A C Grayling - Atheism, Theism and Proof

Рет қаралды 33,731

9 жыл бұрын

On the 15th of January 2015, A C Grayling gave a talk to Exeter University's Atheist, Humanist and Secular Society entitled 'Atheism, Theism and Proof'.
A C Grayling is a prolific philosopher, Vice-President of the British Humanist Association, and Master of the New College of Humanities. Often dubbed the ‘fifth horseman of New Atheism’, Grayling has written widely on the subjects of religion, Humanism, and morality, most recently in ‘The God Argument’.

Пікірлер: 186

@acerovalderas 6 жыл бұрын

Excellent lecture with many pertinent points clarified.

@billbenham4793 8 жыл бұрын

This is a great lecture is full of clarity. I hope lots of people watch it.

@jeffreysegal2065 9 жыл бұрын

Why oh why does the guy with pneumonia always sit right next to the microphone???

@CEJ499 8 жыл бұрын

Exactly - so annoying!

@TheSirmousavi 3 жыл бұрын

Those coughs are annoying on a totally new level these days

@kimbye1 8 жыл бұрын

Brilliant man!

@skyedavies1042 9 жыл бұрын

Woo A.C.Grayling!

@jamesjordan5214 8 жыл бұрын

A rational mind among the irrational rabble.

@rationalsceptic7634 4 жыл бұрын

He would rip WLC apart

@marianross5830 9 жыл бұрын

Oh My Word - the Goatie is most becoming :)

@dontbeamuppet 9 жыл бұрын

Marian Ross His hair is also a wonder to behold. I really resent these people who look good as they age. Depressing.

@philj3167 5 жыл бұрын

Lol. Some of the kids look bored out of their mind. If only they knew how lucky they were to have Grayling speaking with them in person

@zencaser 9 жыл бұрын

I disagree with his definition of "exception proves the rule". It means that an explicit exception defines an implicit rule. A sign that says "No Parking 2 PM - 4 PM", has an exception of 2 - 4 PM, and an implied rule that you *can* park there at other times.

@dna598 9 жыл бұрын

liking the beard

@geoffarsenal 9 жыл бұрын

that hair

@BannorPhil 7 жыл бұрын

Fuck it - seems as if there's an entire chorus of people with respiratory infections! Was there a sudden outbreak of tuberculosis in Exeter, just at this time? Or was Mr Grayling perhaps in the wrong lecture hall, and was actually speaking to the local branch of Smokers Anonymous instead of the Exeter AHSS? Is the air pollution in Exeter SO bad that **everyone** has a cough?

@mikepublic111 8 жыл бұрын

24:43

@satanidentifier 5 жыл бұрын

if you want to know if God exist go to South Africa to AMI misteries and take your research group and see him in your life demonstrate the real power of God that you dont limit your experience if those hypocritical followers

@mikee839 9 жыл бұрын

hey is that really John Laroquette with a faked accent?

@geoden 5 жыл бұрын

If Prof. Grayling had used the microphone he had at the start all would be well. Because he didn't use it the signal to noise ratio was terrible and compounded by the selfish bastard who just kept coughing instead of leaving the room or better yet, simply dying! :)

@Enzo012 9 жыл бұрын

You see I'm not sure if atheism is the same thing as not collecting stamps. It would be more like being a non-feminist then you will disagree with feminism it will be an opposing belief system. Or you could be pro-choice rather than pro-life, you will be something if you are pro-choice as you're going to be defined by what you are not in this case. You can't just say "I'm not anything because I'm just normal" it will depend on what your definition of "normal" is. Atheism/naturalism isn't really all that nice and normal if it accounts for 2% of the Earth's population.

@RationalThinker1859 9 жыл бұрын

Adrian Bingham . The stamp collecting analogy is just an analogy ie. why give a label to a non-event? Pro-choice/pro-life arguments are about opinions, which require a pro-commitment. The point is, why label label a disbelief? Those of us who don't believe that fairies exist don't get called afairyists etc. Nothing to do with "normal".

@Enzo012 9 жыл бұрын

RationalThinker1859 If you don't believe reality is a certain way then you will have to believe reality is something entirely different to the kind of reality you don't believe in. Only animals and very young children can have no belief as they aren't capable of understanding the questions or forming opinions on anything either way.

