AS144: Atheists Say the Darnedest Things, Part 2

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:30 Microphone: Hello and welcome to episode 144 of Atheistically Speaking with your host Thomas Smith. Today we are continuing the discussion with Elijah T. A lot of debate on Twitter. Some of it productive, some of it not.

0:00:45 Microphone: There's a little bit of hostility. I'm not really sure why, but hopefully part two will... well, I don't know if it'll clear that up. But it's more interesting content, so maybe it'll make for more interesting debate. But, I Without further ado, here we go with part two. That rhymed.

[0:01:15] GUEST1: The next one is sort of along the similar lines is when it comes to like an an understanding of evidence, um, and it is that, you know, it's otherwise known as scientism or verificationism or something, where it says we can only, but we should only, believe things that which are scientifically proven, which is of course not itself scientifically proven, so it's a self-defeating epistemology. Um, and I have only ever had one conversation with somebody who actually changed his mind on this, where he said that the only, the only thing that we should believe is things that are scientifically proven, and I asked, "Is that idea itself scientifically proven?" And he said, "No, good point, where do we go from here?" And so then I was like, all sure [0:02:04] GUEST1: Right, let's just talk epistemology. So it's because you can't have something that is self-referentially incoherent as the foundation for an epistemological zero.

0:02:15 Microphone: Right okay [0:02:16] GUEST1: Well, yeah yeah I do but but I don't know that any system like that is that props itself up. Like, there's no logical way you can prove that you should respect good logic, is there? [0:02:30] GUEST1: Okay, so yeah, this is a good point. There's a difference between being self-referentially incoherent, which is self-defeating, and self-referential.

0:02:39 Microphone: Okay, okay. [0:02:40] GUEST1: Being self-freferential is sort of – it's not incoerent, but it's just – this gets into foundationalism No, [0:02:48] GUEST1: and yeah, [0:02:49] GUEST1: other – I, [0:02:49] GUEST1: yeah. I think I know what you mean, yeah. Okay, [0:02:52] GUEST1: So all so [0:02:53] GUEST1: That is – the reason that verificationism was rejected is because it is self-referentially incoherent. You cannot have an epistemology that is just incoherent like that because it just doesn't work and you [0:03:08] GUEST1: It was go [0:03:09] GUEST1: It ahead. [0:03:09] GUEST1: Was called logical positivism and it was rebranded verificationism and it again now in modern days rebrand it as uh, scientism. Yeah.

0:03:21 Microphone: Yeah, well, I accept that, uh, that, um, that part of it. Yeah. I wonder if there's, again, like what we talked about earlier, if there is any way to salvage this. Um, okay, [0:03:32] GUEST1: I think the only way to salvage No, I-I think you're right about this one, um, I but I do, so if I were to try to, I guess, not salvage the argument but take out from that what I hold in common with it, I'd say that there's, I, I don't really believe that there are ways of knowing outside of, say, uh, experimental verification and maybe logical knowledge, like, like, mathematics or whatever. Now, maybe I'm, am I doing epistemology wrong? Because what I think what atheists are reacting to is oftentimes, now, I know you wouldn't argue like this, but a lot of the possibly simpler religious people in our lives, like, say, family members who are not usually, like, sophisticated arguers, tend to say, like.

0:04:31 Microphone: Look, man, there's different ways of knowing things. Like I know God exists and it's not because of any argument. It's not because of what I know it. And I think it's a reaction to that kind of thing, which does happen. I know you might think of that as a straw man, but that does exist actually with a lot of people.

[0:04:48] GUEST1: It, I know it exists, I, I How do you know? I feel [0:04:52] GUEST1: Know, no, I um it. Yeah. [0:04:54] GUEST1: But no, there are, I think, other ways to know things, um, Okay.

[0:04:57] GUEST1: That Like [0:04:58] GUEST1: They're what? [0:04:59] GUEST1: Science, but there's also like a proper historical methodology, you know, to know things about history, um, Yeah, [0:05:05] GUEST1: I but you're [0:05:06] GUEST1: Mean following, you're still following like, yeah, okay. I mean, I mean, interesting, history, historical knowledge. So, if you follow certain guidelines or certain methods in your, I guess, historical research, then something, a fact can be deemed to be sufficiently proven in history. I mean is that really a different way of knowing something? Not [0:05:30] GUEST1: It's not science because science. Yeah, that's true. But [0:05:34] GUEST1: Science

0:05:35 Microphone: Neither [0:05:35] GUEST1: Is is [0:05:35] GUEST1: A everyday life science. So, let's see, memory. Yeah. But [0:05:41] GUEST1: Testimony is that testimony? [0:05:42] GUEST1: In Yeah. Well, I don't really. [0:05:46] GUEST1: Philosophy and Yeah. [0:05:49] GUEST1: Because there's a whole bunch of different ways to know things, um, and even like science itself relies on other ways to know things. Like science, the scientific method itself is grounded in philosophy, and philosophy, the particular philosophy that makes science possible is epistemology. So it's a, this is actually, I think, Sure. [0:06:07] GUEST1: Getting into something right.

0:06:08 Microphone: But when it comes to science, there are consequences when you're wrong. And something being testable helps a lot because you can you can say all you want. Oh, science is that, you know, it's actually based on philosophy, all this dot dot dot. But if you do some philosophy incorrectly, which can happen all the time, I mean, people, there have been arguments that have been wrong and corrected. It's, it can have consequences.

