Lost in the Tower of Atheistic Terror !!! Aaaggghhhh !!!

[2PhiloVoid]

In the following video, Street Epistemologist Anthony Magnabosco (an outspoken [but friendly] atheist) narrates material created by Rebecca Fox. Needless to say, and without giving anything away, the video presents an angle on epistemology which directs us to consider various implications about the way we each might decide to "evaluate" our world [and this would include the way in which we may build our religious (and non-religious?) beliefs], and it suggests ways we may try to persuade others about how we have evaluated their beliefs:

Now, put on your hermeneutical thinking caps, and dive-in! Go ahead--don't be scared!

"MWAH HA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!"

 

[HTacianas]

In the following video, Street Epistemologist Anthony Magnabosco narrates material created by Rebecca Fox. Needless to say, and without giving anything away, the video presents an angle on epistemology which directs us to consider various implications about the way we each might decide to "evaluate" our world [and this would include the way in which we may build our religious (and non-religious?) beliefs]:

Now, put on your hermeneutical thinking caps, and dive-in! Go ahead--don't be scared!

"MWAH HA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!"

I see the logic in it, but it's hard to follow. We've got the tower, the prince, and the beast. Someone's (if I read that right) deepest held beliefs are at the base of the tower while the fluff is at the top.

Perhaps it would be easier for me if there were some examples of blocks I might want to change in someone's tower.

 

[Petros2015]

Very good video I enjoyed that very much. I'm not sure how much I can speak for others, but as an alcoholic and addict for many years, the base of the tower was founded on the addiction, so the Prince and the Beast definitely were there defending them. You see this a lot in addicts and its very evident. I had not considered that it could apply to core beliefs as well, but maybe it can.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see the logic in it, but it's hard to follow. We've got the tower, the prince, and the beast. Someone's (if I read that right) deepest held beliefs are at the base of the tower while the fluff is at the top.

Perhaps it would be easier for me if there were some examples of blocks I might want to change in someone's tower.

Here's an example: What if you wanted to change some blocks of 'belief' to those of 'unbelief', such as trying to 'help' people question themselves about their beliefs so that they relinquish their faith in Christ? [In my asking this, just keep in mind that this is meant to be a trick question, one of a hermeneutical nature, HTacianas, so I'm not trying to befuddle you but to rather bring out your analytical side in an epistemological exercise..... ]

 

[Petros2015]

Perhaps it would be easier for me if there were some examples of blocks I might want to change in someone's tower.

Well, an addict's core belief, whether they realize it or not, (and most of the time they don't) is "I need this to live"

Then there are Flat Earthers. I don't even try any more, but it would be nice if they could see the universe.

A hyper-partisan constructs a tower based on 'we are always right and do nothing wrong, they are always wrong and do nothing right'

Towers get very convoluted when they are built on faulty foundations, and both Prince and Beast become more heavily involved in keeping them up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very good video I enjoyed that very much. I'm not sure how much I can speak for others, but as an alcoholic and addict for many years, the base of the tower was founded on the addiction, so the Prince and the Beast definitely were there defending them. You see this a lot in addicts and its very evident. I had not considered that it could apply to core beliefs as well, but maybe it can.

Yes, this is a good point, Petros. For addicts, there can definitely be assumptions (axioms) that are held in place that keep the addict in his/her unfortunate 'place.' And it's a terrible place to be in, isn't it?

However, at the same time, to what extent should you believe someone else's belief matrix as they assess YOU and tell you that you have such-and-such axioms in place that THEY think are unfounded? Should you always listen to people when they try to persuade you about their evaluations?

 

[Petros2015]

However, at the same time, to what extent should you believe someone else's belief matrix as they assess YOU and tell you that you have such-and-such axioms in place that THEY think are unfounded? Should you always listen to people when they try to persuade you about their evaluations?