@RationalThinker1859 9 жыл бұрын

Adrian Bingham Sure. But nothing to do with giving labels to non-beliefs. As I said, the stamp-collecting analogy is there to show how silly it is to label oneself by what they don't do, or something they don't believe. There are millions of things we don't believe; we don't require labels for each and every one of them.

@Enzo012 9 жыл бұрын

RationalThinker1859 If you're not politically say left wing you will have to be something else you can't be literally nothing unless you're either a very young child or an animal, it's one of those kinds of things. Also you will note Grayling isn't standing there and saying literally nothing he does have his own active beliefs on a particular subject.

@RationalThinker1859 9 жыл бұрын

Adrian Bingham I wonder if we are talking about different things. You seem to want to put a label on non-events, or non-positions, or non-beliefs. If you have a political belief that is not left wing, you don't define it by what it isn't (not left wIng) , you define it by what it is (Capitalist, Marxist etc). Grayling doesn't define his beliefs by what they aren't ( "a" this or "a" that... etc), but by what they are (secular, humanist, spiritual etc). Hence the non-stamp collector analogy and the word "atheist". Why label the non-position instead of the position?

@ronaldlindeman6136 9 жыл бұрын

I am an atheist. I don't hold to the idea that atheist is best explained like someone who doesn't collect stamps vs theist as someone who does collect stamps. I use the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as my example. Many people don't realize how much the D of I of Thomas Jefferson uses atheist or near atheist ideas. TJ used nature and nature's god, which is different than Christianity and Christianity's god. I believe in nature's god. Look up lightning rods and Benjamin Franklin. Lightning will kill no matter how much a Christian will pray to the Christian god. TJ says to 'hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.' Self evident truths are different than revealed religion truths. TJ is telling us that these truths came from something other than revealed religion. TJ is telling us about a non revealed religion creator. Christianity is a revealed religion god. and that our rights are from a creator, that is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'. That's exactly different than a god who thinks that every human should be drown in a world wide flood. They are different creators.

@exeterhumaniststudents8610 9 жыл бұрын

Ronald Lindeman Thanks for your comment! When people say things like "I believe in Nature's God", my response is why not just say you believe in nature? In which case, we're not saying anything special. We had a similar question raised I think during our ExeAHS vs ECU (Evangelical Christian Union) debate, that I've linked below. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lctod9uKqcWyZWw.html

@exeterhumaniststudents8610 9 жыл бұрын

Well what your argument does is side-step the debate, redefine the words we're talking about, then pretended that nothing has happened. When I talk about God - and Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. - they tend to mean a God that intervenes in the natural world, for good purposes. But "nature" clearly does neither. It isn't omniscient, nor omnibenevolent, nor omnipotent, nor transcendent, and so on. Nor is nature something to worship - nature after all can't hear our prayers - nor does it care about any sacrifices or rituals. When you talk about God, you don't seem to be talking about a God that has any of the characteristics of a deity. So sure, what you're talking about might exist. But it's just not 'God'.

@ronaldlindeman6136 9 жыл бұрын

psy80195 The phrase I would believe in is nature and nature's god. From D of I of the US. From Thomas Jefferson. The point would be that around 1752, Benjamin Franklin discovered lightning is electricity and soon after invented the lighting rod. around that time, in France they made it illegal to ring the church bells during lightning storms because people got struck by lightning. In the US, some Christians said they would not put on the lightning rod preferring to pray to god to stop the lightning from hitting the church. So sometimes, the whore house and beer hall with lighting rods would be still standing after a lightning storm, but the church would have burned down. I would test the nature and nature's god against the Christian god. Go up in an airplane and those atheist's who believe in nature and nature's god will jump out an airplane with parachutes. Those Christians who believe in the Christian god can jump out of the airplane with just prayer, no parachute. That's nature's god.

@ronaldlindeman6136 9 жыл бұрын

psy80195 This all goes to what did the deists of the 1770's to 1830's thought. They didn't accept the mythical gods of the ancient world, but still had the thought that a god set the world in motion and then didn't have anything to do with it. Which is to say, they didn't have enough knowledge of cosmology to make an educated guess. We still don't have enough knowledge to make anything but guesses. The point would be that most of the people who would have been deists, would then later on be calling themselves atheists. My point would be that the only valid point is whether Deist, Atheist, Humanist or other, the thing that is the same is they don't have the belief in ancient world mythical gods. And I would consider it as TJ's "nature and nature's god" and not to only 'nature's god.' but I wouldn't argue to much about it.