You can run an experiment where you're, you have predicted one thing and you get another result. Whereas when you're talking about this mystical other way of knowing where you just say, I know God exists, there's nothing that can, there'S no consequences for that either way. Like it doesn't until supposedly you get to the afterlife, which is nothing, you know, I don't have access to that. You know what I mean? So, similarly, [0:06:50] GUEST1: Sure. Historical knowledge, I think, is similar in that I don't honestly take historical knowledge to be quite as rigorous. I mean, I imagine within a lot of the things that I think I know in history, I am well open to there's probably a lot of error in that, whether it's [0:07:10] GUEST1: Yes. From some author of some textbook decided, you know, maybe he wrote a certain way or elaborated or someone gave testimony that exaggerated a certain thing. Like, I don't really put that much stock into that. So, but I guess you're still saying it's some way of knowing to some degree.

[0:07:28] GUEST1: I Okay. [0:07:28] GUEST1: Mean the, the, it's sort of like in science, when you have something, when there's more evidence to support a particular hypothesis, the probability of that hypothesis being true goes up. The same way, if you look back in writings and engravings and coins and things, let's talk about Julius Caesar, Yeah.

[0:07:49] GUEST1: Something like that. Did Julius Caesar exist? Well, I mean, yeah. There's coins and writings and he passed laws and he signed these things. So there are a whole bunch of reasons to think that Julius Caesar existed because we have all of this, he's this documentation and coins and yada, yada. And like, you know, interact with other people and blah, blah, blah.

So there's a whole, there's this, a pile of evidence, not in the scientific sense, but in the historical sense, that Julius Caesar was a real being, real person that existed. It's not a scientific methodology, but it's a, it's an, it's methodology that's geared to come to correct conclusions about the past in the same way that science is a, is a methodology that is specifically designed to come to conclusions about the physical world.

0:08:34 Microphone: Okay. I accept that. And I think there are a lot of people who do go a little too far with the scientism and do say, yeah, the scientific, the only thing we can know is scientifically. And I figure what you said is right. They're not quite doing epistemology correctly, and they [0:08:51] GUEST1: Right. Would [0:08:51] GUEST1: No. Not get very far with that standard in everyday life, I don't think. But that's [0:08:57] GUEST1: Well. A far cry from saying we can just have some feelings thing where we think God, we know God exists because we have certain feelings. I think that's the thing that atheists are reacting to oftentimes. But yeah, [0:09:08] GUEST1: Then if that's sure, [0:09:09] GUEST1: What they're reacting to, then they're going way off the deep end by doing something possibly worse because in sure.

[0:09:17] GUEST1: The one I'll accept that. [0:09:17] GUEST1: In Yeah, sure! [0:09:18] GUEST1: The way you have, like, I have direct experience with this thing. So, like, let's say, you know, to use an analogy that makes theism seem silly, I was abducted, I was abducted by aliens. People say this all the time, right? So they have a direct experience with this, um, there was a, a movie, I think, uh, Carl Sagan was involved somehow.

0:09:37 Microphone: Contact? Yeah. [0:09:38] GUEST1: Yeah, Contact, and he Oh, [0:09:40] GUEST1: Has, uh, the woman in the, in the thing in the movie has a direct experience with the aliens. Mm-hmm. [0:09:48] GUEST1: Have you ever seen Contact? Oh, I have, it's a Carl Sagan book, actually. It was actually based on that. And I [0:09:53] GUEST1: Okay. Think [0:09:54] GUEST1: Yeah. Pretty much likely a very high percentage of people listening, no contact very well. So feel free to speak loosely about it. [0:10:04] GUEST1: So, in, in there, she has a direct experience, the aliens, when she is in front of the, the panel of judges or whatever that are trying to figure out whether or not she's crazy. I think it's been a long time since I saw the movie.

0:10:17 Microphone: Right. [0:10:18] GUEST1: They said, do you have any evidence for this? And she's like, no. But then they're like, then why are you saying this? And she was like, because I was there. I experienced this. I mean, little did they know is that there was however many hours of static in Yeah. No, [0:10:36] GUEST1: The video feed. So that was just a confirmation of what she experienced. Experienced, so she, there was an actual experience there that there was real and tangible for her, that even though there was no physical external evidence for it, it was real to her. And I think in the same way, there's a lot of experience that is involved with religious experience, a lot, if it comes with interpretation and things like that, like, you know, cultural interpretation of a particular spiritual experience or whatever, um, but I have a really difficult time dismissing people's experience because I was I don't.

[0:11:09] GUEST1: There, well, yeah, I mean, I've never had, I mean, this is going to sound weird as a Christian, but I've ever had a religious experience, I All [0:11:17] GUEST1: I don't know what that means. Right. Someone make a meme from that.

[0:11:21] GUEST1: I Elijah T, as a Christian, I've never had a religious experience. [0:11:26] GUEST1: Genuinely, I mean, I'm talking about like a religious experience, like, I'm standing in worship center or something like that and there's a song and I'm like overwhelmed by the power of the Holy Spirit, I, I don't know what means, I'm, I'm a Christian because I think the evidence points to it, not because I think that there's a feeling that I've gotten in the past. However, there are a lot of people that I know whose faith is founded upon a specific experience, and I can't say that they're wrong, except unless they would disagree with my conclusions from the evidence, I guess, right? So for me, my conclusions confirm that Christianity is true. So anyone having experience that says Christianity is through, I'm like, okay, great.

[0:12:11] GUEST1: I wish I had your experience because that seems like it would be cool. I wish God would give me that experience, but I don't know what that means. But someone having a Muslim experience, I can say, okay, here are the reasons that I don't think Islam is true. This is why I would negate your experience. You were misinterpreting it or something like that because I don't think that Islam is a proper interpretation of that experience. So this is sort of like when it gets to, you know, internal versus external critiques and things like that and things that you accept based on your pre-existing beliefs and epistemology is hard.

