it seems like Jay Dyer's transcendental argument for god is basically hijacking Neo-Platonism & modifying mechanics to apply it to his orthodox trinitarianism seems like a crime was committed
@celestialknight2339Ай бұрын
“If the cosmos had any other gods in them besides God - they would have been destroyed & gone to ruin! So glory be to God, Lord of the Throne, beyond what they allege.” ~ The Qur’an, Sūrah 21:22
@wadekereopa-yj3gq2 ай бұрын
When he walked of to find the paper I got ‘doc brown explaining things to Marty’ vibes
@danielboone82562 ай бұрын
There is good evidence to suggest that homosexual lifestyles/behaviors are harmful to the individuals who partake in them. IIRC, children raised by homosexual parents tend to become homosexual themselves. I don’t think you’re being charitable in so blithely dismissing the social sciences factor on this.
@whitemakesright21773 ай бұрын
We goin full Solaire of Astora with this one ☀️☀️☀️
@valentinocelesteorlando72943 ай бұрын
Great stuff again. Cheers mate. Can't wait for more pal.
@james1925993 ай бұрын
Panentheism(implies neoplatonic emanation) is in my opinion the most accurate view of neoplatonic/hermetic philospohy. Also of course this can imply a soft polytheism as gods essence is the same. Think of all gods are representation of the one, philosophical monism. Alternatively, you can view it as the Gods are a family lineage which is how they are all related. Even in the bible the angels are described as sons of god and serve on his divine council. Even syncretic christopagan groups exist such as the santeria(cuba), voodoo(haiti), candomble(brazil),
@ILoveLuhaidan3 ай бұрын
this has to be a joke
@trinitymatrix97193 ай бұрын
what books woud u guys recommend that debunk silly atheist arguments? THX n God bless....
@noonesomeone6693 ай бұрын
An excellent conversation that is a relief from the endless Christian and atheist apologetics. As polytheist who has Neo Platonic leanings it is nice to see an author creating new material in that school of thought.
@Remiel_Plainview4 ай бұрын
wonderful video. You got a subscriber man. 😻
@amorfati45594 ай бұрын
Most of this conversation is highly academic, but I would like to understand it. Where do I go to get an overview of neo platonism or anything else that would be prerequisite to understand where you're coming from? Most of this is over my head, but I've been interested in the idea of polytheist apologetics, for lack of a better term, for a while now.
@simonjurado23266 ай бұрын
Love Oppy's hair
@ROFLOLGAMER7 ай бұрын
Perceptions of freedom are ineffable - seemingly IMPOSSIBLE to define - because that which we count as our freedom is sneakily multifaceted. An analogous half-philosophical, half-neuroscientific error would come from trying to pinpoint consciousness within a particular characteristic, or region in the brain. That sounds absurd, because by all accounts, consciousness is comprised of many overlapping behaviours and neurological processes. I reckon freedom is the same (and is even contained within the analogy); it's a gestalt we ascribe to a monolithic faculty, even though there are innumerable exclusive and theoretically definable elements at play under the hood. Day-to-day, our common sense interpretation of freewill is a useful heuristic: Classical freewill lets us make reliable estimations of an individual's character and set expectations for the future. However, in the pursuit of evermore knowledge, we shouldn't contort our interpretations of the facts to meet our longstanding heuristics, or intuitions; we should revise our heuristics to meet emerging facts, all the while coming up with definitions that a regular Joe can understand. Compatibilism is likewise both an admirable attempt at reclassifying freewill, but is at times leveraged to twist the facts in a bid to preserve the longstanding heuristic. An honest compatibilism will seek to speak the language of intuition while conveying the facts yielded by empirical corollaries and hard analyses. Freewill might be said to appear when we behave both regularly and our momentary neurology is consistent with our typical neurology. Therefore, a crime of passion committed by an otherwise sane individual must be prosecuted not because of some metaphysical transgression, but because it reveals a critical failing in that person's normal state. If further investigation elucidates no such failure in the criminal's normalcy, then the primary function of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence nudges edge-case deviants more in-line with our preferred normal range, and fosters enfranchisement by appeasing the aggrieved. That's not retribution; soundness of mind is ultimately rational and can be located in far-flung proclivities, just like consciousness and freewill. This brand of compatibilism doesn't attempt mental gymnastics that invoke muddled libertarian freewill and alternate universes. Rather, it appeals to universally understandable, macroscopic processes, and hitches them on to the omnibus idea that is freewill.
