Two Honest Atheists and a Confused one ... had a Chat!

[2PhiloVoid]

So, there's an atheist Youtube channel called 'Truth Wanted' run by an intelligent and really nice guy who goes by the name of Objectively Dan. He's one of the newer ex-christian atheists who has come along over the past few years and started up his own channel on which he features different guests who help him field calls coming in on his call line.

Well, in this particular, recent 15 minute episode of 'Truth Wanted,' another atheist calls in to chat, and what is most interesting in the ongoing discussion is that Dan and his guest host, Jenna, a fellow ex-christian atheist, focus upon disambiguating some issues pertaining to ontology and some epistemology which are held by the ardent atheist caller.

What is refreshing to see in this video is, in a kind of way, Dan and Jenna doing some of the same defending against a sheer, hard-headed atheism that a Christian Apologist might do. It's kind of surprising really, and perhaps we might listen in to their exchange, paying attention to who we, as the audience, think gets it right, or since they're all atheists, who we think gets it "more right" than the other.

Who knows who got the better of the other in this chat? What are your thoughts and reflections on this episode provided by Dan and his guest, Jenna? Was the caller right in holding to his position, or did he go overboard?

 

[public hermit]

Great video. One day I'll finish one of these 15 minute videos, but so far I just give up.

1. Great epistemic humility by the hosts. This is the kind of environment in which meaningful and helpful dialogue can occur.

2. The one host contrasted modern theism with ancient Judaism in order to point out that modern theism will say that God is outside of time. I don't know how "modern" that idea is. Boethius certainly said it. I want to say Maimonides did, too. But, I would have to break out my Guide for the Perplexed, and I'm too lazy to care that much about it. At any rate, that's not all that modern. The idea isn't some ad hoc assertion in order to accommodate modernity. It came from reflection framed by certain metaphysical assumptions.

3. I like how she points out that "common sense" is not an epistemic tool, haha. People throw that phrase around as if it magically confirms whatever they are saying.

4. The caller seems to assume that the universe must start with a complex being, i.e. God. Or, maybe he means that theists assert God is complex being. And then he rejects theism based on the idea that God would be the complex being, I think. I'm not really following that argument. Why assume God must be complex? And, why isn't someone in this conversation pointing out that for ever and a day ancient monotheists asserted that God is simple, not complex? Either I am missing something, or they haven't heard of God as understood by classical theism from the Greeks to the late Middle Ages. I think I missed something there.

5. Toward the moment I quit watching, the caller stated that at some point you have to make a judgment call, and everyone agreed. This goes back to the idea that no one can escape having faith, based on the fact we can't know all the relevant information to ascertain with certainty. At some point you make a judgment call, or you are in the process of making one. It is an act of faith we really can't avoid.

They might not prefer the phrase, "act of faith." They might prefer "reasonable conclusion" instead, but it amounts to the same thing. For some reason we want to make sense of our experience (I would say it is because of God, others wouldn't), we don't have all we need to be certain, so we make a judgment. Or, maybe better, we come to a judgment.

At any rate, I give the 11 minutes I watched a 2 thumbs up.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So, there's an atheist Youtube channel called 'Truth Wanted' run by an intelligent and really nice guy who goes by the name of Objectively Dan. He's one of the newer ex-christian atheists who has come along over the past few years and started up his own channel on which he features different guests who help him field calls coming in on his call line.

Well, in this particular, recent 15 minute episode of 'Truth Wanted,' another atheist calls in to chat, and what is most interesting in the ongoing discussion is that Dan and his guest host, Jenna, a fellow ex-christian atheist, focus upon disambiguating some issues pertaining to ontology and some epistemology which are held by the ardent atheist caller.

What is refreshing to see in this video is, in a kind of way, Dan and Jenna doing some of the same defending against a sheer, hard-headed atheism that a Christian Apologist might do. It's kind of surprising really, and perhaps we might listen in to their exchange, paying attention to who we, as the audience, think gets it right, or since they're all atheists, who we think gets it "more right" than the other.

Who knows who got the better of the other in this chat? What are your thoughts and reflections on this episode provided by Dan and his guest, Jenna? Was the caller right in holding to his position, or did he go overboard?

I'm having trouble getting through the first few minutes of the Atheist caller from PA. He is so overconfident, I would really love to see him meet a Christian Apologist scientist like Hugh Ross, a person who is a scientist by trade and believes 180 degrees opposite of him giving public presentations how untenable various theories of atheists are.