0:12:47 Microphone: But it does sound interesting that you just said you kind of would reject the personal experience of someone saying they had like a Muslim experience, quote [0:12:57] GUEST1: Right, unquote. [0:12:58] GUEST1: and that's Like, [0:12:58] GUEST1: because right. [0:12:58] GUEST1: I don't think the evidence points to Islam.

0:13:00 Microphone: So for an atheist who doesn't think the evidence points to any God, it's hard to, you know, I think the cool thing about Contact is it was a really interesting thing for an atheist to write, you know, about, oh, this is a weird way that, you know, the you've, you've kind of identified by nature of the fact that she's the protagonist, you, you identify with her and you, you're with her on this journey and you see all these things, and then it does put you in the seat of like, well, what would I do? I, I don't know, I've no, if I had no proof, why, I don't know, I don't think, I think it's every bit as reasonable for, uh, oh, what the hell's her name? I'm blanking on it. I'll remember the character's name at some point later. Um, [0:13:43] GUEST1: I yeah, [0:13:44] GUEST1: know Jodie Foster is the actress.

0:13:45 Microphone: I do. I was trying to think of the character name. I totally know it, but I can't anyway. Um. I think it's very, very reasonable for her to believe what happened to her as it is for the, uh. Just, you know, the Senate committee to not believe her. I think [0:14:01] GUEST1: Yeah. It's actually just as reasonable. And that's how I think of that personal experience stuff. I don't think you can use personal experience to convince someone else of something, really. I, I don't. And so I, I think that it doesn't, it may be a way of knowing for you in a way. And I also, I, I don't know. You still have to think, which is more likely? Did I hallucinate or is whatever happened to me true?

And I think given, that would be one way I'd combat that. Given Jodie Foster, the fact that aliens did communicate with him, sent them this insane technology, you know, and like they did buy it or sorry, they did build it and do all this stuff. Stuff, it's not that unlikely anymore that there could be some weird experience that happened in this incredible machine that was built.

0:14:53 Microphone: So that changes things a little bit. But when it comes to alien abduction, if I had an alien abduction experience, it may be hard to say because if something like that happened to me, I'm sure it'd be really weird and traumatic and could change my thinking. But from my perspective now, what did you say?

[0:15:14] GUEST1: Especially if there's probing Yeah, [0:15:15] GUEST1: involved. Exactly. Yeah. Well, maybe I'd enjoy it. I don't know. Look, it hasn't happened to me yet. [0:15:21] GUEST1: Gotta be open Yeah.

[0:15:22] GUEST1: to new experiences. But thinking now, hypothetically, if that happened to me, I would say, what is more probable? That I hallucinated, someone drugged me, some weird thing, or that there are aliens that have somehow traveled here. You have to take all of the implications into account. I think that's the important thing. That aliens somehow traveled here, even though, you know, by all accounts of physics, it seems very unlikely that we're ever going to have the technology to travel these vast distances and that they came all this way and all they wanted to do was anally probe me. Like, you know, it seems [0:15:59] GUEST1: You're that [0:15:59] GUEST1: a very important exactly, [0:16:00] GUEST1: specimen.

Well, Yeah, I got a nice butt, but it's not that, no. You have to take everything to account. And I would likely conclude, you know, again, who knows if it actually happened to me, but from where I'm sitting now, I would conclude, well, I'm mistaken. Some weird thing happened to be someone drug me, someone kidnapped me and did weird things. And they gave me some drug that made me think it was aliens, you Now, and similarly, I that's how I believe I would treat a religious experience and I'm wondering if you can identify with why I would treat it that way or if you think a religious experience would be somehow different than that.

[0:16:38] GUEST1: Given that I do believe that Christianity is true, I would be much more likely to accept a religious experience as being a verification of what I already believe. But I understand where you're going because you don't actually believe these things.

But I guess my question for you would be what – if we're just thinking about experience, like a lot of times an atheist will say the only way that I'll believe in God is if he shows up, and tells me that he is God and that I should worship him or something like that, but what you're saying is you seem to be saying that even if God were to show up and say, "Hello, my name is Yahweh, the dude you read about in the Bible, that's me, believe in me," and then he went back up to heaven or whatever, you still wouldn't believe it. Your

0:17:27 Microphone: Not with how things currently are, but I think that there's two cop-out answers. There's one really easy answer which people give, which atheists give, which I'm sure you've heard, which is, well, if God's real, he would know what it would take to convince me. But the other thing I would say is, what's [0:17:43] GUEST1: Face that?

[0:17:43] GUEST1: Even just like showing up and saying, "Hi, this is me." Like, I mean, if that wouldn't ex if that would do anything for it, I don't really Well, [0:17:54] GUEST1: Know. What [0:17:54] GUEST1: Sure, about people who have taken drugs and have claimed to see God and meet God in that way? I mean, that that is a possibility. But what God would [0:18:02] GUEST1: Well, have to do is he would have to make the world in a way to where it would be more consistent. So, like, take the alien thing as an analogy. If if it came to happen that there is a lot of weird spaceships that we're seeing around and, you know, a lot of other evidence, similar to how you accept Christianity, so the experience would be more believable to you, God would have to get to that point.

It would have to be multiple people verifying all over the world, like, this is God, I'm God, whatever. I don't think I would ever accept, if God talked to me every day in some way that I could hear, and I somehow was able to, you know, like doctors said, there's nothing wrong with you, you're totally fine, like then I probably would believe it eventually. Eventually, the key is it just has to become more miraculous that I would be mistaken versus that it would be actually true.

0:18:56 Microphone: That's all it has to happen. And I think as someone like yourself who comes on Christianity from an evidence point of view, I would think you could relate to that. I mean, it just would have to be more likely that I'm right in my weird experience I'm having, then that I'm making it up. [0:19:17] GUEST1: Okay, so if to follow that kind of rabbit trail a bit, if you said that you were having everyday experiences with God talking to you and they looked at your brain, they're like, "No, you have a normally functioning brain," you would then like, you would accept it, like, Yeah. [0:19:33] GUEST1: And?