@Son_of_zeus7 ай бұрын
the gods are eternal immortal celestial beings that keep balance to the cosmos and the fabric of reality. the gods themselves were never created, they have always existed, they are an emanation or a manifestation of celestial sentient intelligence of the one or chaos (impersonal source) the point of origin of all creation. the gods then created everything around us seen and unseen, and are the keepers of the entire space and time in which we live in. they can manifest themselves in physical forms, they can influence or cause change in the world, each god has their given natural roles in which they are the stewards of.
@thegoose_16957 ай бұрын
You should do a podcast
@Blackbeard07918 ай бұрын
Neoplatonism has almost always felt like Monotheism with extra steps to me. If all is one, then Mono. If they are separate, then Poly, but they can’t be one. Feels just as non-sensical as the trinity.
@Eudaemoniac5 ай бұрын
The one is the principle by which each thing is one. It grounds plurality.
@Blackbeard07915 ай бұрын
@@Eudaemoniac But if all things that are boil down to a One, then a plurality of gods is really just facets or iterations or modes. It’s not separate individual entities, correct?
@iswaswillbe5674 ай бұрын
There are 50 states in the United States. Every state is separate and distinct from one another, but they are all one nation.
@Blackbeard07914 ай бұрын
@@iswaswillbe567 So, trinitarianism but ad infinitum?
@iswaswillbe5674 ай бұрын
@@Blackbeard0791 Try to keep the Trinity out of it, as most Christians even have trouble really understanding it. It's actually more like Hinduism. All gods are avatars of Brahman, or the ultimate reality. Or even think about yourself and all the different masks you wear. Your coworkers know you as one person, your parents know you as a different person, your lover knows you as a different person from them, and so on.
@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns9 ай бұрын
We don’t have any direct awareness of our brain itself or neural processes themselves (per 1:29:00), but we also don’t have any direct experience of our subconscious mind either. Does Josh want to argue that the subconscious is the brain whereas the conscious mind isn’t? My understanding is that he doesn’t have that view. But then, if the ground of one’s own self consciousness can shield itself from a layer or legitimate consciousness, why is it problematic to say that the brain states that just ARE consciousness aren’t directly aware of themselves ?
@kyledavisnorroena9 ай бұрын
If you are interested in polytheism I suggest checking out the Norroena Society. We are theological reconstructionists and our focus is Germanic heathenry (Sedianism).
@gabri412009 ай бұрын
I think that a good definition of natural is "whatever can be observed and described in physical and mathematical terms"
@katattack90710 ай бұрын
Loved this video. I think naturalistic paganism offers much to seekers who wish to forge connection and find peace without being forced into taking up beliefs that contradict all observable laws of nature. I count myself a panentheist and I love celebrating the beauty of the natural world. 🌿
@dominiks506810 ай бұрын
God the Huemer argument is so unbelievably stupid
@ragnarokfps11 ай бұрын
It's a bit silly to call God supernatural since I suppose, from his point of view, it is actually US the humans that are created, and therefore UNnatural. No one's gonna hesitate to agree that stuff like a watch or a car are non-natural things. We created them. So why do we flip this around and refer to ourselves and our universe as the thing that's natural, and the god/angels as supernatural?
@asdfghjkl22614 ай бұрын
I think that's a bad way to use those words. God is supernatural in the sense that he transcends nature and can violate the laws of physics. We are natural in the sense that we are temporal and bound by physical laws. In that sense, watches and cars are natural, too. I think this is what Graham was alluding to when he talked about all the different connotations of the world "natural."
@ragnarokfps4 ай бұрын
@@asdfghjkl2261 natural in the sense I'm using it means there's no apparent intelligence that created something for a purpose. Watches and cars don't appear in nature. We create them for a purpose. In this sense, watches and cars are not naturally occurring things. And so it is with a god and created humans.