 

[Occams Barber]

So, there's an atheist Youtube channel called 'Truth Wanted' run by an intelligent and really nice guy who goes by the name of Objectively Dan. He's one of the newer ex-christian atheists who has come along over the past few years and started up his own channel on which he features different guests who help him field calls coming in on his call line.

Well, in this particular, recent 15 minute episode of 'Truth Wanted,' another atheist calls in to chat, and what is most interesting in the ongoing discussion is that Dan and his guest host, Jenna, a fellow ex-christian atheist, focus upon disambiguating some issues pertaining to ontology and some epistemology which are held by the ardent atheist caller.

What is refreshing to see in this video is, in a kind of way, Dan and Jenna doing some of the same defending against a sheer, hard-headed atheism that a Christian Apologist might do. It's kind of surprising really, and perhaps we might listen in to their exchange, paying attention to who we, as the audience, think gets it right, or since they're all atheists, who we think gets it "more right" than the other.

Who knows who got the better of the other in this chat? What are your thoughts and reflections on this episode provided by Dan and his guest, Jenna? Was the caller right in holding to his position, or did he go overboard?

I'm just happy that you found two honest and intelligent atheists - unlike the rest of them.

If I were to announce that I'd just discovered two intelligent and honest Christians then Christian forum members would be understandably miffed at the backhanded compliment.

Apart from the subtle insult, your post is basically a discussion between two levels of atheism:

• Strong atheism = "there is no God"
• Weak atheism = "there is insufficient proof to justify belief in God"

Most of the regular atheists on this forum fall into the second category and most of them would consider the strong atheist position untenable since it assumes that it's possible to prove the non-existence of God.

But you knew this.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great video. One day I'll finish one of these 15 minute videos, but so far I just give up.

1. Great epistemic humility by the hosts. This is the kind of environment in which meaningful and helpful dialogue can occur.

Dan certainly has himself together and is to be commended for conducting such a level headed call in show like his own.

2. The one host contrasted modern theism with ancient Judaism in order to point out that modern theism will say that God is outside of time. I don't know how "modern" that idea is. Boethius certainly said it. I want to say Maimonides did, too. But, I would have to break out my Guide for the Perplexed, and I'm too lazy to care that much about it. At any rate, that's not all that modern. The idea isn't some ad hoc assertion in order to accommodate modernity. It came from reflection framed by certain metaphysical assumptions.

I think it's safe to say that Dan and Jenna meant well in attempting to present a more moderated, reasonable approach in their atheism. If I remember correctly, Jenna shared with Dan that she's only been an atheist for about a year now, so I'm sure there's some learning yet to be done by both of them, but I just appreciate seeing them give a more reasonable attempt to evaluate what an atheist might assert with some justification.

3. I like how she points out that "common sense" is not an epistemic tool, haha. People throw that phrase around as if it magically confirms whatever they are saying.

Oh yeah, for sure! I thought that was one of the highlights in the video.

4. The caller seems to assume that the universe must start with a complex being, i.e. God. Or, maybe he means that theists assert God is complex being. And then he rejects theism based on the idea that God would be the complex being, I think. I'm not really following that argument. Why assume God must be complex? And, why isn't someone in this conversation pointing out that for ever and a day ancient monotheists asserted that God is simple, not complex? Either I am missing something, or they haven't heard of God as understood by classical theism from the Greeks to the late Middle Ages. I think I missed something there.

I don't think you're were missing anything P.H., but I do think the caller in the video was somewhat confused and not a very big reader of ontology. In fact, it sounded to me like he'd got a hold of some Lawrence Krauss material and tried to make it fly higher epistemologically than it could normally do on its own.

5. Toward the moment I quit watching, the caller stated that at some point you have to make a judgment call, and everyone agreed. This goes back to the idea that no one can escape having faith, based on the fact we can't know all the relevant information to ascertain with certainty. At some point you make a judgment call, or you are in the process of making one. It is an act of faith we really can't avoid.

They might not prefer the phrase, "act of faith." They might prefer "reasonable conclusion" instead, but it amounts to the same thing. For some reason we want to make sense of our experience (I would say it is because of God, others wouldn't), we don't have all we need to be certain, so we make a judgment. Or, maybe better, we come to a judgment.

