18:15 "I have no idea how to set my priors, like I don't know how to set the prior probability of different hypotheses" Strongly agree with this! This is one of my main arguments for in-principle agnosticism. I don't think biological and cultural evolution have given us good priors for metaphysical hypotheses like this. Combine skepticism about priors with Oppy's view that none of the arguments on either side are compelling, and you get strong agnosticism.

Your intellectual honesty is admirable and reassuring. The contingencies of believing is such a great point. I say that as a neuroscientist who is maybe too aware of some of those contingencies. Also, NDE reports are some of the most powerful forces that pull me out of my materialistic deterministic views. So many reports’ components can’t be explained by biology or even physics.

For me most of guys who agnostic means they are humble enough to say "I don't know about that"

We share the same position Emerson Green! :)

I personally am an agnostic when it comes to theism simpliciter and an atheist regarding Yahweh and Allah.

prior probability thing was fascinating. maybe it represents a shortcoming of analytic philosophy

Excellent discussion and explanations. I watch a lot of these types of videos, and you have a definite gift. I've always been an agnostic, for the reasons you outline here (though you get credit for articulating these reasons better than I could do it).

Credence in theism: 📈📈📈

This guy needs subtitles. Really hard to understand what is he asking Emerson. But as always was interesting to hear you ❤️

Just finished the video. Loved it. About the hypothesis that this is best of all possible worlds, what do you think of the idea that god could create a whole bunch of different universes, with the majority being less than perfect but still worth creating? If these imperfect but valuable universes vastly outnumbered the perfect universes then we wouldn't expect to find ourselves in the best of all possible worlds. To me it seems arbitrary to assume that an omnipotent god would only ever create one universe and nothing else. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this

There seems to be a profound misunderstanding here by Mr Green and by some of the commenters. Agnosticism is not a weaker or more intellectual or more reasonable form of atheism. They refer to two very different concepts and it is possible to be both at the same time. Agnosticism is about what we know, whereas atheism is about what we believe, or rather do not believe. I prefer not to label myself negatively, in terms of what I do not think or believe because the list of such labels would be never ending and prefer to be called a humanist but, in effect, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not and cannot 'know' there is no God but I do not believe there is.

I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that the universe did not HAVE to be like this. Isn’t it possible that the laws of nature are fixed and there is no other way they “could have been”? Also, I like the multiverse hypothesis better. It seems to have better explanatory value. However, theists could push the goalpost back regarding the multiverse and simply assert that God created the multiverse.

The most decisive break with atheism occurs when one finally groks that there is indeed a supernormal, if not supernatural, aspect of reality--one that cannot be denied or explained away in normal/natural terms. Short of having a personal experience of this aspect of reality, like an NDE, one might read and ponder something like journalist Michael Tymn's book about the most scientifically scrutinized medium of all time, Leonora Piper. It was the years--indeed decades--of such scrutiny that prompted William James and other luminaries of that era to publicly admit that their prior rationalist worldviews were shattered, and that if they were not communicating with dead friends and family members through Mrs. Piper, then something else equally mindblowing was going on. Good for Emerson in his atheism concerning a god who damns most people--even some, even one--to eternal torment, and also in his coming to realize that there are many more morally and intellectually acceptable theologies.

I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.

People should focus on being free thinkers rather than attaching themselves to predefined boxes.

Claim- God exists...I don't believe it, I don't know it. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Mormonism sounds silly not only because of contingent factors about our place of birth and culture, but also because of its dubious origins (to put it mildly) in Joseph Smith. Nothing about Christianity for the preceding 1800 years of Mormonism's creation would cause the believer in Jesus to expect a sudden and drastic shift in theology, ecclesiology, and the rest. Especially not through an institution like the LDS church and a guy like Joseph Smith. Again, it's not just my culture that makes me think this way. The nature of historic Christianity in its monotheism and organic ecclesiology (not counting the divinely ordained papacy the medievals concocted to leverage political power) is far removed from the spirit of LDS theology and historicity.

Are you also agnostic on the claim that Miss Piggy and Kermit are a real couple? If you truly have an open mind, you should go the whole frog ... oops, sorry, I meant to say the whole hog. 🤨

Universalism is not consistent with Christianity if Christianity is based on the scripture though.

Emerson . Do you have an email ?