@diwa975111 ай бұрын
Oppy deserves a much wider audience. Especially, when compared with other tub-thumping religious 'philosophers'. Maybe that's the issue(?)
If you don’t accept the premises then you just escape.” …How convenient!
@caffeineandphilosophy Жыл бұрын
Fun conversation
@joecampbell2365 Жыл бұрын
I've been having similar thoughts recently. The hard determinist arguments seem a priori. They don't frame them that way. Pereboom and Caruso pretend there is wiggle room for agent causation. That is doubtful, or doubtful that agent causation will help. You can run a version of the manipulation argument for the case of indeterminism (Kristin Mickelson) so that argument, which is a priori, extends to free will skepticism. Yet it seems that we have empirical evidence which suggests that some of us have more freedom than others. There is a disconnect, an ambiguity. Two senses of freedom, which is essentially a compatibilist view.
@matthewsteele5229 Жыл бұрын
I actually broke away from the satanic temple and pursued a more independent satanic atheo-paganism for the very reasons Dr Eric has pursued religious naturalism. Spirituality may just be baked into what humanity is, even if there’s no gods or ghosts to commune with. I wish I’d known about this idea of his when I first deconverted from Christianity
@whitemakesright21773 ай бұрын
I agree, I wish this kind of idea had been out there when I first left Christianity. Instead, I became a typical materialist nihilist, and that was so unsatisfying (both intellectually and personally) that I went back to Christianity. It was a different denomination than I grew up with, with a different theology and practice, and I rationalized that I had just grown up with the "wrong denomination" 🤦 . But nope, it was still Christianity, with all the same problems (both intellectually and personally). I think Dr. Steinhart is right that we as non-theists need to just forget Christianity. Stop accepting Christian definitions, stop defining ourselves in opposition to Christianity. This was why I always avoided Satanism: it seemed to be just defining itself as inverse Christianity. I also think that the Western world is ripe for something new like this. 1/3 of people under ~30 in America (and more in Europe) identify their religion as "none," but the vast majority (over 80%) of these people do not identify as atheists, probably because they reject the kind of materialist nihilism that the label "atheist" has come to be associated with. I think people are craving a real alternative to religion that accepts science, does away with superstition, yet retains meaning, value, and morality.
@null.och.nix7743 Жыл бұрын
43.40 that garbage perennialism is fascist and racist.. just look at those jokers julius evola and rene guenon.. just saying.. :o great talk otherwise guys.
@BiznizTrademark Жыл бұрын
I agree with your reasoning. It works perfectly fine for me to be an effective altruist and to fight for left wing politics.
@ThatisnotHair Жыл бұрын
41:15
@bellatrixmoon1836 Жыл бұрын
Love this book! And I’m a proud polytheist
@danielduvana Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I’m always unimpressed by people trying to critique EA, it’s just almost never thought through at all. Thanks for the rambling talk 😅
@yourfutureself3392 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting discussion. I think your objections to right-libertarian ethics work. However, it is worth considering that Nozick didn't consider rights absolute because of the paradox of deontology, so maybe some of your objections won't work against Nozickean ethics specifically. I'm not sure where I stand on the socialism/capitalism debate. I think I'm to the left of social democracy and to the right of market socialism (a middle point between those two). I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to voluntary slavery, which is honestly quite funny.
@EmersonGreen Жыл бұрын
I like my altruism ineffective
@danielduvana Жыл бұрын
Didn’t expect to see you here, hah! Really like your channel, had no idea you were even aware of EA and now I’m very confused if your comment is a joke or actually sincere 😅
@camcassidy4309 Жыл бұрын
Lol like I’m gonna listen to that mic quality
@joshbisig Жыл бұрын
Not to mention the critical reasoning quality
@yourfutureself3392 Жыл бұрын
Interesting video. I don't find the dilemma convincing at all, though I'm not that familiar with epistemology. I don't see why something that lacks propositional content couldn't justify a belief. In fact, don't all (or at least most) externalist accounts of justification appeal to the explanatory histories/chains leading up to a belief to justify said belief? Explanatory chains surely lack propositional content, and yet many find it intuitive that they may explain beliefs. I think I'm not an externalist but I still think the intuition behind the horn I discussed controversial and weird.
