Steven Pinker on Doubting His Atheism
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Steven Pinker is a prominent atheist. One of the questions we were dying to ask him was whether he doubted his own atheism. In this clip, he answers that question and also shares his favorite movies, comedians, and cycling record.
Full interview here: • Ep. 5 Steven Pinker on...
If you liked this clip and want to shatter your digital echo chamber, please SUBSCRIBE!
No, Pinker is not doubting his atheism! He is making the philosophical point that he cannot be absolutely certain that god does not exist. Typically, however, theists will jump on this as evidence that Pinker is doubting his atheism. However, if you notice, Pinker does say that, as far as he is concerned, atheism is true. I'm surprised that this has to be spelt out!
Good point.
I'd say even if steven fully conceded: "Well, I once took mushrooms and I think I met God" it wouldn't matter.
Whether steven himself believes or not is irrelevant.
The only reasonable way to make a case for god is to demonstrate why god *explains more* than no god.
I haven't stumbled on any profound arguments in that sphere yet, but I'm open to the possibility.
I also have a problem with the word god because it's so fuzzy.
What people mean by god varies wildly.
To one person it's "the essence of everything" and to another it's "a big bearded man sitting on a cloud."
Even if it turned out that "god explains more than no god";
it's still a long way from there to the depiction we get in religious texts!
The relevant bit is 1:16 "Do I think I am wrong about that one? No, because there is no evidence [..]"
the absence of evidence is not always an evidence of absence
@@mrgrumpycat9049 But as a critical thinking humane people, we try not to convict people of crimes when there is no "evidence". And I'm sure if you were the defendant, you wouldn't say to the Jury decided your case:
"the absence of evidence is not always an evidence of absence".
@@readynowforever3676 Your fallacy is to arrogantly misrepresent the quote and blatantly put it in the context of crime & punishment.
This is a common saying in the scientific community that inherently means to push for progress in a given subject simply because of the possibilities that what we know might not be all we know hence it might be necessary to always be open minded at all times & it should only be bound in this area of human endeavor.
Law & Order on the other hand has it's own complexities, regulations & methods that prevent this simple mindset to reliably integrate within.
The reason I pull out that sentence was because of how Pinker boldy stated that there is no evidence even though objectively we have plenty, but in his reality these are not up to his standards therefore he concluded that there is none, however there is still a chance that he just haven't found the one that quench his thirst for proof, therefore to stay open for upcoming possibilities.
@@mrgrumpycat9049 I always say, there’s two kinds of people:
1. Those that are innocently ignorant (&)
2. Those that are deliberately disingenuous.
Oftentimes I can’t definitively designate, but my initial intuition tells me your the aforementioned rather than the latter.
Check out Paul Vanderklays work in terms of belief in these modern times
Atheist or believer - who cares. It does not matter if there is or isn't some almighty entity because that will be a question that can never be answered. Stop wasting your life and deal with day to day reality. Forget the merchants of mysticism!
Cause the believers try to make crazy laws.
Just look in Lousisana where they made all public schools put up the 10 commandments.
Not to even get started on things like abortion, gay marriage, evolution, etc...