YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The Hidden Problem with EVERY Atheist Argument

The Hidden Problem with EVERY Atheist Argument — Transcript

by Unsolicited advice · 6,743 words · 998 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00this video is sponsored by Squarespace
0:02more about them in just a moment man's
0:05rationality is the rift in nature which
0:08shows there is something Beyond to put
0:12my cards on the table I have not
0:14believed in God for many years now I
0:16lost my faith and have never been able
0:18to get it back no matter how hard I've
0:19tried so I am very much an agnostic or
0:22an atheist and yet there is one theist
0:25argument in particular that has always
0:27given me pause for thought if it is true
0:29it threatens to under mind not just a
0:30single atheist argument but any and
0:33every argument an atheist could ever
0:35come up with this is the rather bold
0:37claim that you cannot have reason on an
0:40atheist worldview that is there are no
0:43good Arguments for atheism because under
0:45atheism there are no arguments no reason
0:48nothing it is a pretty radical thesis
0:52and this is just what I want to look at
0:53today get ready to learn whether
0:55materialism is fundamentally flawed
0:58whether all atheists are secretly
1:00rational and how we could all stand to
1:02expand our metaphysical imaginations as
1:06always bear in mind that there is a
1:07whole field of literature on this
1:09argument and we obviously won't be able
1:11to look at all of the objections and
1:12counter responses here I've taken a very
1:14bre first approach as I largely want to
1:17get you thinking about the problem and
1:18considering whether you think it works
1:20we're not going to solve one of the most
1:21interesting debates in philosophy of
1:23religion in a 30-minute YouTube video
1:25I'm also going to be using the terms
1:27reason and materialism pretty broadly
1:29here probably more broadly than is wise
1:31but if I stop to debate or discuss what
1:33they are as well then we really will be
1:35here all year so I beg your patience in
1:38this regard so first let's look at the
1:40argument itself and why people think it
1:43may spell the end for atheism but before
1:46any of that I want to thank the very
1:48kind sponsors for this video Squarespace
1:51if you're looking to build a website
1:52then you know it can be a real hassle
1:54first you have to find a domain name and
1:56then construct it and there's always
1:57this nagging doubt that you are messing
1:59up and creating something that looks
2:01both messy and unprofessional but this
2:03is where Squarespace bursts onto the
2:05scene they compress all of that
2:07complexity into a single platform and
2:09use ready-made templates to take most of
2:11the pain out of website building they
2:13also have a feature called design
2:15intelligence which uses AI tools to help
2:18you make design choices which is really
2:20handy if like me you're not necessarily
2:22that technologically gifted and aren't
2:24brilliant at graphic design head to
2:26squarespace.com
2:28unlisted device and use the code UNS
2:30listed device to get 10% off your first
2:33purchase of a website or domain name but
2:36anyway back to the video One the problem
2:39of Reason a brief summary because they
2:43are such ubiquitous parts of our
2:45existence we don't often sit back and
2:47think about just how absolutely Bonkers
2:50reason and logic are for example let's
2:53take an argument like the following one
2:55Socrates as a man two all men IM mortal
2:59three therefore Socrates is Mortal the
3:02relationship between these statements is
3:04pretty special the third is true as a
3:06result of the first two on the one hand
3:08this is just a consequence of the rules
3:10of a certain logical system where if any
3:12p is f and something is p it must
3:15therefore b f but with a few exceptions
3:18most people think there is more to it
3:20than this these are not just moves in a
3:22game they are moves in a game which
3:24preserves truth they are what's called
3:27veridical moreover it seems like the
3:29above argument is not just valid in this
3:31world but in any possible World in any
3:34existence if Socrates is a man and all
3:37men are mortal then it just seems to
3:39follow necessarily that Socrates is
3:41mortal and even stranger such an
3:44argument can causally change my mind if
3:46I believed that Socrates was Immortal
3:48and heard this argument then I would
3:50likely alter my position thus there is
3:52this strange truth preserving
3:54relationship between the premises and
3:56the conclusion we can say that this
3:58relationship is entailment will say that
4:00the premises are reasons for the
4:02conclusion if you think I'm making a
4:04mountain out of a very simple
4:05observation you are probably right but
4:08this more long-winded way of looking at
4:09the basics of reasoning does have a
4:11point it is to encourage you to treat
4:13the phenomenon of reason as if you were
4:16just discovered it and we're trying to
4:17examine and explain it reason is so
4:20commonplace in our everyday lives that
4:22it can easily just become part of the
4:23backdrop but it is worth recognizing
4:25that it is on the face of it a little
4:28bit odd nothing else behaves quite like
4:31reason and in his work miracles CS Lewis