@WAYNEMELLINGER Жыл бұрын
Great to find this video. I am a Naturalistic Pagan exploring the intersections of science and religion on my blog The Dionysian Naturalist. I am most interested in ecological Druidry.
@jameslabs1 Жыл бұрын
Wow! always exciting to know there's more fun things to learn. Thanks
@oldsachem Жыл бұрын
Define "democracy." Equality? "Equity"? BLM?
@oldsachem Жыл бұрын
Imagine explaining the Kripkenstein paradox to a jury when the jury is given instructions to apply "the law" to the evidence adduced in a court case. For homework, reader, craft a Kripke jury instruction for use in a court of law. Craft one that defines "reasonable doubt."
@oldsachem Жыл бұрын
Some "numbers," so-called irrational numbers, for example, can only be written x+y, yet they are called "real." This is not a paradox; it is a math joke. Add pi and e.
@oldsachem Жыл бұрын
Every middle school math kid has run into the so-called "numbers," infinity and (- infinity), for which the conventional operations of arithmetic don't work. Hence, modern school youth routinely encounter paradox and are told not to question it.
@DarthNicholas Жыл бұрын
I have few notes/questions concerning this paradox: First, using plus and using quus do not yield the same process, even when they yield the same results: this is because I cannot "stop early" in the computation of the result if the result is <125, but instead I always have to make the comparison, and then decide if I need to set the result to 5. I feel like this paradox works only if we hypothesize that evaluating z<125 (a necessary step if we want to quus) is some sort of free or mindless operation with no side effects in our mind and in the real world. Does the skeptical make the underlying hypothesis that what I "meant" with + is only linked to the final arithmetical result, and not to the steps taken? If that's the case, why? Am I missing something? Secondly, is it me or this problem feels somehow related and in a way answered by Occam's razor? We can imagine a similar question, not about language but about science: how do we know that Newton's Second Law is "F=m*a" and not "F=m*a+n, where n is the current number of living dinosaurs"? In general, when we have different theories with the same explanatory power, we tend to prefer the simpler one. In this specific paradox, when can try to answer in the same way, by choosing among all the possible functions the one that is simpler, with a lower Kolmogorov Complexity: that would be just "x+y" and not "x+y if x<125 else 5".
@prins424 Жыл бұрын
I would like to believe and I wish to understand but this doesn't make sense and sounds like gibberish. I will consider reading the book if it is any clearer. In my own words: "plurality" is part of ultimate reality and since God or divinity contains all of ultimate reality, God/divinity contains plurality (as well as oneness and uniqueness). God is both one and plural? If the number of God(s) is indeterminate it would be fallacious to describe him as plural/poly (or mono)? Because the the category of one/plural describes/determines God which isn't allowed since it would be a category preceding God?
@generalRAAM95 Жыл бұрын
I would suggest reading Plato's Timaeus. It brings light to this topic
@logike77 Жыл бұрын
"God is both one and plural?" --There are multiple ways of making sense of unity and plurality characterizing all of reality. See Proclus the Neoplatonist, for instance. Or Spinoza's pantheism: there is only one substance, God, and the plurality of everything else that exists is but a contingent (dependent) aspect of that substance.
@logike77 Жыл бұрын
"If the number of God(s) is indeterminate it would be fallacious to describe him as plural/poly (or mono)?" --I think he means many gods, but uncountable because the plurality may not have a cardinal number, i.e., the plurality could be potentially transfinite or infinite. Nothing fallacious.
@Oskar1000 Жыл бұрын
Could facts about my brain determine what I mean. That way we don't only get information about what I would be disposed to answer in a given situation. (Because I do make mistakes). But we also get information to how I would be disposed to react if someone showed me the part where I diverged from the normal plus operation. Probably there would be signs of annoyance at my mistake rather than a "that is no mistake" type of response.
@ApologeticsSquared Жыл бұрын
There are some numbers so big that your brain literally cannot comprehend them, because there just isn't enough physical matter in your brain to encode that number. It's not clear to me how we would be able to use facts about your brain to determine what addition means in the context of adding such numbers.