Usually I ask myself the question, would I like to be more like this person? If the answer is yes, then I am inclined to listen more, and also to observe more to make sure the assessment doesn't change. I tend to be open to considering the possibility that I might be catastrophically wrong in fundamental beliefs or core values since I have seen it happen before in the past. I'm more open to listening to people who also consider that possibility in themselves, and less open to those who don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Usually I ask myself the question, would I like to be more like this person? If the answer is yes, then I am inclined to listen more, and also to observe more to make sure the assessment doesn't change.

That is a good question to ask when interacting with others, Petros. But is it always enough for us to assume this when we're greeted with a smile or presented with what appears as 'caring competence,' and we then give ourselves into what we think are good hands or to follow those who we think we might want to emulate? What else might we need to consider when having a first or even second or third impression of another person?

I tend to be open to considering the possibility that I might be catastrophically wrong in fundamental beliefs or core values since I have seen it happen before in the past. I'm more open to listening to people who also consider that possibility in themselves, and less open to those who don't.

To some extent, that is a good epistemological disposition to have. I tend to have that view as well. But, when do you fully "know" that you're catastrophically wrong?

 

[Silmarien]

I got three minutes in, and then it got too ridiculous. Knowing it was by Street Epistemology just made me constantly want to slug the narrator, so it looks like I'm all Beast tonight.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I got three minutes in, and then it got too ridiculous. Knowing it was by Street Epistemology just made me constantly want to slug the narrator, so it looks like I'm all Beast tonight.

Actually, you win the 'no-prize' for your astuteness on this little 'practice run' in hermeneutics! Good job!

The point is, it's basically an example of sophistry on the part of the SE folks. As if Foundationalism was actually the 'only' game in town (which is what he kind of implies later in the video).

 

[Silmarien]

Actually, you win the 'no-prize' for your astuteness on this little 'practice run' in hermeneutics! Good job!

The point is, it's basically an example of sophistry on the part of the SE folks. As if Foundationalism was actually the 'only' game in town (which is what he kind of implies later in the video).

Hahaha, I didn't get far enough to know exactly where they were going with it. Only that my laptop was likely to go flying out the window before it was over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hahaha, I didn't get far enough to know exactly where they were going with it. Only that my laptop was likely to go flying out the window before it was over.

Oh, it made me irritated, because when he started talking about "the Prince and the Beast," I thought he was kind of referring to someone like me...................................................................... nah, couldn't be! (Now, why do I suddenly have an old Carly Simon song running through my head? It was something about "vanity" or some such thing!!! )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

........................(.....(.....((......((((( ))))).......))......).......)...............................

 

[afishamongmany]

........................(.....(.....((......((((( ))))).......))......).......)...............................

You alright in there Philo?? Want me to call a plumber?

Speaking as a philosophical non philosopher, I also reacted against the opening premises. "We all have blah blah towers", speak for yourself Buddy (or Becky), our belief systems are organic not mechanic.
Having said that I certainly agree with the finishing conclusion that asking people why they believe what they do and where do those beliefs come from, is an excellent way to engage.
The plumber said he should be able to get to you the day after tomorrow. Does philosophy have anything to say about vortexes??
><>

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You alright in there Philo?? Want me to call a plumber?

**glub**, **glub**, **cough**, **cough**!!!

Speaking as a philosophical non philosopher, I also reacted against the opening premises. "We all have blah blah towers", speak for yourself Buddy (or Becky), our belief systems are organic not mechanic.

Bingo!!!!

Having said that I certainly agree with the finishing conclusion that asking people why they believe what they do and where do those beliefs come from, is an excellent way to engage.

Yes, this is true. And I'm not at odds with Magnabosco's general socially inclined methodology as far as it goes. I think his approach is an improvement over the typical New Atheist mode of operation. But, did you happen to catch the additional implications he made about the 'height' of one's tower? Is there a problem with that part of his epistemology, particularly when it comes to the question of defining the actual ontology of Christian 'faith'?

The plumber said he should be able to get to you the day after tomorrow.

.....I'll be alright since I know a really good Plumber. But, thanks for the concern.

Does philosophy have anything to say about vortexes??
><>

Yes, it says it's in their cosmic nature to 'suck'... big time!