4:34Builds an argument from this oddness
4:36that claims a materialist atheist view
4:39of reality is just untenable if my
4:42equivalence of materialist and atheist
4:44there made your alarm Bells go off then
4:46good those are well-tuned alarm bells
4:48and you may know where I will eventually
4:50go with this essentially Lewis asks us
4:53to imagine a totally materialist World
4:55there are only particles and matter only
4:58extended things as dayot might say there
5:00is no purpose or normativity to anything
5:03no mysterious non-physical relations
5:05only material stuff we may talk as if
5:08there are non-physical things but these
5:10are all ultimately reducible to
5:12materials in this world when someone
5:14says I feel sad that is definitely
5:17reducible to certain facts about brain
5:19matter and when someone says I believe
5:21Socrates is Mortal because all men are
5:23mortal and Socrates is a man they are
5:25simply referring to certain causal
5:27relationships between their brain states
5:29that is is the supposed reasoning chain
5:31is going to be explained by entirely
5:33non-rational causes to do with the brain
5:35of The Thinker the rationality of the
5:38thought process the participation of
5:40reasons in it is an illusion that is
5:42ultimately reducible to non-rational
5:44stuff or as some have put it under
5:47materialism there are no reasons there
5:49are only causes thus Lewis States the
5:52materialist cannot have reason or
5:54rationality in their system of the world
5:56anytime we think a conclusion has been
5:58reasoned to it has just been the result
6:00of non-rational causes the reasons don't
6:02come into the story at all alternatively
6:05we can put his argument as follows this
6:07formulation comes directly from Victor
6:09rit's paper on the subject and I've only
6:11made very tiny alterations one no belief
6:15is rationally inferred if it can be
6:17fully explained in terms of non-rational
6:19causes two if materialism is true then
6:23all beliefs can be fully explained in
6:25terms of non-rational causes three
6:27therefore if materialism is true then no
6:30belief can be rationally inferred but
6:34this immediately poses a problem for the
6:36materialist because the tenability of a
6:38belief in materialism relies on the
6:40further idea that there are reasons to
6:42be a materialist but if Lewis is right
6:44the materialists must admit they have no
6:47reasonable basis for their beliefs
6:48because in their worldview there would
6:50be no such thing as a reasonable basis
6:53this would obviously be self-defeating
6:55and so Lewis says materialism must be
6:57false you could also pitch this as a
7:00kind of transcendental argument you can
7:02begin by saying that all of us already
7:04agree that reason and rationality exists
7:07indeed it is almost impossible to live
7:09your life without using reason and using
7:11reasons but if materialism is true then
7:14this thing that obviously exists and we
7:16are all already committed to believing
7:18must not exist thus materialism must be
7:21false and it is specifically the
7:23inability to have a rational basis for
7:25beliefs which Lewis homes in on in
7:28philosophy we tend to refer to some
7:29beliefs as Simply Having causes and
7:32others as having reasons so if I believe
7:34that broccoli is evil because someone
7:36that I loved choke to death on a
7:38broccoli then that is a cause for my
7:40mental state but it is not a rational or
7:42reasonable one whereas if I believe that
7:44a particular piece of broccoli will be
7:46green because in ordinary circumstances
7:48broccoli is green then that is rational
7:51it is based on reasons and not merely on
7:53causes the chain of mental steps
7:55preserves truth to a high degree this
7:58can be a tricky distinction to get your
8:00head rounds but it is one we use an
8:01awful lot and I think it's pretty
8:03intuitive Lewis's point is that if
8:05everything ultimately bottoms out at
8:07non-rational Material explanation it
8:09becomes impossible to have a reason to
8:11believe something we merely have causes
8:13for our beliefs what we believe is not
8:15caused by anything rational because
8:17there is nothing rational there are
8:19merely mechanistic forces at play in our
8:20brain but there is no reason to think
8:23that these merely causal mechanistic
8:24forces would preserve truth thus
8:27materialism destroys the very basis on
8:29which we believe anything is true or
8:31have any rational basis for any of our
8:33beliefs or to put it succinctly if
8:35materialism is true then we have no
8:38reason to think it is true to frame this
8:40argument in yet another way reason
8:43preserves truth to a great extent but
8:45causes do not but on a materialist
8:47worldview beliefs are only caused and
8:50not reasoned to thus we would have no
8:52reason to think that our beliefs would
8:54be true just that they were the result
8:56of some causal process however we
8:59clearly can reason in a truth preserving
9:01way so materialism must be false or at
9:04the very least it flies in the face of
9:06this observation I find this sort of
9:09argument absolutely fascinating because
9:12if it is right this poses a serious
9:14problem for the materialist atheist it
9:16makes their position self-undermining if
9:19there are no reasons then there are also