There is something to this, and I think you're right to expect there to be some finer epistemic nuances that make the act of trusting in something like science somewhat different from a separate act of trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

At any rate, I give the 11 minutes I watched a 2 thumbs up.

Hey, thanks! If you watched that much of it and felt that it was at least worth some time then that's great to hear. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on it!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm having trouble getting through the first few minutes of the Atheist caller from PA. He is so overconfident, I would really love to see him meet a Christian Apologist scientist like Hugh Ross, a person who is a scientist by trade and believes 180 degrees opposite of him giving public presentations how untenable various theories of atheists are.

I share your feelings about having to trudge through the attitude of the caller who just couldn't step away from an 'ipso facto' push of his own point of view. You're right to think that it would be interesting to hear what he'd have to say if he sat down with someone like Hugh Ross. I think the conversation would likely have been a bit different and the caller would probably have to tone down his rhetoric somewhere along the way.

Thank you for sharing the additional video with Hugh Ross. It's on point, Pavel!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm just happy that you found two honest and intelligent atheists - unlike the rest of them.

I am too, don't you just know it!

If I were to announce that I'd just discovered two intelligent and honest Christians then Christian forum members would be understandably miffed at the backhanded compliment.

I don't think we'd be miffed; rather I think we'd just shrug and say, "I'm not surprised." Besides, I don't know if you've noticed or not, but there actually have been atheists/skeptics here on CF who have essentially thrown down that very gauntlet and intoned that we Christians ..... "are dishonest."

Apart from the subtle insult, your post is basically a discussion between two levels of atheism:

• Strong atheism = "there is no God"
• Weak atheism = "there is insufficient proof to justify belief in God"

• I don't know about that. I'd think that strong atheism would have to be designated as strong because it is ..... strongly cogent and rational. Otherwise, if strong atheism has some fractures in its epistemic structure, then it should probably be called "Stalwart atheism" to better grasp the actual essence of stubbornness that is often inherent is such a position rather deeming it as a product of pure intellect. As for weak atheism, maybe we could just start calling it "honest atheism"?

Most of the regular atheists on this forum fall into the second category and most of them would consider the strong atheist position untenable since it assumes that it's possible to prove the non-existence of God.

... maybe you'd like to run a poll for us on that supposition.

But you knew this.

Oh, I don't know about my knowing that. I tend to take atheist one at a time as I encounter them.

 

[jayem]

Apart from the subtle insult, your post is basically a discussion between two levels of atheism:

• Strong atheism = "there is no God"
• Weak atheism = "there is insufficient proof to justify belief in God"

Most of the regular atheists on this forum fall into the second category and most of them would consider the strong atheist position untenable since it assumes that it's possible to prove the non-existence of God.

OB

Why wouldn't the same apply to god-believers? I.e.:

Strong theism = God absolutely exists.

Weak theism = I believe God exists, but definitive proof is lacking.

As I see it, any honest theist would also fall in the second category. I know of no way the existence of a god, or gods, can be proven with any degree of epistemological certainty. Not to mention that a believer has the additional burden to show that his particular god, or gods, exist out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history.

My point is that it should be axiomatic that there is a measure of uncertainty in any claim regarding the presence or absence of a god. This weak/strong differentiation should be unnecessary. But if it must be considered, then a better term would be a presumptive atheist or theist. I.e.:

Presumptive atheist = I believe no gods exist, but it can't be categorically proven.

Presumptive theist = I believe (insert your god/gods) exists, but it can't be categorically proven.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why wouldn't the same apply to god-believers? I.e.:

Strong theism = God absolutely exists.

Weak theism = I believe God exists, but definitive proof is lacking.

As I see it, any honest theist would also fall in the second category. I know of no way the existence of a god, or gods, can be proven with any degree of epistemological certainty. Not to mention that a believer has the additional burden to show that his particular god, or gods, exist out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history.

My point is that it should be axiomatic that there is a measure of uncertainty in any claim regarding the presence or absence of a god. This weak/strong differentiation should be unnecessary. But if it must be considered, then a better term would be a presumptive atheist or theist. I.e.:

Presumptive atheist = I believe no gods exist, but it can't be categorically proven.

Presumptive theist = I believe (insert your god/gods) exists, but it can't be categorically proven.

After 7 years on CF one of the things which stands out is the Christian tendency to be 'certain'. Things are either black or white, right or wrong, yes or no. This tendency towards rule driven thinking means that words like 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'sometimes' or 'I'm not sure ' are often not part of the religious vocabulary. Perhaps this is one of the attractions of belonging.