@Oskar1000 Жыл бұрын
@@ApologeticsSquared there are some facts about such an addition that you could get. Like you could gage my reaction to what the last digits of the input are and what the last digit of the solution is and a lot more info.
@cornelius4954 Жыл бұрын
Excellent video! I was slightly confused at the beginning, but the quus example was quite interesting once I understood. I suppose the best answer (albeit not an actual conclusion) is a strictly utilitarian one, in that we use these mathematical symbols to best represent what occurs in the mathematical realm/real world for real world applications. As for language and words, all it is, is our attempt as humans to best communicate ideas in our own brains into other people's brains, and the word cat, in this sense, is a grammatical simplification of a (what we observe as) four legged feline creature with whiskers that may have hair or not have hair. I understand as well that none of these are irrefutable characteristics of a cat, as there could easily be a three legged cat, or a cat without whiskers etc. Yet somehow, despite the lack of an absolute definition, we still understand each other as humans (with the same language) the vast majority of the time. incredible.
@dominiks5068 Жыл бұрын
Ben's claim that you have to search far and wide to find a substance dualist in a philosophy of mind deparment and that it's an extreme minority view is utterly bizarre - according to the philpapers survey 20% of philosophers of mind are dualists.
@crusadeagainstignorance8309 Жыл бұрын
Dualists sure, but i’d wager most of those are property dualists not substance dualists.
Пікірлер
it seems like Jay Dyer's transcendental argument for god is basically hijacking Neo-Platonism & modifying mechanics to apply it to his orthodox trinitarianism seems like a crime was committed
“If the cosmos had any other gods in them besides God - they would have been destroyed & gone to ruin! So glory be to God, Lord of the Throne, beyond what they allege.” ~ The Qur’an, Sūrah 21:22
When he walked of to find the paper I got ‘doc brown explaining things to Marty’ vibes
There is good evidence to suggest that homosexual lifestyles/behaviors are harmful to the individuals who partake in them. IIRC, children raised by homosexual parents tend to become homosexual themselves. I don’t think you’re being charitable in so blithely dismissing the social sciences factor on this.
We goin full Solaire of Astora with this one ☀️☀️☀️
Great stuff again. Cheers mate. Can't wait for more pal.
Panentheism(implies neoplatonic emanation) is in my opinion the most accurate view of neoplatonic/hermetic philospohy. Also of course this can imply a soft polytheism as gods essence is the same. Think of all gods are representation of the one, philosophical monism. Alternatively, you can view it as the Gods are a family lineage which is how they are all related. Even in the bible the angels are described as sons of god and serve on his divine council. Even syncretic christopagan groups exist such as the santeria(cuba), voodoo(haiti), candomble(brazil),
this has to be a joke
what books woud u guys recommend that debunk silly atheist arguments? THX n God bless....
An excellent conversation that is a relief from the endless Christian and atheist apologetics. As polytheist who has Neo Platonic leanings it is nice to see an author creating new material in that school of thought.
wonderful video. You got a subscriber man. 😻
Most of this conversation is highly academic, but I would like to understand it. Where do I go to get an overview of neo platonism or anything else that would be prerequisite to understand where you're coming from? Most of this is over my head, but I've been interested in the idea of polytheist apologetics, for lack of a better term, for a while now.
Love Oppy's hair
Perceptions of freedom are ineffable - seemingly IMPOSSIBLE to define - because that which we count as our freedom is sneakily multifaceted. An analogous half-philosophical, half-neuroscientific error would come from trying to pinpoint consciousness within a particular characteristic, or region in the brain. That sounds absurd, because by all accounts, consciousness is comprised of many overlapping behaviours and neurological processes. I reckon freedom is the same (and is even contained within the analogy); it's a gestalt we ascribe to a monolithic faculty, even though there are innumerable exclusive and theoretically definable elements at play under the hood. Day-to-day, our common sense interpretation of freewill is a useful heuristic: Classical freewill lets us make reliable estimations of an individual's character and set expectations for the future. However, in the pursuit of evermore knowledge, we shouldn't contort our interpretations of the facts to meet our longstanding heuristics, or intuitions; we should revise our heuristics to meet emerging facts, all the while coming up with definitions that a regular Joe can understand. Compatibilism is likewise both an admirable attempt at reclassifying freewill, but is at times leveraged to twist the facts in a bid to preserve the longstanding heuristic. An honest compatibilism will seek to speak the language of intuition while conveying the facts yielded by empirical corollaries and hard analyses. Freewill might be said to appear when we behave both regularly and our momentary neurology is consistent with our typical neurology. Therefore, a crime of passion committed by an otherwise sane individual must be prosecuted not because of some metaphysical transgression, but because it reveals a critical failing in that person's normal state. If further investigation elucidates no such failure in the criminal's normalcy, then the primary function of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence nudges edge-case deviants more in-line with our preferred normal range, and fosters enfranchisement by appeasing the aggrieved. That's not retribution; soundness of mind is ultimately rational and can be located in far-flung proclivities, just like consciousness and freewill. This brand of compatibilism doesn't attempt mental gymnastics that invoke muddled libertarian freewill and alternate universes. Rather, it appeals to universally understandable, macroscopic processes, and hitches them on to the omnibus idea that is freewill.