9:21no reasons to be an atheist or a
9:23materialist or anything else for that
9:25matter so having laid the groundwork
9:28let's now move on to responses starting
9:31with those who do attempt to ground
9:33reason and logic in something that's
9:35plausibly materialistic if you want to
9:37help me make more videos like this then
9:39please consider supporting me on patreon
9:41for access to occasional exclusive
9:43content the link is in the description
9:45two reason material and the laws of
9:49logic one of the most common ways to
9:52respond to Lewis's argument is to
9:53suggest that despite initial appearances
9:56it is perfectly possible to ground what
9:58we call reason in something that is
10:00plausibly material or to otherwise
10:02suggest that non-rational causes can
10:04give rise to a reasoned argument this is
10:06a pretty intuitive response and it's one
10:09that a lot of people unsurprisingly
10:10reach for arguably the first attempt to
10:13do this comes from Elizabeth anco she
10:15was one of the initial critics of
10:16Lewis's argument and claimed that Lewis
10:18had massively overstated his case
10:21according to her Lewis had not shown
10:23that reason itself does not exist under
10:25materialism but rather that reason and
10:27reasons would not linearly cause our
10:30beliefs but it does not follow from this
10:32that the materialist has no grounds for
10:34justifying their beliefs this is a
10:36subtle distinction but an example might
10:38help imagine that I had a robot that
10:40would spit out proofs I would give it a
10:42set of premises and it would follow the
10:44rules of classical logic to find the
10:45conclusions that can be drawn from those
10:47premises if I gave it the statements all
10:49men IM mortal and Socrates is a man then
10:52it would reply with Socrates is Mortal
10:54in this case the robot itself is
10:56uncontroversially not thinking in any
10:59inuitive sense of the word it is just
11:01following a set of pre-established rules
11:03it is a non-rational causal check
11:05nonetheless the items it creates are
11:08reasoned arguments and we can trust them
11:09to be truth preserving because they are
11:11built on Truth preserving rules for Anum
11:14it is not relevance whether the robot
11:16had a linear rational cause for its
11:18argument the point is that the argument
11:20itself has a rational grounding that is
11:23regardless of the fact that the causes
11:24of the robot's actions are non-rational
11:27we can take the argument and check it
11:28according to uncontroversial logical
11:30laws and see whether it is truth
11:32preserving so if Lewis is right and we
11:35have non-rational causes for each of our
11:37beliefs that does not mean our beliefs
11:39could not be checked against the
11:40standards of reason and thus have their
11:42truth preserving nature Justified
11:45moreover on a materialist picture the
11:47apprehension of those standards of
11:49Reason will itself be a brain state that
11:51can be causally efficacious the reasons
11:54may not themselves be causal but if they
11:56correspond to causal States this would
11:58be enough to make the result insulting
11:59beliefs reliable this still maintains
12:02that there are more and less truth
12:03preserving ways of engaging with the
12:05world and says that is what we mean by
12:07reason individual reasons and chains of
12:09reasoning are then brain states which
12:11correspond to certain beliefs and the
12:13ways those beliefs relate to one another
12:15we could even appeal to more modern
12:17theories which posit that the brain
12:18Reasons by constructing virtual models
12:20of the world and that the more
12:22successful of these models are veridical
12:24and that that veridicality explains
12:26their success this does mean that the
12:28reasons themselves do not linearly cause
12:30the belief but a correlate of them does
12:33and does so in virtue of that
12:35correlation so ultimately I will leave
12:37it up to you to decide whether you think
12:38that's sufficient the main point here is
12:40that Anum does not believe that a
12:42proposition or argument is Justified
12:45based on its relation to what has
12:46actually physically caused it but
12:48whether it genuinely does reflect a
12:50valid logical structure and whether its
12:52premises are sound however this response
12:55does have its own counterarguments for
12:57instance some have suggested Ed that it
12:59in turn relies on a notion of
13:01intentionality or aboutness for the
13:03brain state that materialism simply
13:05cannot account for and that's all very
13:07interesting but I don't have time to go
13:09into it here Additionally the theist
13:11might then understandably ask but where
13:14do these standards of reason or logical
13:16structures come from or as Victor reper
13:18has put it if reason's explanations are
13:21true we still need to know why they are
13:24true and why reasons exist in a world
13:26that is fundamentally nonrational
13:29however it's worth noting there are a
13:31number of rootes the materialist could
13:33take to try to ground logic in something
13:36that is plausibly material or at the
13:38very least the thing to which logic
13:40refers for instance they could appeal to
13:43the early work of Hillary putam and say
13:45that the laws of logic are ultimately
