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

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Yes. But see the edit I made to my post above.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Yeah, I watched it. Didn't care for it. Somewhere in that convoluted metaphor I think I agree with a general premise or two, but it was too artsy (read: pretentious) for me. My tower is probably relatively short, and I fully maintain the stereotype that white people can't dance for squat.

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.

So... you don't have a problem with some beliefs being foundational? I never tried to propose something as simple as this fella's Jenga tower, I just mentioned that some beliefs are foundational. Is that not really a problem now?

....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??

Yeah, that's the thread. But it was your first comment in there that I was thinking of. Look at all the stuff that needs to be cut out if Paul was a heretic. "Paul was inspired by God" is one block, and all that other stuff is a bunch of other blocks that rest on it. Each book that needs to be cut, and each belief you've formed as a result of believing that those books were inspired by God, those are all beliefs that get yanked right along with the Paul block. Is it not fair to say that "Paul was inspired by God" is a foundational belief?

 

[gaara4158]

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.

Yes, I do think he's pretty satisfied with his own epistemology and he will enter any religious discussion with the presupposition that the religious person has some fatal flaw in their belief-forming process that he does not, and his goal is to uncover and change it. He may think his way of justifying beliefs is "proper," or he may find it merely the most useful and consistent method available, but in any case it doesn't prevent him from making points his religious interviewees recognize as valid.

As far as the video goes, though, it starts with the assumption that you've already recognized the flaw in someone's reasoning and it's warning you about the types of resistance you may encounter by breaching the subject, so that you can approach accordingly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I watched it. Didn't care for it. Somewhere in that convoluted metaphor I think I agree with a general premise or two, but it was too artsy (read: pretentious) for me. My tower is probably relatively short, and I fully maintain the stereotype that white people can't dance for squat.

ROFL! Well, for once, I'd have to agree with you, Nick, and on all of these points. ...and it's for this reason that I occasionally like to watch t.v. shows like, "So You Think You Can Dance?"

So... you don't have a problem with some beliefs being foundational? I never tried to propose something as simple as this fella's Jenga tower, I just mentioned that some beliefs are foundational. Is that not really a problem now?

I don't have a problem with axioms. Nor do I have a real problem with someone saying to me, "Hey, I'm really turned on by [what I think are] Foundationalistic conceptualizations."

What I do have a problem with is when any one person comes along and tells all of the rest of us, "Hey, you! When thinking about religion, you're doing this epistemological 'thang' completely wrong! So, here's how you really need to do it!"

I know that some may think that I do the same thing as everyone else, but really, my approach is qualitatively different and I tend to point instead to the complexities that are inherent in our human reality and I recommend that we need to temper our claims with a more 'yin and yang' kind of sensibility, one that doesn't prevent us from making successful trips to the Moon or from contemplating voyages to Mars and back, but one that doesn't imply that any of us has the absolute, Final Word where Jesus Christ is concerned.

Yeah, that's the thread. But it was your first comment in there that I was thinking of. Look at all the stuff that needs to be cut out if Paul was a heretic. "Paul was inspired by God" is one block, and all that other stuff is a bunch of other blocks that rest on it. Each book that needs to be cut, and each belief you've formed as a result of believing that those books were inspired by God, those are all beliefs that get yanked right along with the Paul block. Is it not fair to say that "Paul was inspired by God" is a foundational belief?

On the one hand, I can admit that your epistemic analysis here about Paul is very thoughtful, but on the other hand, I'd also say that there is a problem with conceptualizing the person and work of Paul as a "mere epistemic block."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I do think he's pretty satisfied with his own epistemology and he will enter any religious discussion with the presupposition that the religious person has some fatal flaw in their belief-forming process that he does not, and his goal is to uncover and change it. He may think his way of justifying beliefs is "proper," or he may find it merely the most useful and consistent method available, but in any case it doesn't prevent him from making points his religious interviewees recognize as valid.

As far as the video goes, though, it starts with the assumption that you've already recognized the flaw in someone's reasoning and it's warning you about the types of resistance you may encounter by breaching the subject, so that you can approach accordingly.

And it's his presuppositions---a vague thing which we all have---that can get any one of us in trouble epistemologically. I think this is the case as it applies to both Christians and to any non-Christians, and it's probably best for us to not beat each other over the head about too many things where religious propositions, as well as anti-religious propositions, play a part in our wranglings over the nature of the human epistemic equation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...since it's nearly Halloween, we all need a good scare, don't we? So ... BOO!

 

[Petros2015]

Oh man has it been a year? I had forgotten about this vid. Still enjoy it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh man has it been a year? I had forgotten about this vid. Still enjoy it.

Yeah, it has been a year. Hard to believe, I know. And I still like this vid too, even if I do think it's a little ... (drum-roll).... over-the-top.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh man has it been a year? I had forgotten about this vid. Still enjoy it.

I haven't read through this thread for quite some time, but I think my comment in post #6 is still relevant for all of us to consider, especially when unseen guests swoop in here at CF to convince us otherwise.

 

[FireDragon76]

A very helpful video and also it seems to be backed up by insights from depth psychology. People have all sorts of protectors within, guarding their most cherished attitudes and beliefs. People may not even be aware fully of that level of themselves, much of it being subconscious processes.

I did some personal work in depth psychology years ago. One example of a protector is people internalizing a harsh, critical persona to deal with the expected pain of loss. This often happens in people who have experienced trauma, such as in war.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A very helpful video and also it seems to be backed up by insights from depth psychology. People have all sorts of protectors within, guarding their most cherished attitudes and beliefs. People may not even be aware fully of that level of themselves, much of it being subconscious processes.

I did some personal work in depth psychology years ago. One example of a protector is people internalizing a harsh, critical persona to deal with the expected pain of loss. This often happens in people who have experienced trauma, such as in war.

If you thought that video had much of any substance, then you might need to also add some further, deeper study in epistemology to that depth psychology ... because it should be obvious to almost anyone that Anthony Magnasbosco, even as nice and intelligent of a guy that he is, doesn't know squat about the very field he so amateurishly has adopted from Peter Boghossian, one that relies up Foundationalism so tightly when MISapplied to any religious thought that it bleeds............!!!!!