and new, accurate knowledge about the world, that takes science. That takes hypothesis and testing. The end.

@itsnevertoolatetodotherigh3271

Ай бұрын

Indeed my Christian bro

@benwil6048

Ай бұрын

Now for religious arguments to get past kindergarten lvl of silliness and we’ll get some real deals!

@TheDragonageorigins

Ай бұрын

@@ztrinx1Philosophy isnt a means of inventing new things or tackling physics. What are you on about? Philosophy is a means to understand deeper questions about the world and life in general. Science cant hypothesize why suffering is everywhere, or what the meaning of life is.

@nogoodusernames100

Ай бұрын

@@ztrinx1 How do you know something is true?