13:46revisable based on experience and
13:48plausibly abstracted from that
13:50experience that is the laws of logic
13:52refer to regularities that we've
13:54observed out in the world and we call
13:56them logical because they refer to
13:57reliabilities that we've seen just in
13:59some parts of the world but every part
14:01of the world the entire realm of
14:04experience for example puam pointed out
14:06that while we say the laws of logic are
14:08necessary in practice we can change them
14:11in the face of new empirical data to use
14:13his example the uncertainty principle in
14:15quantum mechanics states that certain
14:17pairs of properties cannot be known
14:19simultaneously such as position and
14:20momentum but this is explicitly against
14:23the laws of classical logic as they were
14:25historically conceived in classical
14:27logic if I say there is exists a duck
14:30and also there exists a dog I can say
14:32there exists a dog and a duck but this
14:35simply does not hold in Quantum
14:37uncertainty if I say particle X has a
14:39position and I also say particle X has a
14:42momentum I cannot then say particle X
14:45has a position and a momentum according
14:47to classical logic it seems
14:49inconceivable that I cannot link two
14:51things together like this and yet the
14:53Lord simply does fail at the quantum
14:55level thus we could argue that far from
14:58being some set of a priori laws
15:00veridical logic is an empirically
15:03discoverable feature of the structure of
15:05the world this allows the materialist to
15:07say that we have our logical laws
15:09because the world just is organized
15:11according to these laws for this sort of
15:14materialist asking why the logical laws
15:16are the way they are is to paraphrase
15:19Douglas Adams a bit like a puddle
15:21wondering how it came to take the shape
15:22of the hole that contains it I should
15:24say there are numerous critiques of this
15:27position obviously but I can't go into
15:29them all here so to quote my old
15:30mathematical logic textbooks this will
15:32be left as an exercise to the reader
15:34alternatively we could make an argument
15:36inspired by C and say that the laws of
15:38logic are simply the unavoidable
15:40framework through which we see the world
15:43then reason and reasons are not
15:45necessarily a feature of the universe
15:47but rather they are a feature of how
15:49every human mind inevitably processes
15:51information on this view it would be a
15:53mistake to say that reasons exist out in
15:56the world for the same reason it would
15:57be a mistake to say the world
15:59necessarily conforms to the human visual
16:00Spectrum here certain logical principles
16:03like the law of non-contradiction form
16:05the structure we apply to the world in
16:07order to make sense of it not something
16:09like an object or a set of objects on
16:11this view to ask which part of material
16:13reality contains the laws of logic or
16:15where reasons exist is to make a
16:18category error it's a bit like if I
16:19built a Lego house and you asked me in
16:22which brick the house was the house is
16:24not an object in the structure but the
16:26organization of the structure itself
16:29taking this view a materialist can
16:31account for Reasons by saying that they
16:32are not part of the world separate to us
16:35but they form the medium through which
16:36we perceive and experience the world or
16:38the phenomenal world the world of
16:40perceptions it's worth noting here that
16:43Kant himself was certainly not a
16:45materialist and will probably hate his
16:46ideas being used in this way but the
16:48argument is so similar to his work on
16:50the synthetic a priori in the phenomenal
16:52world that it would seem unjust not to
16:53acknowledge Him we could also meld these
16:56two approaches along the lines of the
16:57famed genetic olist Jean P who argued
17:00that the laws of logic were a product of
17:02us abstracting from our environment and
17:05that in turn depended on the particular
17:06way we humans are bound to see the world
17:09given our perceptual and cognitive
17:11apparatus we then have logic because it
17:13is a valuable tool for reliably
17:15predicting future perceptions and
17:17interactions however one common
17:19objection many people have to responses
17:21like this is what I will call the self-
17:23exemption objection that is they say
17:26this attempt to reduce reason down to a
17:28feature of perception uses reason to do
17:30so and so undermines itself so the
17:33materialist goes reason is just a
17:36necessary feature of our cognition and
17:38then the theist responds by saying is
17:40even that argument just a necessary
17:42feature of our cognition when the
17:44materialist affirms that it is the
17:46theist can then say but then the idea
17:48that reason is just a feature of our
17:50cognition is itself just an argument
17:52from within our cognition and can tell
17:54us nothing about anything that is true
17:56outside of our cognitive stance but to
17:59convincingly argue that our cognitive
18:01processes contract truth the materialist
18:03needs to say something about the world
18:04as it actually exists not merely about
18:06unnecessary perceptions or processing of
18:09it otherwise they would concede that
18:11reason does not actually track truth in