the gods are eternal immortal celestial beings that keep balance to the cosmos and the fabric of reality. the gods themselves were never created, they have always existed, they are an emanation or a manifestation of celestial sentient intelligence of the one or chaos (impersonal source) the point of origin of all creation. the gods then created everything around us seen and unseen, and are the keepers of the entire space and time in which we live in. they can manifest themselves in physical forms, they can influence or cause change in the world, each god has their given natural roles in which they are the stewards of.
You should do a podcast
Neoplatonism has almost always felt like Monotheism with extra steps to me. If all is one, then Mono. If they are separate, then Poly, but they can’t be one. Feels just as non-sensical as the trinity.
The one is the principle by which each thing is one. It grounds plurality.
@@Eudaemoniac But if all things that are boil down to a One, then a plurality of gods is really just facets or iterations or modes. It’s not separate individual entities, correct?
There are 50 states in the United States. Every state is separate and distinct from one another, but they are all one nation.
@@iswaswillbe567 So, trinitarianism but ad infinitum?
@@Blackbeard0791 Try to keep the Trinity out of it, as most Christians even have trouble really understanding it. It's actually more like Hinduism. All gods are avatars of Brahman, or the ultimate reality. Or even think about yourself and all the different masks you wear. Your coworkers know you as one person, your parents know you as a different person, your lover knows you as a different person from them, and so on.
We don’t have any direct awareness of our brain itself or neural processes themselves (per 1:29:00), but we also don’t have any direct experience of our subconscious mind either. Does Josh want to argue that the subconscious is the brain whereas the conscious mind isn’t? My understanding is that he doesn’t have that view. But then, if the ground of one’s own self consciousness can shield itself from a layer or legitimate consciousness, why is it problematic to say that the brain states that just ARE consciousness aren’t directly aware of themselves ?
If you are interested in polytheism I suggest checking out the Norroena Society. We are theological reconstructionists and our focus is Germanic heathenry (Sedianism).
I think that a good definition of natural is "whatever can be observed and described in physical and mathematical terms"
Loved this video. I think naturalistic paganism offers much to seekers who wish to forge connection and find peace without being forced into taking up beliefs that contradict all observable laws of nature. I count myself a panentheist and I love celebrating the beauty of the natural world. 🌿
God the Huemer argument is so unbelievably stupid
It's a bit silly to call God supernatural since I suppose, from his point of view, it is actually US the humans that are created, and therefore UNnatural. No one's gonna hesitate to agree that stuff like a watch or a car are non-natural things. We created them. So why do we flip this around and refer to ourselves and our universe as the thing that's natural, and the god/angels as supernatural?
I think that's a bad way to use those words. God is supernatural in the sense that he transcends nature and can violate the laws of physics. We are natural in the sense that we are temporal and bound by physical laws. In that sense, watches and cars are natural, too. I think this is what Graham was alluding to when he talked about all the different connotations of the world "natural."
@@asdfghjkl2261 natural in the sense I'm using it means there's no apparent intelligence that created something for a purpose. Watches and cars don't appear in nature. We create them for a purpose. In this sense, watches and cars are not naturally occurring things. And so it is with a god and created humans.