0:19:34 Microphone: I think given, not just once, I wouldn't accept it once because I would, you know, I would think, I don't know, maybe something weird happened. It's hard to make a life change like that after one experience. But if every day it was happening, and especially if God was telling me anything that I shouldn't know, like Elijah, what shirt Elijah's wearing, and I should know, and then it turned out to be true, I mean, yeah, I would accept it. That's I have no problem saying that because I I would accept that, and if that happens, you'll you'll find me a convert.

[0:20:06] GUEST1: I think this is it gets into the like the the subjective nature of belief formation, um, there was a question that was asked, I think, of William Lane Craig when he was at, like, I think it was like a pub or something like that, a bar crawl or something, where he was, like, being bombarded with questions from people in the in the bar, and they said something like, "What would prov what would cause you to disbelieve?" Or something like that, and he said, "Well, I know what should cause me to disbelief, but I don't know what actually would." Um, and, like, you know, if the evidence point doll into the opposite direction or something like that, it it should, you know, based on a consistent epistemology and all that other stuff, it should cause you to change your mind on a particular thing, but whether or not it actually would is a different story.

0:20:54 Microphone: Interesting. [0:20:55] GUEST1: Because, as Right. [0:20:56] GUEST1: we all know, there's attachments to beliefs that You don't really [0:20:59] GUEST1: Yeah, choose your beliefs really, um, in a lot of ways. So, okay, so what but how do you feel about that? I mean, do you agree with William Lane Craig there that you you okay, interesting, right?

[0:21:10] GUEST1: I mean, ultimately, I don't know what would cause me to change my beliefs, um, because, I mean, the reason I I believe as I do right now, even outside of my religious perspective, political or otherwise, is because I think it's the best explanation or whatever.

But if something else came in that would kind of put a stone in my shoe in that particular area, cause me to look into it, beliefs are very, I don't know, spider webby, where they're all kind of connected, but you can slowly move around on top of it and stuff like that.

I think it's a good thing to look at how beliefs can change, but I think at the same time, it's a little bit like you can't really know the future and say that I definitely would change my mind if this were to happen.

0:21:57 Microphone: Well, [0:21:59] GUEST1: I don't know. For me, it is hard to say that, at least for me definitively anyway. Maybe you are different, butI don't know.

0:22:08 Microphone: So are you saying you don't— yeah, I don't know, why are you saying I might be different? I, I, [0:22:13] GUEST1: No, yeah, [0:22:13] GUEST1: Because you said that if you were to have a consistent experience and then you confirmed that your brain was that performing normally, you would believe I I would. Weird. [0:22:22] GUEST1: I would just I would just alter that to say you should believe, but whether or not you would, I mean, I like I said, I don't oh.

0:22:30 Microphone: But that's, that's like saying, well, if I saw, well, okay. I mean, maybe you're just saying because beliefs are so complex and are such a big web, you never know. But I mean I don't know. It's like if, if, I see if you tell me your name is Elijah, I'll believe it. You know, it doesn't, [0:22:48] GUEST1: Testimony.

0:22:48 Microphone: I [0:22:49] GUEST1: Sure. Mean, yeah, exactly. It has to do with a lot of things, but some you're just saying the the uh the specifics of something like a religious belief or, I guess, an atheist worldview, are so broad that it might take more than just one thing to to change your mind. I I accept that, but I think there are also, in in your view, in your big web, there are things where if they were proven to be contradictory, I suspect it would have a very, very, very dramatic effect on your belief system. But [0:23:22] GUEST1: I it's [0:23:22] GUEST1: Mean, just [0:23:22] GUEST1: That's a question [0:23:22] GUEST1: Right, of what could be powerful enough to prove to contradict those things. And I accept [0:23:28] GUEST1: Like, that it [0:23:28] GUEST1: Like, would be really hard.

[0:23:30] GUEST1: For your example, you we admittedly don't know everything possible to know about the brain. So if you're if you went to a doctor and they said your brain is performing normally as far as we can tell, like, we don't have 100% knowledge of the brain, so I mean, I'm I'm not gonna try to, like, you know, say that, oh, you're lying or being dishonest or whatever.

But for me, personally, like, if if I started receiving messages from an alien, right, it was just in my brain, and they told me my brain was operating normally, and, um, if it was every day, it was like, you know, this, that, and the other thing, do this, do this, to whatever, if it was just these messages that only I could hear, I don't know what it would actually

0:24:14 Microphone: Oh, [0:24:14] GUEST1: How well, that's [0:24:15] GUEST1: It would the [0:24:16] GUEST1: Actually part [0:24:16] GUEST1: Yeah. Where I said it was telling me information that I shouldn't know, like something. Yeah, if it was literally just telling me like, kill Elijah, kill Elisha, then I would think, okay, I have some illness that doctors can't identify. That would be, yeah, you're right. OK, but when if it said like this is Elijah's exact balance in his bank account and then I ask you like, hey, what's your exact balance in your bank account? Same number. Then I would start to think, OK, this is weird. I'm getting information that I should not have. [0:24:45] GUEST1: Right.

0:24:45 Microphone: And yeah, that's where it would it would take sort of kind of for lack of another word, it would take miraculous information like that, like, you know, [0:24:55] GUEST1: Yeah. Just the future or just predictions or anything Anything that I really shouldn't know, then I would know, well, this is not just a brain malfunctioning, you know, because you can't malfunction into consistently good, you know, predictions or that sort of thing. So, you're right. It takes more than just hearing voices because I do think that brains are incredibly complex and for all we know, there's some reason you could hear a voice that we couldn't identify in an MRI or something. So, yeah. Okay.