This certainty doesn't apply to all Christians but many of those I've come across on CF are disturbingly monochrome.
OB

 

[public hermit]

Why wouldn't the same apply to god-believers? I.e.:

Strong theism = God absolutely exists.

Weak theism = I believe God exists, but definitive proof is lacking.

As I see it, any honest theist would also fall in the second category. I know of no way the existence of a god, or gods, can be proven with any degree of epistemological certainty. Not to mention that a believer has the additional burden to show that his particular god, or gods, exist out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history.

My point is that it should be axiomatic that there is a measure of uncertainty in any claim regarding the presence or absence of a god. This weak/strong differentiation should be unnecessary. But if it must be considered, then a better term would be a presumptive atheist or theist. I.e.:

Presumptive atheist = I believe no gods exist, but it can't be categorically proven.

Presumptive theist = I believe (insert your god/gods) exists, but it can't be categorically proven.

I agree. There should be epistemic humility across the board.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. There should be epistemic humility across the board.

I think for this to happen, there'd have to be a large upsurge in epistemological education so folks actually come to know how complicated coming to know can be ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

After 7 years on CF one of the things which stands out is the Christian tendency to be 'certain'. Things are either black or white, right or wrong, yes or no. This tendency towards rule driven thinking means that words like 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'sometimes' or 'I'm not sure ' are often not part of the religious vocabulary. Perhaps this is one of the attractions of belonging.

This certainty doesn't apply to all Christians but many of those I've come across on CF are disturbingly monochrome.
OB

I'm certain that I'm uncertain about some issues that some atheists are certain that I'm certain about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm having trouble getting through the first few minutes of the Atheist caller from PA. He is so overconfident, I would really love to see him meet a Christian Apologist scientist like Hugh Ross, a person who is a scientist by trade and believes 180 degrees opposite of him giving public presentations how untenable various theories of atheists are.

I actually side a little more with Deborah Haarsma than with Hugh Ross, but I like Ross nevertheless and I have a couple of his books. A quick comparison (and contrast) of their respective Christian views on science are expressed in the following short article:

Haarsma, Ross Agree on Value of Christian Engagement With Science

 

[public hermit]

I think for this to happen, there'd have to be a large upsurge in epistemological education so folks actually come to know how complicated coming to know can be ...

I think you're absolutely right. When I was in undergrad, it was a History of Christian Thought class, and my professor was retelling about the moment he realized that there were just some things about the faith he would never know, no matter how hard he tried. I was taken back a little bit because, in my mind and at that time, I assumed if I applied myself to understanding the things of our faith, then I should at some point figure it all out. How naïve, hahaha!

One thing education has done for me is coming to realize that the more I know the more I realize there is so much I don't know. I think it also helps to reflect on how many times I have been wrong about something I thought I knew. If I am aware of my own inherent fallibilism, then I will be much more generous and gracious towards those who disagree with me. But, personally, it has taken some time and experience (and failures) to bring me to that place.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why wouldn't the same apply to god-believers? I.e.:

Strong theism = God absolutely exists.

Weak theism = I believe God exists, but definitive proof is lacking.

As I see it, any honest theist would also fall in the second category. I know of no way the existence of a god, or gods, can be proven with any degree of epistemological certainty. Not to mention that a believer has the additional burden to show that his particular god, or gods, exist out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history.

My point is that it should be axiomatic that there is a measure of uncertainty in any claim regarding the presence or absence of a god. This weak/strong differentiation should be unnecessary. But if it must be considered, then a better term would be a presumptive atheist or theist. I.e.:

Presumptive atheist = I believe no gods exist, but it can't be categorically proven.

Presumptive theist = I believe (insert your god/gods) exists, but it can't be categorically proven.

I don't know. I think the term 'presumptive,' while semantically cogent, can too easily sound like a pejorative and derail a more balanced interest in the various issues involved in the exploration and understanding of the Christian Faith. So, I think "honest" is a better term for both atheists and theists than is "presumptive."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're absolutely right. When I was in undergrad, it was a History of Christian Thought class, and my professor was retelling about the moment he realized that there were just some things about the faith he would never know, no matter how hard he tried. I was taken back a little bit because, in my mind and at that time, I assumed if I applied myself to understanding the things of our faith, then I should at some point figure it all out. How naïve, hahaha!