18:13the world but simply tracks the
18:14structure we apply to the world in
18:16response the materialist could argue
18:18that this is begging the question in
18:20asking the materialist to step outside
18:22of our perceptions and justify logic
18:24they are asking the very thing the
18:25materialist has just denied as possible
18:28and so assuming that their position is
18:29false at the outset it's also worth
18:31noting that the idea that logic is baked
18:34into our cognitive apparatus does have
18:36some attractive features it makes the
18:38laws of logic objective and non-relative
18:40in the sense that they cannot differ
18:41from person to person and it makes them
18:43stable and predictive because our future
18:45perceptions will always conform with
18:47them ultimately whether you find any of
18:50these responses convincing will depend
18:51on a couple of factors the first is
18:53whether you're happy for reasons
18:55themselves to not be part of the linear
18:57csal chain of beliefs but instead merely
18:59brain states which correspond with those
19:01reasons and the second is whether you're
19:03happy for these laws of logic to be
19:04grounded in either empirical
19:06observations or some necessary component
19:08of our perceptual and sense making
19:10apparatus obviously there is so so much
19:14more to say on every one of these points
19:16but I don't want this video to be hours
19:18long so I will regrettably have to move
19:21on but before I do it's worth noting
19:23that the materialist does have a
19:25counterargument to Lewis which is to say
19:27that if God truly did exist and he
19:29designed our faculties of reason why is
19:32it then that they are sometimes fallible
19:34as any logic student will tell you it is
19:37entirely possible to make very serious
19:39mistakes when doing logical reasoning
19:41but if God exists and is benevolent and
19:44designed both our minds and the world
19:46would we not expect there to be a
19:47perfect fit between the two rather than
19:49the thousands of years of hard work we
19:51have had to undergo to come to our
19:53modern understanding of reason and logic
19:56just some food for thought there but now
19:58I want to discuss a variant on Lewis's
20:00argument from reason which raises
20:02slightly different issues and also
20:04important philosophical questions about
20:06the very nature of
20:08Truth three the argument from Evolution
20:13Charles Darwin's the Origin of Species
20:15is often seen as one of the foundational
20:17texts of modern atheism as its theories
20:19raised questions about the idea that the
20:21complexity of a biological World
20:23necessarily implies the existence of a
20:25designer but recently the philosopher
20:27Alvin planger has argued that Evolution
20:30from natural selection does not make
20:31atheism more likely but actually renders
20:34it incoherent if we take it on Purely
20:36materialist terms this argument starts
20:39with the premise that we have evolved to
20:40maximize the chances of survival and
20:42reproduction well planting a argues
20:45there is no reason to think that
20:46survival and having access to the
20:48capital T metaphysical truth are
20:50necessarily connected and the same holds
20:52for reproduction it could be that a set
20:55of entirely false beliefs about the
20:56world are far more conducive to survival
20:59and so our entire reasoning and
21:00perceptual faculties are not aimed to
21:02trap Truth at all but simply this other
21:05metric that better maximizes the things
21:07that evolution is seeking to use an
21:09agential metaphor thus he thinks that if
21:12we want to hang on to our Common Sense
21:14ideas about truth whereby it exists out
21:16in the world and we have access to it
21:18using our senses and our reason we must
21:20give up materialism we must say that
21:22there is something intrinsic about our
21:24reason that allows it to track truth
21:26that is not accounted for by this
21:28evolutionary picture there are a few
21:31different ways a materialist might
21:32respond to this for example Jerry Fodor
21:35suggests that while an organism as a
21:37whole is selecting for survival and
21:39reproduction it does not follow that
21:41this is all our cognitive faculties in
21:43particular do he uses the comparison of
21:45the heart to say that the heart's
21:47function is to survive and reproduce
21:49misses out a very important part of the
21:51story namely how it does this the heart
21:55helps us to survive and reproduce by
21:58pumping blood around the body this is
22:00its particular task just as the muscle
22:02particular task is to help us move
22:04around and the ey's particular task is
22:06to help us see and how all of these
22:08contribute to the overall goal of
22:10survival and reproduction for Fodor sure
22:12our ability to reason overall job is to
22:15help us survive but it does this through
22:17letting us know what the state of the
22:19world is that is what is true and what
22:21we can deduce from what we already know
22:23is true at the very least He suggests it
22:26needs to be shown how exactly a creature
22:28could have mostly or all false beliefs
22:31and yet still somehow be well suited for
22:33survival after all beliefs are a big
22:36part of what guides behavior and if we
22:38want to successfully interact with the
