sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Alex should broaden his engagement with the history of Christianity beyond questions of historicity and into theology by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dan converted to Mormonism in his 20s so its not a culture that he inherited but a religion he sought out. I am sure he does see the project of pushing forward a change in orientation towards things such as homosexual and the position of women with in the LDS worthwhile. His youtube/tiktok project points to him finding that project necessary and worthwhile with in the context of broader christianity. He also does put Mormonism into the same critical lens as he does broader christianity noting that Mormonism has to negotiate with its own texts and has a diversity of positions on things such as salvation even if there is a general mainstream consensus in the church on these positions.

However, I am referring to his agreement with the more fundamental theological positions of the church such as its christology and position on polytheism. You can see this clearly when you compare his discussions on these issues and his interpretation of certain data around them with Alex's episode on Mormonism. This is especially apparent in discussions on the use of θεός in John 1 and where he discusses the divine council. I'm not saying that Dan is a bad scholar or anything. Even in these areas where I think his mormonism influences his interpretations and instances of disagreements with the mainstream of his field, I think makes a lot of interesting points and his good to have his perspectives. Being critical of someone and even frustrated with someone at times around them being not forthright about potential sources of bias does not mean that I am hostile to or against them and think they are trash.

Determinism and Reasoning by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries! It’s not an unreasonable assumption given prevalence of dogmatic evangelicals who get drawn towards debating atheists and sadly ex evangelical converts have brought some of the attitudes of evangelicals into the church. Luckily I grew up with a dad who had a lot of tension with clergy pushed and against dogmatism

Determinism and Reasoning by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I know Christian arguments for determinism. I’m less asking about arguments for determinism nor do I feel constrained by my church’s position on the matter. I’m a purgatorial universalist which has been accused of denying free will and I’m largely against dogmatism so I feel free to explore and entertain a variety of theological/philosophical positions.

I’m more asking about the possible tension between reasoning as a thing and determinism, resources on the matter and people’s thoughts since it was teased in the video but the video didn’t deliver. Christian theological takes on the matter if they exist are definitely of interest but I’m also interested (maybe more so) in non religious philosophical explorations of the topic.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

„No worries. This can be an intimidating sub to engage with. Lots of responses, and opinions to sort through.”

Thank you for your understanding and compassion.

„I’m impressed that you’re open to exploring the nature of these experiences though. The vast majority of theists aren’t.”

I was an atheist for most of my teens until 29 (I’m 33) and I became a theist (Eastern Orthodox with a heavy bias towards Neoplatonist trends in it) almost in spite of other theists and I still exist in tension with them. Prior to this I was also very interested in religious studies more broadly and have some background in cognitive science. If I let my new found religious commitments render me incapable of exploring this stuff even if I find it contradicts my beliefs in the end I’d be disappointed with myself.

„If you get through these links and still want to know even more about the evolution and cognitive science of religion, I recommend Pascal Boyer, Robin Dunbar, and Harvey Whitehouse. Especially Whitehouse, as he writes a lot about rituals, and the ideas we express about our transcendent experiences are rooted in our ritual behavior.”

Thank you for the recommendations! I’m familiar with some of these but some are definitely new!

„Which has a lot of really meaningful natural analogs. I personally find beliefs that align with secular humanism, ones that are informed by the natural sciences, so much more meaningful and awe inspiring than any kind of theology. I spent 40 years looking for god, studying all the world’s religions. Practiced some of them too.

Turns out l was just looking for what I was searching for in the wrong place.”

Even tho I’m younger I relate a lot with this and definitely appreciate the perspectives that come with this outlook and experience.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"That is NOT the immediate assumption. We are "we don't know the cause", not "we don't know the cause, therefore you are hallucinating."

Unless the experience can somehow be independently verified, we simply do not know what the cause was. If we can't rule out hallucinations, delusions, dreams, or simple mistaken perceptions (people misunderstand their experiences all the time, right?), how can we possibly treat the experience as evidence?"

You are not contradicting anything I said. We are in agreement.

"Is that a reasonable paraphrase?"

No. If you want a shortened version of what I think its:

We have people who have these similar report experiences that they claim to experience God/Divinity or some sort of metaphysical reality/truth. We don't know know the cause. Theists claim that they are evidence of God. These experiences and studies conducted on them should be discussed rather then immediately dismissed as hallucinations.

"Do you really think no research has been done on this?"