@codyrogers9288 8 жыл бұрын

Jefferson was a Deist. Which explains why he used that wording. He believed that there was a god who created the universe but that he established laws of operating, set them in motion and simply watched it all unfold. It's a very different idea than Christianity, which claims that there is a personal, all knowing, all powerful God who intervenes in the lives of humans, but it is also very different than Atheism.

@gnagyusa 7 жыл бұрын

Dude, stop coughing into the friggin' microphone! You had to ruin it for thousands of people? You couldn't move a couple of seats?

@ThomasCranmer1959 3 жыл бұрын

Ignorance sounds intelligent. Please explain how mathematics evolved from dirt.

@onefodderunit 9 жыл бұрын

Intelligence is the sole creative force. Belief that intelligence is created by matter, and that matter is created by chance, is irrational. Atheistic.

@mikee839 9 жыл бұрын

***** the problem is the word created ....... matter did not create anything ...... matter exists that's it .... that said ...... matter does what matter does under the proper conditions atoms react with each other forming compounds ...... compounds react with other compounds ... blah blah blah...... life arose and eventually intelligence resulted ......... matter made no "intelligent" decision to "create" anything ....... it just did what matter does

@scidso456 8 жыл бұрын

+onefodderunit We don't know how matter arose. Do we? Only the religious claim to know that.

@onefodderunit 8 жыл бұрын

+mike e Atheists believe that matter is creative and is creating intelligence. The only creative force _is_ intelligence.

@onefodderunit 8 жыл бұрын

+F Anom Matter is being created continuously from energy. Atheists irrationally believe this is being caused unintentionally, by chance.

@scidso456 8 жыл бұрын

Atheists don't believe in a god. Intelligence is just a description of individual differences in human cognitive functioning. The two aren't necessarily related at all.

@stephenarcher8929 8 жыл бұрын

ACG brilliant...but a little boring

@tyzer32 7 жыл бұрын

Really? I find his ideas really interesting. Subjective I suppose

@zoltanrex9144 7 жыл бұрын

Bykermann, What do you suggest he should do to entertain you? Maybe he should juggle a few balls or a nice little dance routine?

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

Many professors speak slowly and consise. It allows people to take notes. ______ He's not there to entertain.

@nicholassteel5529 4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately for Grayling the evidence for God is right there in the room standing and giving the lecture....himself....unless of course you believe Grayling himself created himself and all the universe as his house...poor fellow he would be if he had to concentrate on getting his heart to beat while he was speaking...#Wittgenstein would have Grayling thrown out of the room I am sure....

@RobertaPeck 4 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Steel, with eons of time natural selection evolves what "appears " to be consciously designed.

@nicholassteel5529 4 жыл бұрын

roberta peck it appears to you....that’s what you mean.

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

Natural selection means: That a person's child is capable of producing offspring. Nothing more.

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

Scientists determined that the human population reached its limit in 1980. _____ Thus, the earth is over populated with humans.

@toforgetisagem8145 Жыл бұрын

Please show your link between God and prof Grayling standing in the room. I am very interested to know how God created the heart.

@artlessons1 2 жыл бұрын

He is a joke a embarrassment to academia! Read genius like Will Durant a man with great knowledge and not bios .He misses the target with every stone he throws !

@Johanna040713 7 жыл бұрын

I'm a theist, a Christian. I believe that Jesus is the truth. "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10) Jesus rose from the dead! Believe in Him, follow Him. Give Him a chance :)

@TheAlanCulley 6 жыл бұрын

Johanna040713 You really are a very silly person. When God knocked up Jesus's mum, (some serious lovin going on there) Does anyone know where they had the wedding reception? I'm assuming they were wed.(which would make Mary a bigamist) I'm led to believe that God isnt too keen on copulation before marriage. I'm pretty sure this is correct. Otherwise wouldn't the act amount to rape? Silly me. God is quite keen on rape. Lots, and lot's daughters appear to confirm this. Ramen.