Oppy deserves a much wider audience. Especially, when compared with other tub-thumping religious 'philosophers'. Maybe that's the issue(?)
thedionysiannaturalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/this-blog-dionysian-naturalist.html
If you don’t accept the premises then you just escape.” …How convenient!
Fun conversation
I've been having similar thoughts recently. The hard determinist arguments seem a priori. They don't frame them that way. Pereboom and Caruso pretend there is wiggle room for agent causation. That is doubtful, or doubtful that agent causation will help. You can run a version of the manipulation argument for the case of indeterminism (Kristin Mickelson) so that argument, which is a priori, extends to free will skepticism. Yet it seems that we have empirical evidence which suggests that some of us have more freedom than others. There is a disconnect, an ambiguity. Two senses of freedom, which is essentially a compatibilist view.
I actually broke away from the satanic temple and pursued a more independent satanic atheo-paganism for the very reasons Dr Eric has pursued religious naturalism. Spirituality may just be baked into what humanity is, even if there’s no gods or ghosts to commune with. I wish I’d known about this idea of his when I first deconverted from Christianity
I agree, I wish this kind of idea had been out there when I first left Christianity. Instead, I became a typical materialist nihilist, and that was so unsatisfying (both intellectually and personally) that I went back to Christianity. It was a different denomination than I grew up with, with a different theology and practice, and I rationalized that I had just grown up with the "wrong denomination" 🤦 . But nope, it was still Christianity, with all the same problems (both intellectually and personally). I think Dr. Steinhart is right that we as non-theists need to just forget Christianity. Stop accepting Christian definitions, stop defining ourselves in opposition to Christianity. This was why I always avoided Satanism: it seemed to be just defining itself as inverse Christianity. I also think that the Western world is ripe for something new like this. 1/3 of people under ~30 in America (and more in Europe) identify their religion as "none," but the vast majority (over 80%) of these people do not identify as atheists, probably because they reject the kind of materialist nihilism that the label "atheist" has come to be associated with. I think people are craving a real alternative to religion that accepts science, does away with superstition, yet retains meaning, value, and morality.
43.40 that garbage perennialism is fascist and racist.. just look at those jokers julius evola and rene guenon.. just saying.. :o great talk otherwise guys.
I agree with your reasoning. It works perfectly fine for me to be an effective altruist and to fight for left wing politics.
41:15
Love this book! And I’m a proud polytheist
Yeah, I’m always unimpressed by people trying to critique EA, it’s just almost never thought through at all. Thanks for the rambling talk 😅
Very interesting discussion. I think your objections to right-libertarian ethics work. However, it is worth considering that Nozick didn't consider rights absolute because of the paradox of deontology, so maybe some of your objections won't work against Nozickean ethics specifically. I'm not sure where I stand on the socialism/capitalism debate. I think I'm to the left of social democracy and to the right of market socialism (a middle point between those two). I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to voluntary slavery, which is honestly quite funny.
I like my altruism ineffective
Didn’t expect to see you here, hah! Really like your channel, had no idea you were even aware of EA and now I’m very confused if your comment is a joke or actually sincere 😅
Lol like I’m gonna listen to that mic quality
Not to mention the critical reasoning quality
Interesting video. I don't find the dilemma convincing at all, though I'm not that familiar with epistemology. I don't see why something that lacks propositional content couldn't justify a belief. In fact, don't all (or at least most) externalist accounts of justification appeal to the explanatory histories/chains leading up to a belief to justify said belief? Explanatory chains surely lack propositional content, and yet many find it intuitive that they may explain beliefs. I think I'm not an externalist but I still think the intuition behind the horn I discussed controversial and weird.
Great to find this video. I am a Naturalistic Pagan exploring the intersections of science and religion on my blog The Dionysian Naturalist. I am most interested in ecological Druidry.
Wow! always exciting to know there's more fun things to learn. Thanks
Define "democracy." Equality? "Equity"? BLM?
Imagine explaining the Kripkenstein paradox to a jury when the jury is given instructions to apply "the law" to the evidence adduced in a court case. For homework, reader, craft a Kripke jury instruction for use in a court of law. Craft one that defines "reasonable doubt."