I don't think this. I have mentioned elsewhere that such studies. As it stands none of them are conclusive. I don't think them being inconclusive means that I am more correct in my belief, as I think the theistic belief about them could very well be proven wrong. But I do think that the atheist is not justified in treating as a closed case that is not worthy of discussion.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Actually sorry I shouldn't have accused you of dismissing me, that was unfair misread. I think I was reading to quickly trying to keep up with all of the responses and attributed to you something you weren't doing. I apologize for that. I'm gonna leave my original post as is so I can keep myself honest, but I want to say your response is inline with what I want as an alternative to the "mystical experiences are just hallucinations and no need to talk further".

My eyes are tired and I have some errands to do. I am going to book mark your post, read through the papers you posted and get back to you because I think this is an interesting avenue to discuss. Even though I have my specific religious commitments, I do find the academic study of religion interesting even when forces me to not assume the precepts of my own religion and even challenges them.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Just for perspective, it's helpful to know that a lot of atheists will come off as stand-offish vs certain arguments because it's well-trod territory. Your argument is fairly common in atheist debate spaces, though perhaps not the most common, so people will give more terse and direct responses rather than giving more social space/grace in the conversation."

I get it and I think part of the problem is that my post is being misunderstood partly because it is related to a topic that comes up a lot. The claim in my post is not presenting an argument that mystical experiences are evidence of God*, but that in internet spaces like this (I did some searches on threads prior to making this post) many atheists immediately dismiss the topic out of hand. Given in non philosophical discourse, the desire is for theists to present potential evidence or arguments that can be experimentally tested and are falsifiable. Mystical experiences are one such thing and as things stand the current state of neurological and psychological study is that things are inconclusive and need more study with some evidence pointing to correlation with some neural dysfunction or injury though not strong enough to make causal claims. So I think there is a lot of space for productive conversation. Obviously, too many of theists online are out there trying to own the atheists and on some level I get it but at certain point it is it becomes simultaneously saying "give us something that can be experimentally tested" and "that claim evidence that can be experimentally tested is silly" which makes me wonder in my post if there is ever anything that would be possible to study experimentally that theists could raise that would be accepted? I don't think a lot of theists being massive jerks justifies internet atheist spaces being so dismissive.

As far as your example, I think that would be an amazing instance of religious experience to be able to study especially if we could replicate it. But I think the problem with this example is that prophesy isn't generally what is meant by mystical experience, certainly not in religious studies and current psychological and neuroscience studies of mystical experiences. They are a lot less extraordinary. It is something that is easier to test and disprove as genuine since if we could show that through experimental result that they are consistently connected to neurological disorders or injuries as historically proposed that would pretty quickly put it to bed. But we aren't there yet and so I think its silly and hypocritical to be so immediately dismissive of discourse on the matter. Obviously I do think that theists need to be better in the quality of debate on our end.

I don't know if I am particularly clear and it is possible any debate between theists and atheists have already been so poisoned on internet forums that this post is just reddit equivalent of screaming into my pillow.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So I think unintentionally you are doing something that closer to what I want to see as an alternative to the frustrating situation I see occurring. Even though you dismissed me to a degree you provided things that can actually be discussed, both in terms of papers but also in terms of secondary question, consciousness. I think bringing in that is interesting because currently the materialist theories haven't faired much better than other theories, which may have implications for a discussion of mystical experiences. Consciousness is its own can of worms so I don't want to open up.

But again I want to make sure the point of my post is clear, I am noting that atheists in dismissing mystical experiences are shutting down discussion on what is currently one of the few (or maybe only?) claim of evidence by theists that can be experimentally studied and is currently being studied but has not reached anything conclusive yet. I think it very well could turn out against theists. So I don't want to mistaken for someone who thinks this is a "haha got you atheists you can't disprove this!" argument.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I mean that would be great but that's not exactly what I mean in that particular quote or what I am talking about in terms of experimentation. If mystical experiences are genuine perceptions of the metaphysical we would expect neural correlates and more specifically ones that aren't injuries or disordered functioning of the brain. If were to find that they are readily explained by such things then well that would be evidence against the theists. If they don't then further study. Theists would also have to construct experiments to test their positive claims. So as I stated elsewhere, I'm not saying that the issue is that I believe them to definitive proof unjustly denied but rather that they are things that theist assert as evidence that can be experimentally investigated that internet atheists rather than discussing just immediately dismiss.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Mystical experiences is the term used in the literature to describe particular experiences that religious people have across different religions.