22:39world that is to achieve our aims of
22:42survival and reproduction we better have
22:44true beliefs about how the world will
22:46respond when we perform certain actions
22:48or to use an example we need to know
22:51where the Tigers actually are because if
22:53they are there they can hurt us as a
22:56side note someone might also take CSP is
22:58view that for all intents and purposes
23:00truth is the idealized end of honest
23:03inquiry in this case it just follows
23:05that our reason and our inquiry is
23:07adapted for truth because truth is
23:09defined by that reason and by that
23:11inquiry though this is also very
23:13controversial because it's an
23:14anti-realist conception of Truth so I'll
23:16let your intuitions diverge on how
23:17sympathetic you are to this but either
23:19way fodor's point still stands if
23:22plantinga says our brain evolve for
23:24survival not truth then Fodor says our
23:27brain evolve for survival through
23:29finding truth it's a fun and creative
23:32switch and then the onus is on the
23:34defender of The evolutionary arguments
23:36to come up with a way of perceiving the
23:37world that is almost entirely false yet
23:40also somehow optimizes for survival and
23:42reproduction I want to note that there
23:44have been attempts to do this and Pla
23:46has even attempted to do this but it is
23:48highly debatable whether any of these
23:50have been successful additionally if we
23:52accept fodor's argument then this also
23:54gives us another solution for Lewis's
23:56initial challenge it provides a
23:58plausible story of how what we call
24:00reasoning came to track truth because
24:02tracking truth helped us to survive at
24:05this point I also think it's worth
24:07asking what exactly the theist means
24:09when they say truth because if there's a
24:11set of beliefs that allow us to
24:13successfully interact with the world and
24:15predict our future perceptions then for
24:17many philosophers this is going to be
24:19something very close to Truth by
24:21separating truth from practicality and
24:23perception entirely the theist is
24:25invoking an idea of truth that is deeply
24:27metaphysical such that even if we were
24:29able to perfectly predict our future
24:31perceptions it is still possible that
24:33all of our beliefs are false at this
24:35point the theist definition of Truth
24:37faces its own concerns namely skeptical
24:40worries if truth can be totally
24:42disconnected from perception and from
24:44our reasoning faculties then regardless
24:46of whether or not God exists the theist
24:48definition has opened up a gap which
24:50allows for a very radical form of
24:52skepticism to creep in for instance on
24:55this view of Truth we Face the
24:57reemergence of cart's demon which can
24:59fool all of our perceptions and
25:01reasoning into US thinking that it is
25:03veritical and preserves truth when in
25:05fact it does not and at this point we
25:07can arguably charge the theist with a
25:09very similar problem as the materialist
25:12just as the materialist may have no
25:13basis for their own reasoning for
25:15materialism the theist then does not
25:17have any basis for their reasoning for
25:19God since in order to get to God they
25:21have to be using a reasoning apparatus
25:23that they admit is potentially totally
25:25unreliable in effect God must then be
25:28ass assumed not argued for but if we're
25:30able to use assumptions to ground our
25:32reasoning then it is unclear that the
25:34atheist is any worse off than the theist
25:36The Atheist can claim the general
25:37veridicality of reason as a grounding
25:39assumption as well which it's worth
25:41noting the theist has to implicitly do
25:43anyway in their argument for God this
25:45Bears a passing resemblance to what's
25:47called dayart Circle but in an arguably
25:50much more serious form I want to note
25:52again here that there are responses for
25:54this this is very much an unfinished
25:55conversation but I bring this up because
25:57I think it does raise a general
25:59difficulty when talking about questions
26:01like what grounds reasoning I would
26:03suggest that any answer to this is
26:05almost certainly going to be circular
26:07because we're going to have to use
26:08reason to get there we have no choice
26:10it's it's the only game in town arguably
26:13the theists idea that truth even can be
26:16totally disconnected from the perceptual
26:18and reasoning apparatus we have puts
26:20them in a similar predicament as the
26:21materialist but I'm not sure we should
26:23be surprised at this I think it's
26:25ultimately going to be circles all the
26:27way down when we're at this level I'm
26:28not sure it's reasonable to expect any
26:31other shapes what do you even do when
26:33you're trying to ground reason apart
26:34from use reason to do it personally I
26:37think it's very likely that the
26:39veridicality of at least some of our
26:41reasoning chains is going to be what
26:42Vicken Stein calls a hinge proposition
26:45something that cannot be coherently
26:47doubted but is also so Bas level that it
26:49can't be justified on the basis of
26:51anything other than itself the
26:53philosopher chrispen Wright has some
26:54really cool work on this if anyone wants
26:56to check it out but lastly I want to
26:58explore an alternative to materialism