[0:25:23] GUEST1: No, I agree, um, Well, do you have any next one on your list or? [0:25:28] GUEST1: Let's see here, I have omnipotence paradox for both. Atheists, "I believe in one fewer gods," and "We should only believe what is scientifically proven, theism has no evidence." Um, well, so there is that there's the one that has it's like the constant assertion that faith is belief without evidence, pretending to know what you don't know, or believing something you know that isn't true.

This is more of an annoyance to me, I think, because it's – the word faith itself is never used in that way other than when you're trying to refer to it as in religious context. I mean, even just like the Joel Osteen preacher type people that say you just got to have faith even when there's absolutely no evidence, I would disagree with him as much as I would disagree with Bogosian, who said that belief is pretending to know what you don't know.

[0:26:18] GUEST1: Because if we're just looking at the word faith and how it's used in a regular context, like I have faith in my wife, I have belief in my brakes on my car, I believe in my coworkers to not drop something onto my head when it's lifting above my head or something like that. It's all evidence-based faith,

0:26:36 Microphone: Yeah. [0:26:37] GUEST1: like a response to what you know about the situation, but a lot of times when you have this conversation with somebody who is trying to stick to their guns about the faith being irrational, they'll say that, oh, no, that's not faith. That's something else. And in this case, then we're just arguing semantics. So for me, I don't ever use the word faith to be belief without evidence because I've never – I don't even know what that would be. How can I believe something with no evidence? You know what I mean? Even like we were talking about Yeah.

[0:27:13] GUEST1: before, like the experiences, at least that is some form of internal subjective experience. It's an evidence for me. It might just be for me, but I don't even know how to believe something without evidence. Because if knowledge is a justified true belief, then I don't know how it's even possible to have a knowledge or even a belief without any reason to do so. So I think a lot of times when someone asserts that faith itself is by definition belief without evidence, it's a lot times just totally unwarranted. And if they're using it just for religious faith, then they're just basically saying, well, religious belief has no evidence by defining it that way. In that case, they're basically just taking the question.

0:28:03 Microphone: Okay. [0:28:03] GUEST1: So Yeah. [0:28:03] GUEST1: it's more of an annoyance for me, I think. Yeah, [0:28:05] GUEST1: Right. No, I get what you're saying. But I guess I don't understand.

0:28:11 Microphone: And again, this is maybe kind of branching off from what you are saying. But I don't really understand the necessity for a word like faith. And maybe you are on the same page because it sounds like you are saying you don't believe anything that doesn't have evidence. You just think there is evidence for this. I think that historically, you may know know, better. But I think historically, that's not really been how Christianity has been. I think that historically, there have been times where it's faith is a virtue. And there have been, for example, I'm trying to think if I can think of a specific example. And you'll understand off the top of my head, it might be a little different, but difficult.

0:29:01 Microphone: But Someone will say, I have all the evidence in the world to believe that, let's say, it's Galileo or something. He has all the evidenced to believe the earth actually revolves around the sun. But then the faith part is where you say, no, actually it's whatever God said and I need to just disregard this evidence. It's a temptation to try to get me away from God. You know, I think historically that's kind of been, do you know what I'm saying at all? Do you think I'm totally off base? I think, historically, that's been a part of the Christian religion, maybe not so much anymore. What do you think? [0:29:38] GUEST1: Well, I think there's a proper distinction to be made between faith and fideism. Fideism is the, well, if we just, let's see, Google define, define fideicism.

0:29:50 Microphone: What, how do you spell [0:29:52] GUEST1: I that? [0:29:52] GUEST1: think Yeah, [0:29:53] GUEST1: It's F-I-D-E-I-ism, and it's the... it says here the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith and revelation, so it's just like the, it's a, it's, you know, lack of, there's no evidence for something but you just believe upon pure okay, [0:30:11] GUEST1: willpower alone. But if we're, I think so, I think there's a proper distinction that can be made between fideism and faith, a sure. [0:30:21] GUEST1: lot of times people kind of will, um, equate the two. And I don't think that's necessarily the case because even if we accept that faith is also belief without evidence because, you know, the dictionary includes it now, I think, because dictionaries don't define the words as much as they describe how they're being used in culture.

0:30:39 Microphone: I, [0:30:40] GUEST1: So if belief without evidenced becomes a part of the definition of faith, then I think that there's at least two opposing ways to understand faith. One is without evidence and the other one is with evidence. So when it comes to historically speaking, I don't know. I mean, like you said, faith is a virtue. I think that could be used either way. If we're looking at, you know, belief without evidence, I Don't know how that's a virtue, well, [0:31:12] GUEST1: but but I take [0:31:12] GUEST1: actually it, well I don't know, the reason is because it's hard. I think that's why it was, you know, it needed to be made into a virtue. You. It wouldn't, it's not hard to have faith when there's evidence. That's not, that's not very hard. I think, why [0:31:27] GUEST1: It might be, um, think about, um, okay, I'll just come up with an example, okay. So my wife, I've been married to her for, well, what's it, two and a half years, three years, something like that, um, and I have a lot of evidence to support that she is faithful, right.

But at the beginning I would have had a little bit of a handful of evidence, you know, based on who I know who she is, you know, I say, I say I've been dating her for six months and then she sends me a text saying, "Hey, I'm going out with my friends tonight, we're going to this bar where ladies get free drinks," something like that. Um, if you're listening to this, Beth, I know you would never do that.