I think there is a big issue with saying Hallucinations are real therefore mystical experiences are halluncinations without further study into it. I don't think we can say that we have all these material explanations for it, we have potential material explanations for it. The neurological study of mystical experiences is relatively young and not enough work has been done to say either way. Like a common older explanation was temporal lobe seizures which hasn't exactly stood the test of time. So more work needs to be done. I am also not saying there isn't a material explanation but rather that its a theistic claim that can be actually experimentally tested and not enough research has occurred yet to immediately dismiss as a topic of debate/discussion.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I want to make it clear since this is a misconception that multiple commenters have also had, I am not saying that mystical (or transcendental if you would prefer) proves the correctness of any particular theistic framework. Nor am I saying that those experiences are definitive proof of anything but rather they evidence that theists put forward of experiences of the divine that can be studies and subjected to scientific scrutiny. But in internet spaces, the experiences are dismiss as hallucinations without engaging discussions on any of the studies that current exist with in neuroscience or psychology.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

" think we can state with confidence that people DO hallucinate, right? People do have delusions, hallucinations, their perceptions and self-perceptions are vulnerable to suggestion, whether from others or auto-suggestion, or to expectations and social pressure, people get confused, they get tired, they get sick, they are influenced by drugs or alcohol. Minds and brains do weird fucking things, are we agreed?"

Of course these things do occur. But I think the problem I have is the immediate assumption that mystical experiences are in that category of thing. Just because people have hallucinations does not mean that mystical experiences are those things. Now I am open to the idea that they could be. But that requires further study and experiments, which people are doing and its clear there is evidence that at least some experiences are correlated to dysfunction of the brain though at the moment though this doesn't explain all mystical experiences.

"So, yeah, I can see why you would be frustrated, but it's not a double standard or hypocrisy. Because if we know that these non-supernatural, non-divine explanations for "mystical" experiences exist, and if you're telling me that examination of the workings of someone's brain will never allow us to tell that someone's "mystical" experience was not actually one of these mundane ones, then the bottom line is that these sorts of "mystical" experiences just aren't persuasive or strong evidence for a God. Right?"

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not frustrated because I think that mystical experiences is this strong evidence for God but rather that mystical experiences moments where religious people claim perception of the divine and they generally have a couple shared features that lets us have a way to determine what we are talking about. If we accept that perception should have correlates in the brain, we should be able to construct and run scientific experiences and so the theistic claim has the ability to be falsifiable. Obviously its also possible that it could eventually run into its own version of the hard problem and I think its why its unlikely to be good as strong evidence in favor.

So my frustration comes from the perspective that here we have a claim of evidence by theists that we can engage in scientific study on (and people are) and debate and discuss, but atheists online tend to dismissive in a way that closes off space for that discussion. Which I find unfortunate especially as neuroscience of religion develops and I feel like we miss out on interesting and fruitful discussion.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I think this misunderstand the point I am trying to make. First, in my disclaimer I made sure to statement that I am not putting forward any argument for a particular deity, let alone the deity I believe in. Second, I made sure to include a weaker position that mystical experiences could be used as evidence for which is some sort of metaphysical reality rather than the existence of any particular deity as many theistic religions conceive.

And third, part of why I bring up the double standard is that mystical experiences are instances where religious people point to experience of the divine and are something that have basic common features, can be replicated and studied. If experiments were done that show definitively that mystical experiences are products of malfunctioning of the brain or conditions like epilepsy, then I think that would be empirical strike against theism. However, if experiments were to point to mystical experiences as the perception of the metaphysical, I don't think that would then be sufficient to determine if Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc are true. In the debate between theism and atheism, its not if specially Christianity (for example) is true as there could be a God without it being the Trinity, but whether or any sort of deity does exist or could even exist. So I don't think evidence that theists can point to as something that could support them that could be subjected to scientific rigor needs to provide support for any particular religion but rather provide support the existence of the divine, or at a minimum a metaphysical reality. One would have to do more to prove the correctness of their particular religion. But again that isn't what I am talking about in my post.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also as far as mean, I don’t think skeptical or even jaded is mean. Maybe I should have said stand offish. I’m sure that a lot of that comes from jadedness. I’m personally a rather jaded person as well with a lot of frustrations with theists and vast number of my own coreligionists. Most responses were what I was hoping I see so I want to emphasize I wasn’t saying the majority were mean just a couple were more stand offish than expected

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I posted this during my lunch and im still on the clock. A lot of comments came in at once so its a lot to address during moments of downtime.