Some "numbers," so-called irrational numbers, for example, can only be written x+y, yet they are called "real." This is not a paradox; it is a math joke. Add pi and e.
Every middle school math kid has run into the so-called "numbers," infinity and (- infinity), for which the conventional operations of arithmetic don't work. Hence, modern school youth routinely encounter paradox and are told not to question it.
I have few notes/questions concerning this paradox: First, using plus and using quus do not yield the same process, even when they yield the same results: this is because I cannot "stop early" in the computation of the result if the result is <125, but instead I always have to make the comparison, and then decide if I need to set the result to 5. I feel like this paradox works only if we hypothesize that evaluating z<125 (a necessary step if we want to quus) is some sort of free or mindless operation with no side effects in our mind and in the real world. Does the skeptical make the underlying hypothesis that what I "meant" with + is only linked to the final arithmetical result, and not to the steps taken? If that's the case, why? Am I missing something? Secondly, is it me or this problem feels somehow related and in a way answered by Occam's razor? We can imagine a similar question, not about language but about science: how do we know that Newton's Second Law is "F=m*a" and not "F=m*a+n, where n is the current number of living dinosaurs"? In general, when we have different theories with the same explanatory power, we tend to prefer the simpler one. In this specific paradox, when can try to answer in the same way, by choosing among all the possible functions the one that is simpler, with a lower Kolmogorov Complexity: that would be just "x+y" and not "x+y if x<125 else 5".
I would like to believe and I wish to understand but this doesn't make sense and sounds like gibberish. I will consider reading the book if it is any clearer. In my own words: "plurality" is part of ultimate reality and since God or divinity contains all of ultimate reality, God/divinity contains plurality (as well as oneness and uniqueness). God is both one and plural? If the number of God(s) is indeterminate it would be fallacious to describe him as plural/poly (or mono)? Because the the category of one/plural describes/determines God which isn't allowed since it would be a category preceding God?
I would suggest reading Plato's Timaeus. It brings light to this topic
"God is both one and plural?" --There are multiple ways of making sense of unity and plurality characterizing all of reality. See Proclus the Neoplatonist, for instance. Or Spinoza's pantheism: there is only one substance, God, and the plurality of everything else that exists is but a contingent (dependent) aspect of that substance.
"If the number of God(s) is indeterminate it would be fallacious to describe him as plural/poly (or mono)?" --I think he means many gods, but uncountable because the plurality may not have a cardinal number, i.e., the plurality could be potentially transfinite or infinite. Nothing fallacious.
Could facts about my brain determine what I mean. That way we don't only get information about what I would be disposed to answer in a given situation. (Because I do make mistakes). But we also get information to how I would be disposed to react if someone showed me the part where I diverged from the normal plus operation. Probably there would be signs of annoyance at my mistake rather than a "that is no mistake" type of response.
There are some numbers so big that your brain literally cannot comprehend them, because there just isn't enough physical matter in your brain to encode that number. It's not clear to me how we would be able to use facts about your brain to determine what addition means in the context of adding such numbers.
@@ApologeticsSquared there are some facts about such an addition that you could get. Like you could gage my reaction to what the last digits of the input are and what the last digit of the solution is and a lot more info.
Excellent video! I was slightly confused at the beginning, but the quus example was quite interesting once I understood. I suppose the best answer (albeit not an actual conclusion) is a strictly utilitarian one, in that we use these mathematical symbols to best represent what occurs in the mathematical realm/real world for real world applications. As for language and words, all it is, is our attempt as humans to best communicate ideas in our own brains into other people's brains, and the word cat, in this sense, is a grammatical simplification of a (what we observe as) four legged feline creature with whiskers that may have hair or not have hair. I understand as well that none of these are irrefutable characteristics of a cat, as there could easily be a three legged cat, or a cat without whiskers etc. Yet somehow, despite the lack of an absolute definition, we still understand each other as humans (with the same language) the vast majority of the time. incredible.
Ben's claim that you have to search far and wide to find a substance dualist in a philosophy of mind deparment and that it's an extreme minority view is utterly bizarre - according to the philpapers survey 20% of philosophers of mind are dualists.
Dualists sure, but i’d wager most of those are property dualists not substance dualists.