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

Everyone is born atheist. Religion has to be taught. Atheism doesn't.

@lourak613 9 жыл бұрын

What a ridiculous and philosophically bankrupt and question begging analogy: "stamp collecting and religious belief"...

@RationalThinker1859 9 жыл бұрын

lourak613 Er, actually it's non-stamp collecting, and the point is about the silly idea of giving a label to something that you don't do.

@lourak613 9 жыл бұрын

RationalThinker1859 Thanks for responding to my comment! Your point is well taken, however, in this context, I don't see that it applies. The claim that G-d does not exist, is a knowledge claim - and as such, needs to be substantiated. Now, when it comes to religion, that has been part and parcel of our civilization for millennia, it is too late, I'm afraid, to be indifferent to the matter. Whether religious impulses are programmed into our DNA (as many evolutionary biologists believe), or have come about as a result of some more amorphous social adaptations, it is a matter that commands our attention. In the face of so many great historical figures' commitment to religious faith, at a minimum, it has to be reckoned with. You can choose belief, disbelief or agnosticism. But indifference is impossible - and claims to indifference are disingenuous in the extreme.

@RationalThinker1859 9 жыл бұрын

lourak613 How do you substantiate the non-existence of something? How do you demonstrate that something is not actually there, or does not exist? Is disbelieving in fairies a knowledge claim? How do you demonstrate that fairies do not exsit? Of course, you can't demonstrate that somnething does not exist. We are all agnostic to fairies in that sense. But this does not immediately jump us to a 50-50 position of equal probability. There is a burden of demonstration on those who make the claims of existence. There is no burden of demonstration on the skeptic; indeed, non-existence is non-demonstrable, so until the evidence demonstrates existence then the default positin is to disbelieve. But this is not a knowledge claim. If we ask " does Thor exist", it is not up to me to demonstrate he doesn't, it's up to the believer to demonstrate he does. Until the demonstration, I disbelieve. I am waiting for the demonstration of all and any other gods. I'm not claiming knowledge, as you suggested though, just doubt.

@CyeOutsider 9 жыл бұрын

lourak613 No really. Its actually just a simple way to explain doing something as opposed to not doing something.

@TBOTSS 7 жыл бұрын

Poor old A.C. Grayling pissed on by both William Lane Craig and Rabbi Rowe.

@TBOTSS 7 жыл бұрын

Craig beat Grayling at the Oxford Union. Sadly Grayling claimed this debate never happened all the way up to the video of the debate being released. The Rabbi Rowe debate is on youtube - judge for yourself.

@KuromixLara 8 жыл бұрын

Same old problem ... atheist constructs his own narrative of religion and its history, and then criticizes it. Really not very good.

@RAREDEATHMETAL 8 жыл бұрын

+rolifantje It's called logical argument, presenting both sides of a discussion and their implications, and arriving at the best conclusion to move forward. The most fluent debaters and speakers don't even have to explain their own conclusions, they make the fallacies in the opposing argument unravel themselves. Self-criticism and even more so - doubt, have been the constant driving factors in the advancement of the human species.

@nobody6497 7 жыл бұрын

i am theist because i know that there is a creator

@gnagyusa 7 жыл бұрын

And, you know this *how?* Have you directly observed this creator, creating things?

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has done extensive research on brainwashing. Parents/adults start brainwashing their children with religion, when they are infants. Prior to them developing cognitive skills to object or opt out. Religion is a means and ways to con, threaten, bully, antagonize, harass and annoy others. Religion is a means and ways of controlling others emotionally, mentally, physically, verbally and financially. _____ Religion is about power and control.

@lourak613 8 жыл бұрын

As usual with Grayling - we are once again treated to merely a thin veneer of philosophical sounding discourse, with a tedious and thought-stopping string of qualifications at every turn of phrase - all with the intent of appearing to present a serious and careful analysis. Sadly, I don't see much content of any consequence here...just when we would expect some kind of unpacking of one of the many epistemological issues that beg for analysis - he seems to not even be aware that such is needed. Quite pathetic, actually...

@DGE123 7 жыл бұрын

so you are both religious believers why not just admit that first then comment next time try to be more forthright

@dianahill5116 Жыл бұрын

Everyone is born atheist. Religion has to be taught. Atheism doesn't.