 

[Moral Orel]

So, @2PhiloVoid , I read your thread like you suggested, and I didn't see you state anywhere any problem with foundational beliefs. Can you point out the post # that I must have missed?

See, the thing that puzzles me is that I saw a response of yours to an old thread a long time ago about Paul. The thread asked, essentially, "Was Paul a heretic?". Do you remember that at all, and what your answer was? I tried to track it down, but I'm not having any luck being able to directly quote it.

 

[gaara4158]

I think the point of the video is less about providing a technical explanation of absolutely everyone’s epistemological framework and more about providing an analogy through which to understand the obstacles we face when we try to change someone’s mind. The prince and the beast analogy is true enough - we really do protect some of our beliefs as though they’re a part of our flesh and bone. Ego protection is a real thing. It is a little dangerous, though, because it provides the naive listener with an excuse to dismiss their own failure to change minds as the “beast” at work in their interlocutors rather than any flaws in their own reasoning.

Taken with a grain of salt, the video’s not really that bad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, @2PhiloVoid , I read your thread like you suggested, and I didn't see you state anywhere any problem with foundational beliefs. Can you point out the post # that I must have missed?

Did "reading" include watching the video in the OP? I'm just wondering because, since I'm a philosophical hermeneuticist of sorts, what I think of as qualifying for the term "reading" may or may not be quite the same as yours.

Just think about this, if I've said something critical about Foundationalism, particularly as Magnabosco sees it, then while I may very well believe in 'axioms,' to say so doesn't imply Foundationalism, nor do I really think he is correct that we ALL just....simply....build....our....epistemological JTB's in Lego style. And while I do agree with him that what we each will probably come to see as our collection of JTB's, this in and of itself doesn't demonstrate the truth or falsity of Christianity.

See, the thing that puzzles me is that I saw a response of yours to an old thread a long time ago about Paul. The thread asked, essentially, "Was Paul a heretic?". Do you remember that at all, and what your answer was? I tried to track it down, but I'm not having any luck being able to directly quote it.

....dude, I've said a WHOLE LOT OF THINGS here on CF. So, good luck with finding that needle in a hay stack. But I did find the following, and I think that perhaps the third comment I made in the old post which I've arbitrarily picked out from the stack of hay may be relevant...even if you did have something else in mind.

Paul the heretic??

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the point of the video is less about providing a technical explanation of absolutely everyone’s epistemological framework and more about providing an analogy through which to understand the obstacles we face when we try to change someone’s mind. The prince and the beast analogy is true enough - we really do protect some of our beliefs as though they’re a part of our flesh and bone. Ego protection is a real thing. It is a little dangerous, though, because it provides the naive listener with an excuse to dismiss their own failure to change minds as the “beast” at work in their interlocutors rather than any flaws in their own reasoning.

Yes, ego protection is something we all do on some level (some more than others), and I agree with you that the OP video is a little dangerous in that it essentially demonizes, perhaps unnecessarily, inherent human feelings that often accompany a person's set of perceived 'true beliefs.' I say that they're perceived by a person to be 'true beliefs' since the whole act of justification for those beliefs can vary, often quite a bit, from person to person. Magnabosco seems to want to infer that there is some 'proper' way to do this, particularly where the subject of religious beliefs come into play in any person' thinking. And since we 'know' that he is an outspoken atheist who's underlying intent is to not only get people to think more deeply about their personal beliefs, but to also let go of what he thinks (assumes) are spurious religious beliefs, his whole epistemological enterprise is questionable.

Taken with a grain of salt, the video’s not really that bad.

Doesn't an author's intent have something to do with his product or his work, even as it is expressed to a public audience? Do you know who Anthony Magnabosco is?

 

[gaara4158]

Doesn't an author's intent have something to do with his product or his work, even as it is expressed to a public audience? Do you know who Anthony Magnabosco is?

He’s the street epistemology guy, right? He goes around asking people what religious/spiritual/conspiracy/political beliefs they have and then gets them to examine why it is they believe that. His channel is all about examining beliefs and the process by which they are formed in such a way that the “beast” remains calm throughout.