0:32:09 Microphone: Not? Sounds like she's [0:32:10] GUEST1: But missing out on some free drinks. [0:32:11] GUEST1: Well, yeah, but, yeah, okay, so let's, um, let's say that the my understanding of her gives me good reason to think that she wouldn't, like, you know, you didn't make out with some other guy or whatever, but it's still difficult for me to sit at home and not go and, you know, spy through the bar window to make sure she's not doing anything. So in that instance, my understanding of who she is and my faith in her to not be, a for lack of a better word, creepy stalker and follow her to the the bar would be a virtuous thing because I am, I am responding in a way that is putting my faith in her, right?

[0:33:00] GUEST1: To, you know, I'm confident in her. So it's not always, I do have the evidence to believe, to have faith in her but it's more of a, oh, C.S. Lewis put it, faith is the, [0:33:15] GUEST1: what did he say? Let me Google it real quick. C. S. Lewis, he said something like it's the the confidence that you have in something despite your ever-changing moods. And

0:33:26 Microphone: But [0:33:26] GUEST1: I think that's a proper way to understand faith in its normal context. [0:33:34] GUEST1: Because you could be in a bad mood one day, or you could in a jealous mood, but you it does seem [0:33:41] GUEST1: still have like [0:33:41] GUEST1: faith. Faith then only comes into play when we're talking about something that's a bit iffy, you know, because like you don't, I don't need to have Faith and Gravity despite my mood. I know it just is. I don'T have a problem with that. But it, but it sounds like you're only ever, so maybe this is where the distinction comes in. It's things you describe as having faith in. Now, for me, I don't have any use for the word faith.

I've never understood these wife analogies because I don'T, this may be just a weird interpersonal thing. Like, I DON'T, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe we don't HAVE to get into it. But if you're talking about faith in God, I mean, it does sound like you would only need faith if you don't, if you lack something. I mean mean, if you lack certainty or if there's some

0:34:29 Microphone: Deficiency in the evidence, because like I said, I mean, I don't need faith in most day-to-day things. [0:34:36] GUEST1: Well, I think there are are different degrees of uncertainty, right? So right now, my wife is actually not home and she's out with her friends. I have more certainty now than I did five years ago in her faithfulness to me, basically, right. So, but I would still say that I have faith in her now. And that's just Just because, I mean, I have pretty much as close as possible to certainty of her faithfulness to me right now. But that doesn't, I don't know what other word I would use to describe my confidence that she will not cheat on me. Despite the [0:35:21] GUEST1: fact that she is out without my supervision. I think that the word that I'm looking for is faith.

0:35:30 Microphone: Interesting. [0:35:30] GUEST1: But it's not the lack of evidence faith. It is a confidence faith.

0:35:39 Microphone: It's, I guess, I think there's an element of wishful thinking going on because I won't use you, but for me, I do not use the word faith. Let's say I do know where my wife is. I think she's in the house, but she could be off having sex with some guy. I don't know. But but anyway, no, I'm just kidding. No, but really, she could because I'm recording and, you know, she has to be quiet when I'm recording. But my [0:36:06] GUEST1: She's wife, [0:36:07] GUEST1: probably just take my wife. Please.

[0:36:09] GUEST1: running Oh, what could [0:36:12] GUEST1: around with some other guy right now while you're be [0:36:13] GUEST1: recording could [0:36:14] GUEST1: a podcast. Be. I don't, I mean, [0:36:15] GUEST1: Do And again, I'm going to, I'm trying to separate what might be a weird me thing, because I'm kind of a weird guy and that I don't think in these terms, and what it might actually be legitimate uses of the word faith. But I never say I have faith in my wife because I don't, that word doesn't provide any function for me. Now, if I, what I [0:36:37] GUEST1: you trust have [0:36:37] GUEST1: your is, [0:36:37] GUEST1: wife? I think I, yeah, I trust her. But I also, there's not, here's why, here's why it could be some weird personal thing. Because I don't find any need for that. Like, I don't, if she was going to go do something, she would have reasons to do it. And that would be what I'm worried about. I'm not worried about me being able to think, being able to say I have faith in her. You know what I mean?

Like, it, I dunno, it's kind of weird, but, but it's like, I just have the, uh, we have an agreement that, uh, she's likely not off with somebody else right now. Um, but things could change that. I mean, let's say we get in a big fight or something and then she just goes off and I have some other evidence that she's been talking to some guy.

0:37:30 Microphone: It's like, well, then I would probably be concerned. I still don't know where faith comes in. Like, what does that do for me? I guess that's my question. What does the word faith do for me in these instances?

[0:37:42] GUEST1: it's just a word to describe, like, the confidence that you have in somebody else or something else despite your changing moods. I'm just going to hook on to C.S. Lewis' quote there. And so, like – you know, it's an evidence-based confidence thatyou have. And so I don't But [0:38:03] GUEST1: know. And I think [0:38:03] GUEST1: that there's [0:38:03] GUEST1: might a weird psychological thing going on and maybe not that weird, actually. I think there's a psychological component. I think people use the word faith when they are really afraid of thinking that something might not be true.

[0:38:17] GUEST1: be the case. I just – I Yeah, [0:38:19] GUEST1: don't – I wouldn't it's [0:38:21] GUEST1: use it that way. Uncomfortable [0:38:21] GUEST1: And I don't think for [0:38:22] GUEST1: – us to think that we could be wrong about our wives, I suppose. And so we use this word faith for some reason, but we don't use it with other things. Like it just doesn't, there's, I don't know, it is a weird word, but I grant you that it makes [0:38:39] GUEST1: Faith sense what you say that it's not without evidence, but it does seem unnecessary to me. It seems like a reasonable belief is fine. You know, I believe that my brakes work, but It also is irrelevant what I believe. Like, it's gonna, I mean, if they don't work, I'll be in trouble. But like, okay. [0:39:03] GUEST1: itself is a statement about your mental state. [0:39:06] GUEST1: So it's not irrelevant about what you believe because that's what we're talking about.