27:01which I think is perhaps more plausible
27:03than it's given credit for and one that
27:05leaves atheism perfectly intact because
27:09even if you accept every part of Lewis's
27:11argument the existence of God simply
27:14does not follow from this so let's see
27:18why four
27:21non-materialist Atheism in a recent
27:24video by the underrated YouTube channel
27:26Emerson green he points out that in
27:28modern popular discourse we often use
27:30the terms atheism and materialism as if
27:32they are totally interchangeable Lewis
27:34arguably falls into this trap as well
27:36when He suggests that if his argument
27:38from reason succeeds then this is good
27:40evidence for God's existence in his
27:42video green largely talks about the
27:44examples of non-materialist atheism from
27:46the philosophy of mind but I want to
27:48expand upon this point because there is
27:50a whole world of non-materialist atheism
27:53to explore and a lot of it is far less
27:55ridiculous than you might first think
27:56I'll link Green's video in the
27:57description and I highly recommend that
27:59you check it out first of all let's
28:02define theism because I think the term
28:04can get easily confused for example
28:06atheists often claim that modern theists
28:09are themselves atheists about Zeus Odin
28:11Thor and every other Pagan deity and
28:14that the atheists just believe in one
28:16God fer but I would argue that these
28:18figures are importantly different from
28:20how many modern theists conceive of
28:22their deity particularly in his
28:24philosophical role I'm using the term
28:27modern theism criminally broadly here
28:29because it arguably stretches all the
28:30way back to St Augustine and probably
28:32before then but we'll just have to deal
28:34with that what I'm calling modern theism
28:37tends to largely employ God as a sort of
28:39metaphysical base point for the rest of
28:41reality that is God is necessary Eternal
28:44and his nature defines important
28:47qualities like goodness truth being and
28:49reason he is also agential but in a very
28:52different sense than you or I might call
28:54ourselves agential he has a will but
28:56that will is necessarily determined by
28:58his nature which is fixed he is
29:00considered the end point of all
29:02explanation the thing upon which
29:04everything else is based this makes him
29:06importantly different than say the Greek
29:08pantheon for example in Plato's
29:11philosophy there are Gods but they do
29:13not do any of the grounding work that
29:15modern theism employs God to do these
29:17gods are essentially very powerful very
29:20good people and most ancient Greek
29:22conceptions of God don't even have the
29:24very good part in the Republic Plato
29:27explicitly criti izes the conception
29:29that the gods can commit immoral acts so
29:31that must have been another idea of the
29:33gods that was held in Athens at the time
29:35importantly Plato did not think that the
29:37gods defined goodness but instead were
29:40good because they in turn reflected the
29:42form of the good which was a kind of
29:44metaphysical standard for goodness that
29:46existed non-m materially the form of the
29:49good is not conscious it does not act
29:51and it does not cause anything instead
29:53it is merely the thing in virtue of
29:56which all good things are their thereby
29:58good Plato's philosophy has forms for
30:00all sorts of Concepts like shapes
30:03animals and more but the important thing
30:05here is the explanatory apparatus he
30:07uses he thinks that something cannot be
30:09explained materially but instead of
30:11positing a God he posits a non-conscious
30:14abstract objects in his view gods do not
30:17ground anything but are themselves
30:19grounded in the forms thus in the sense
30:21of theism just described Plato is
30:24essentially an atheist but he is
30:26certainly not a materialist he proposes
30:28the existence of non-agential immaterial
30:31things and has them do the work that
30:33theists often assign to God positing
30:35platonic abstract objects is also
30:38prominent among atheist philosophers of
30:39mathematics for example Wilfred van
30:42Orman Quin which is a brilliant name
30:44posed an indispensability argument for
30:46the existence of abstract mathematical
30:48structures essentially he argued that
30:51since mathematical objects like the real
30:53numbers and the complex numbers are
30:55indispensable to the construction of our
30:56best scientific theory
30:58we should believe in their actual
31:00existence but since we cannot find say
31:03the real number line in the material
31:05world and indeed it would be impossible
31:07to render it physically given that it is
31:09not just infinite but uncountably
31:11infinite then they must exist outside of
31:14our material reality thus Quin was a
31:16platonist about mathematical objects for
31:19the same reason that most people believe
31:20the world before 1800 existed although
31:23No One Alive has directly observed the
31:25world before 1800 our best the theories
31:28about how the world came to be the way
31:29it is rely on existence predating 1800
31:33so we believe in it because it is
31:36indispensable to us if we did not then a
31:39whole host of observations and theories
31:41cease to make sense like carbon dating