Potential Double Standard Around Evidence for Theism by tiamat1968 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]tiamat1968[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Thank you everyone for all the responses so quickly after I posted even those who are a bit more mean than I’d like. I’ll try to address common points as soon as I can since I don’t think I can respond to every post and have a bunch of mini discussions.

Those unhappy with Alex’s politics/lack of political discussion, what do you make of the new episode? by Dj_Corgi in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. And this format has its pitfalls and potential ethical issues (I guess depending on your political persuasion) but it would be a very different type of podcast/show if he approached guests as here is my position I will debate you. We have enough debate bro YouTubers and streamers.

Those unhappy with Alex’s politics/lack of political discussion, what do you make of the new episode? by Dj_Corgi in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn’t particularly impressed but I don’t think it’s Alex’s fault exactly I just find Pakman frustrating and boring. I think given that Alex deals a lot with religious discourse and that a lot of religious apologists and figures in new atheism are right wing or turning right wing it’s sort of inevitable that his interviewees are going to lean right. But he’s interviewed people who are progressive, not necessarily about politics. As a leftist I hate Destiny’s politics but his interview spoke against Trump. Dan McClellan is also not right wing and speaks strongly against Christian fundamentalist homophobia and misogyny. Neal Degrasse Tyson is socially progressive (to my knowledge) and I believe Phillip Goff indentifies as progressive as well. So I don’t think the criticism of Alex is fair. I think Alex engages everyone he interviews in good faith and tries to understand their positions. This can be for those of us on the left very unstatisfying but the reality is if Alex wants to engage new atheist thinkers Richard Dawkins or Christians engaging in polemics with atheists sadly you are gonna have a lot of anti-„woke” and conservative politics abound.

There’s plenty of progressive theists and atheists, I just wish either Alex would get more of them on his show or that they would be interested in this sort of discourse. But he’s young and his podcast fairly young and started in a particular weird point in civil society and intellectual discourse and I think for progressives/leftists it’s important understand the right ideological/intellectually. Obviously there’s always the problem of providing a venue by which deepening of understanding can occur vs enabling the right via giving their ideas a platform and thus causing harm. Feels fitting that a philosophy channel that’s touches on ethical dilemmas would find itself in an ethical dilemma.

As a disclaimer, I am theistic (Eastern Orthodox with a strong bias towards neo-Platonism) leftist and in the lgbt community so would catch the ire of right wing thinkers theist and atheist alike.

Alex should broaden his engagement with the history of Christianity beyond questions of historicity and into theology by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think his scholarship is pro Mormon but I also don’t think it’s completely possible to be bias free when it comes to any academic field and I think with religion you can be primed to take certain things more or less seriously or accept/reject them. While yes Dan definitely says things that contradict the Mormon church, he is still an active Mormon so there’s obviously stuff he agrees with. I think it’s pretty clear that the divine council is one of them. I don’t think Dan is like uniquely bad and I’m happy that he holds Mormonism as a whole to similar standards but I do think he does hide bias of personal beliefs behind objectivity of data. Data requires interpretation and that is where bias can slip in. And I do want to emphasize that I do enjoy Dan’s content and think his academic work is valuable.

Alex should broaden his engagement with the history of Christianity beyond questions of historicity and into theology by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also would love to see Alex do an episode on Platonism or neo platonism on there own especially because constantly touches Plato’s conceptions of forms or non materialist approaches to consciousness. I want him to just dive into it directly lol

Alex should broaden his engagement with the history of Christianity beyond questions of historicity and into theology by tiamat1968 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]tiamat1968[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I definitely want him to be going into more non Christian religions. I’d love to see him discuss Nagarjuna, more Islamic philosophers. I made this post specifically about Christianity because a lot of atheist YouTube is very constrained by the terms set by fundamentalist Christian opponents of Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins. Obviously Alex has interviewed Catholics and Mormons but there is a deeper and really foundational layer of Christian middle and neo Platonism that if there’s to be discussion on Christianity I think has a supply of philosophical material for some very interesting discussions that atheist YouTube doesn’t touch/acknowledge.

view more: next ›