0:39:12 Microphone: So, I would never say I have faith in my brakes. I would say I go about my life as though my brakes are going to work until I have any contrary evidence because I have the experience of brakes working all the time and I don't hear a lot of people dying suddenly because their brakes just don't work constantly. So is [0:39:35] GUEST1: I it necessary to say I have faith in my brakes? Does that add anything or is it just I don't have any, I have a reasonable belief that my brakes work, you know what I mean? [0:39:45] GUEST1: Think that if you say, I have a reasonable belief that my brakes work and will continue to work until I have contrary evidence is just another way to say I have faith in my brakes. I think at this point right now, the word faith is just something that you may be uncomfortable using because you don't – it's not a part of your everyday language, but it is, at least in one context, a perfectly good substitute for what you have in Okay. [0:40:17] GUEST1: your wife. Wife.

0:40:19 Microphone: Well, yeah, I can accept that. I think that I could definitely accept it as a word that is just not in my vernacular for some reason that people use in this respect. But I guess, what would be the difference? I think there is, I think, a bit of historical context to be put on it. And maybe I will need to do some more research on that to give you some good examples, examples, because [0:40:43] GUEST1: I if I have faith that it developed, no, not really, but if it did develop from what was, what used to be a usage of, you need to believe this because it's been mandated by this book, and then it kind of morphed into something else, it would make more sense why atheists would be making this argument. It may be outdated, but it would at least make more more sense. You know what I mean?

[0:41:10] GUEST1: Think the key here may not even be necessarily that it's historical, but just the way that the people are using it currently, like the person that he's talking to. I was just having a conversation with an atheist probably three or four months ago where I said that I don't even think I said the word faith, but we got onto it because I avoid it almost like you do because because it's so easily misunderstood.

[0:41:34] GUEST1: But so I said that I was a Christian, and that I, you know, I was trying to make the case that it was reasonable. He said, no, you just believe it on faith. I was like, okay, so let's talk about this briefly, because I think faith is this, that, and the other thing, the reasonable belief based on the evidence. And the conversation quickly spiraled into him just asserting that faith is belief without evidence, and I believe Christianity on faith therefore I have no evidence for my Christian belief and at that point the conversation was stalemated because he wouldn't move off of that like if if that's not how I'm using the word faith like just freaking chill like there's no

0:42:11 Microphone: I [0:42:11] GUEST1: Reason totally [0:42:11] GUEST1: For you to right agree. I think you're right. And I think it's something [0:42:14] GUEST1: That's that you always want to try to speak and agree on terms with whoever you're talking to. I mean, I think it's a very [0:42:22] GUEST1: Why I prudent [0:42:22] GUEST1: Don't know thing. Yeah. That person should have said, even if I believe that there are people who use the word faith to mean believing without evidence, if I'm not talking to one of those people, then it doesn't make sense to just say, well, faith just means you don't have of evidence for it. It doesn't really accomplish anything.

[0:42:41] GUEST1: It's just begging the question Yeah. [0:42:42] GUEST1: Right I think there's a little more to be said, maybe not in the same vein, but there are consequences to being very paranoid about your wife cheating, for one, to where it may make sense to say you need to have faith because it's impractical to live in a way where, you know, you're constantly spying or you're worried or Or whatever, even if there could be something going on, it still isn't very [0:43:08] GUEST1: Or

0:43:09 Microphone: Reasonable to live in that way. And so in that way, you could say you need to have some level of faith. [0:43:16] GUEST1: Have a But [0:43:16] GUEST1: Little faith in me kind of a thing like I suppose [0:43:19] GUEST1: If I'm that [0:43:19] GUEST1: All right still translates into you need to, unless you have good evidence otherwise, you need to live in this way. Similar to how, unless you have evidence that your brakes aren't working, you cannot live a life where you're stopping every 10 feet in your car because you're like, I don't know. No, I don't know if these work. You just can't get through life that way. Whereas with the God thing, it's a little weird. It's like, I don't see any necessity to have faith in God because I'm fine without that. But anyway, this may be just getting off topic. So I think I accept what you're saying. I think people really should make an effort to understand how whoever they're arguing with or just having a conversation with, understand how they're using the word before making statements like that. So I accept that criticism. On behalf, [0:44:07] GUEST1: Good

0:44:07 Microphone: On behalf [0:44:07] GUEST1: On of these straw men and these bad atheists. [0:44:11] GUEST1: Behalf Yeah. [0:44:11] GUEST1: Of all of the atheist community I accept Yeah, all right, well, I think we're, we're just about at a good time. Did you have any parting thoughts or anything else you wanted to talk about?

[0:44:24] GUEST1: Um, I don't think the only thing I did not mention in the beginning um was Your [0:44:29] GUEST1: My podcast podcast, [0:44:29] GUEST1: Which is I [0:44:30] GUEST1: Yeah was gonna, I'm totally gonna remind [0:44:31] GUEST1: Yeah you because I'd love you to go ahead and plug that right now.