31:44or evolution by natural selection in
31:46this way despite having never directly
31:48seen it we all believe in the world
31:51before 1800 Quin suggests that if
31:54mathematics is indispensable to our best
31:56scientific theories then we should
31:57include that the objects of maass Exist
32:00by the same token another important
32:02thing to note here is that Quin is an
32:04atheist he is not saying God is
32:06indispensable to our best scientific
32:07theories just that mathematical objects
32:09are this is a non-materialist atheist
32:12position and if you're not sold on any
32:14of the solutions we've looked at so far
32:16you might be able to solve the argument
32:18from reason in a similar way Lewis is in
32:21effect claiming that reasons are
32:23essential to our best understanding of
32:25the world but that materialism cannot
32:27account for them so materialism must be
32:29false but as an atheist I can accept
32:32every bit of that argument and still not
32:34conclude that God exists I would simply
32:36be an atheist who rejects materialism
32:38there is no necessary connection between
32:41the existence of non-material reasons
32:43and the existence of God just because
32:45God has been used to ground these things
32:47does not mean that his existence is
32:49necessary to ground them we could have a
32:51platonist story about reason and logic
32:54but hang on you might say surely this
32:57hugely inflates our metaphysics and to
32:59an extent you would be right however I
33:01would argue that we only need to posit
33:03quite a thin kind of existence for
33:05logical laws or for reasons to solve
33:07Lewis's problem thin existence is a
33:10philosophical notion where something
33:12exists but does not have many other
33:13qualities or necessarily do all that
33:15much for example if I'm positing the
33:18existence of my desk then this entails
33:20certain things it means that I have a
33:22surface I could potentially put my cup
33:23of tea on or I could carry it and move
33:25it around it implies it has further
33:27physical qualities like solidity shape
33:30and color there is a lot of extra stuff
33:32that comes with the proposition that my
33:33desk exists but this is not necessarily
33:36the case for our non-materialist atheism
33:38because we are positing only what is
33:40strictly necessary to ground the
33:42existence of reason that is plausibly
33:45the mere existence of logical laws that
33:47can be instantiated in the world and
33:49that we can apprehend but this is far
33:51less metaphysics than most forms of
33:53theism it does not imply the existence
33:55of a Supreme Being or even many
33:57properties for the non-material objects
33:59other than that they must be there since
34:01without them reason would not exist we
34:03are sticking just to what Lewis's
34:04argument would directly imply if it is
34:07correct that something non-material is
34:09behind reason and logic and no more than
34:11this it is a sort of aam's raiser
34:14approach if we must have non-material
34:16stuff let's have as little of it as
34:18possible but if it is indispensable then
34:20there is no getting around the fact that
34:22it must exist of course you only need to
34:24appeal to this if you're dissatisfied
34:26with all of the solutions we've already
34:27looked at I think some would argue that
34:29this is an ad hoc response but I
34:31disagree it is merely using an
34:33alternative already well-grounded
34:35philosophical Theory to solve Lewis's
34:37problem without the need to invoke a
34:38deity at all and I wanted to end on this
34:41point to combat a common false dichotomy
34:43that is often drawn in theological
34:45debates online it is often outright
34:47assumed that you either must be a
34:49materialist atheist or you must be a
34:51theist but that there are no
34:52intermediary positions between these two
34:54poles but this is simply not the case
34:58there is an awful lot of room for
34:59non-materialist atheism and in fact a
35:02form of non-materialist atheism is often
35:04very well placed to respond to the
35:05critiques of theists if you are unhappy
35:08with the materialist answers to them by
35:10not acknowledging this we are
35:11discounting a whole range of possible
35:13positions by Fiat for no real reason my
35:17overall point here is that we can
35:19broaden our metaphysical imaginations
35:21somewhat if you are not happy with the
35:23materialist accounts of certain
35:25phenomena like mathematics or reason or
35:27anything else it does not follow that
35:29the thing grounding these must be God
35:31and to ignore this is to conduct the
35:34entire discussion with philosophical
35:36blinkers on but I'd be interested to
35:38know what you think how convincing do
35:40you find the materialist accounts of
35:42reason and what do you think of
35:44non-materialist atheism as an option and
35:47if you want to learn what I think is the
35:49main problem with a lot of arguments for
35:51God then click here to watch me use
35:53David Hume to do just that I hope you
35:55enjoyed this video and have a a
35:57wonderful day

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The Hidden Problem with EVERY Atheist Argument by Unsolicited advice, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,743 words across 998 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.