It is so interesting to me that you share this because in some ways, this has been my experience as well with the apparent epistemological issues that are wrapped up in our Christian faith. I'd have to say that I've gone through 2 or 3 progressive "phases" in my own understanding about 'how' Christian faith is to be understood, and during the first 15 years of my being a Christian, I too thought it amounted to just "getting enough of the right facts" in order to believe.

This was somewhat pronounced when one of the ministers in one of the former churches I used to attend preached a sermon in which he ended it by challenging everyone with the following words, "The facts are in! Today is the time to make your decision. Make your decision for Jesus! To fail to do so will mean you only have yourself to blame!" Now, in looking back on all of that previous time period, especially as it happened before I earned my degree in philosophy, I now know that he was a tad bit too much on the side of Naive Realism.

One thing education has done for me is coming to realize that the more I know the more I realize there is so much I don't know. I think it also helps to reflect on how many times I have been wrong about something I thought I knew. If I am aware of my own inherent fallibilism, then I will be much more generous and gracious towards those who disagree with me. But, personally, it has taken some time and experience (and failures) to bring me to that place.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

Yes, this trek has been my experience as well (despite the fact that I know I come across a little 'fiery' at times). And this is why I've attempted to offer the alternative approach to the Christian faith that I do, one that sees the Christian walk as a Journey with Christ and not as a definitive epistemological destination.

 

[public hermit]

And this is why I've attempted to offer the alternative approach to the Christian faith that I do, one that sees the Christian walk as a Journey with Christ and not as a definitive epistemological destination.

That is such a great way to put it. I will be stealing this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is such a great way to put it. I will be stealing this.

Steal Away if you like! I also have a whole Apologetics thread devoted to this very thing, but not many folks wanted to go down that path very far when I presented it. (Which is nothing new around here! )

 

[zippy2006]

Why wouldn't the same apply to god-believers? I.e.:

Strong theism = God absolutely exists.

Weak theism = I believe God exists, but definitive proof is lacking.

As I see it, any honest theist would also fall in the second category. I know of no way the existence of a god, or gods, can be proven with any degree of epistemological certainty. Not to mention that a believer has the additional burden to show that his particular god, or gods, exist out of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history.

My point is that it should be axiomatic that there is a measure of uncertainty in any claim regarding the presence or absence of a god. This weak/strong differentiation should be unnecessary. But if it must be considered, then a better term would be a presumptive atheist or theist. I.e.:

Presumptive atheist = I believe no gods exist, but it can't be categorically proven.

Presumptive theist = I believe (insert your god/gods) exists, but it can't be categorically proven.

Ratzinger actually talks about this idea in his book Introduction to Christianity, though through the lens of the mutual subjective doubt of believer and non-believer alike. That is to say that a kind of solidarity is found precisely in the experience of doubt (albeit doubt of different propositions).

I actually just listened to a short lecture on faith and reason in the thought of John Henry Newman, and the lecturer began with this idea from Ratzinger. The lecture argues for something of the parity between an act of faith and a 'reasonable conclusion' as public_hermit laid out here. I'm not sure that is a proper characterization of Newman's thought, but it is good food for thought. Non-analytical reasoning certainly infuses our life from all angles.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm just happy that you found two honest and intelligent atheists - unlike the rest of them.

If I were to announce that I'd just discovered two intelligent and honest Christians then Christian forum members would be understandably miffed at the backhanded compliment.

Apart from the subtle insult, your post is basically a discussion between two levels of atheism:

• Strong atheism = "there is no God"
• Weak atheism = "there is insufficient proof to justify belief in God"

Most of the regular atheists on this forum fall into the second category and most of them would consider the strong atheist position untenable since it assumes that it's possible to prove the non-existence of God.

But you knew this.

OB

I'd say Philo's approach here is important and perceptive. Self-identifying atheists of today are by and large an entrenched camp. It is quite rare to see them disagree with one another (which is why this post was so refreshing). It's odd to see a prominent group with so little in-fighting. Granted, the level of in-fighting amongst Christians is usually leveraged as an argument against Christianity.

This is also why the atheists who break the mold get so much attention, such as those in the OP or the fellow who writes History for Atheists. The way I interpret "honest and intelligent" in the context of the OP is, "People who are willing to object to others who hold the same views, if they think they are wrong." It is the opposite of the bandwagon fan.