[0:44:35] GUEST1: It's the the Live Christianly podcast, um, it's, you know, Christianly as like an adverb, but if you go to livechristianly.com um, that's my, the website for the podcast, we haven't put up a lot of um episodes lately, there are a total of five episodes, we have a zero and one, two, three, four, zero is just us introducing ourselves, most recent one we put up was the episode four, which is the problem of pain, it was a about an hour long presentation I did at a, like, a seminar type of thing, and it was after probably about three or four months of reading about the problem with pain, that was this is my presentation, um, a lot of what we try to do with when Live Christianly, it's, it's me and my brother-in-law, um, Dan, we do this together, and it's basically the approach is that usually, uh, the stereotypical or often, like, the the view that that Christians are [0:45:31] GUEST1: Promoting is often not really based on anything that they've used their brain for, um, and like, you know, even just like this Bruce Jenner thing recently, you know, all the Christian voices are just shouting and it's not, nobody's being reasonable, um, you know, there's people being unreasonable from all areas of it, but like you said at the beginning of this conversation is that it's tough for you to hear someone who who agrees with you, agrees with your conclusion, making a terrible argument, what

0:46:02 Microphone: Sure. All [0:46:03] GUEST1: We're trying to do is kind of not make agree with the conclusion but in a way that isn't terrible, uh right, I like [0:46:12] GUEST1: We it.

[0:46:13] GUEST1: Haven't talked about Bruce Jenner at all because we haven't uploaded anything since April, but we should be doing that pretty soon, we actually will be because I, I have my new job and I don't work into the evenings anymore, and so we're going to be putting out a bunch more episodes pretty Awesome.

[0:46:24] GUEST1: Soon, yep Is it on iTunes? [0:46:27] GUEST1: It is Okay, [0:46:27] GUEST1: Just search Okay. [0:46:28] GUEST1: Live Yeah. [0:46:28] GUEST1: It's Cool. [0:46:29] GUEST1: Got Buddy Christ, you know, with the guns or whatever, that's our little, sure You [0:46:33] GUEST1: Yeah know, I'm curious to listen to that problem of pain one. If I listen to it and have questions for you, would you be willing to field them, come back on sometime?

[0:46:44] GUEST1: I mean a lot of the, just a, you know, kind of, um, a prefix I guess to of the problem of pain one, there's certain things where what you can do is not assume Christianity to be true and, like, argue for it from an outside perspective. But the problem of pain and problem of evil is something that a lot of the world's views have to take in. It's an internal critique.

And so from an atheist perspective, the problem of pain, it can be answered X, Y, Z. From a Christian perspective, the problem pain can be entered ABC or whatever. And so I've had a couple of people talk to me about the problem of pain episode and say, oh, but you didn't give me any reason to think that Christianity was true, I know that's the point, is it's an internal, this is how Christianit offers a solution, um, it's not an [0:47:29] GUEST1: Argument, it's the typical, it's kind of an apologetics-ish, but it's more pastoral at the same time because I was, there were a handful of, a bunch, actually a bunch of teenagers in the audience that I was talking to, so you know, teenagers tend to have, they experience pain often, and it's, you know, as teenagers think kind

0:47:46 Microphone: Yeah. [0:47:47] GUEST1: Of, I'm not going to say anything else Okay. Well, okay. [0:47:51] GUEST1: Yeah Well, I understood it may be more, not so much of a apologetics thing in terms of atheism, but just a internal thing. Okay, [0:48:00] GUEST1: Yeah I'll check [0:48:01] GUEST1: Yeah it out. We'll see. But thank you so [0:48:02] GUEST1: I much [0:48:03] GUEST1: Can for coming on. [0:48:03] GUEST1: Come This [0:48:03] GUEST1: On Was a truly pleasurable episode and I really enjoyed it and I hope we can find a way to do something again sometime soon. [0:48:11] GUEST1: Oh yeah, I'd be glad, be awesome, all Thanks a lot, Elijah, and I encourage everyone to check out your stuff and I'll talk to you very soon. [0:48:22] GUEST1: Right, sounds good All [0:48:23] GUEST1: Thank right. [0:48:23] GUEST1: You very much Bye.

0:48:34 Microphone: Thank you so much for listening, and thanks to Elijah for coming on. Hopefully we do it again sooner than in a year, huh? Huh, buddy? I don't know if you're listening, but yeah, it was really fun. So I want to thank some patrons, of course, but I also have some announcements, so stay tuned after that. So we got a couple new patrons this week. Well, one new patron, one returning patron, which, hey, I like that. Sometimes you got to drop it for a little bit and come back. I don't know, maybe he didn't have time to listen to it or whatever it is. Anyway, new patron, Dareth McKenna, thank you very much. And returning patron, Tyler Holsenbach. So thank you for returning. I hope you enjoy the bonus content that is available to you both now. And, of course, I've got to thank my all-time faves.

0:49:22 Microphone: That would be Zimu Zinu, Adrian Borshchoff, Michael, Jonathan Moyet, Havard S., Jay Aldenwalt, Bangs Naughty Bits, Peter Skelton, Brian Garefort, Dale, Matt Garrett, and Samantha with the honorable mention. Thank you guys for the support. I really, really appreciate it and the show would not exist without it. So now I want to just give a quick update on the book club. It's got a lot of members going strong. I'm not sure how many members are fully keeping up with with everything. We're about to finish our first book, which was Pale Blue Dot. I put up a discussion thread. So members, please listen. I put up a discretion, a discussion thread for discretionary discussion thread, for coming onto the show and talking about a section of the book.

0:50:11 Microphone: I've got currently two volunteers. I would like more so that we can do several short little interviews and just talk about different parts of the books that you liked and have a discussion on. It'll be really cool. So find that in the group and sign up. Tell me a topic that you want to talk about and we'll do it. We're starting our next book. Well, two books. One is Steven Pinker's Of our nature, and we're also starting the free will book that I nominated, that will be really fun, so we're, either of those, and then we're gonna have a discussion later, the, uh, Steven Pinker book is probably going to take two months, whereas the free will one will just take a month. So, so that's what's going on. Please, book club members, go check out those discussion threads and keep up with it so that we can have a nice thriving book club. And thank you so much. And I will see you guys next week. That was a good week. I really like these episodes. Look forward to the comments and the Twitter interactions. All right, adios!