Cross Examined
Responding to the arguments of Steven Pinker.
Source
How atheists like Steven Pinker make reason impossible?
Similar Posts
#Discomfortable Zone 7: AI intelligence 3, ethics, speeding tickets, and Soylent
Why does the placebo effect work?
Noam Chomsky – Mind, Consciousness, and A.I.
35 thoughts on “How atheists like Steven Pinker make reason impossible?”
Comments are closed.
so turek agrees that the laws are constant and reliable, but pinker cant use them as evidence for materialism because.. reasons. terrible
Is truth predicated on whether our thoughts are natural or something else? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, it is debatable whether it makes a sound or not; but the fact that it fell is true. However, the falling tree is a natural event that was not predicated on whether our thoughts are materialistic or not.
The laws of physics are not always dependable. Sometimes, we find situations when physics acts differently and we must find out why. While you can predict how long it would take an object to hit the ground on Earth using the number 9.8m/s^2, you can't use that number to predict the fall of an object on another planet. Maybe physics works one way in this solar system, but differently in another. You don't know. How can something be so predictable if you don't know if it will work somewhere else? All we know is that physics works where we are and that's all that matters to the average person. That doesn't mean that we have a perfect universe in which everything is predictable.
the difference between Christians and atheists is that one believe in natural stuff, while the other believe in supernatural .
A "moist robot" may seem like an unflattering term for a human, but it doesn't make the thoughts of that "moist robot" incorrect. We can refer to calculators as heartless machines but do we reject their answers? And Turek asks where did the naturalistic laws come from that are so consistent and persistent? The correct response for anyone, including Turek is, "I don't know." Turek claims to have knowledge which he does not possess.
Christianity made the Enlightenment possible, but that doesn't make religion true per se. Turek doesn't know Pinker's work. What he describes is more what Sam Harris says.
There’s an extra space after the word “How” in the title.
The universe had a beginning!
If we are all just the result of an all-powerful being who is capable of making us think things are real when they are not, and is capable of changing our minds for us, then why should we believe anything that we see?
He's just making claims without demonstrable evidence. Hiw tedious and drearily typical.
More presuppositionalist garbage like Matt Slick and his stupidity. The idea that nothing makes sense from an atheist world view is absurd. 1 . Atheist do not have a worldview 2. Saying everything works by Magic is not an explanation and that's what you're doing when you say God did it . 3. Atheist aren't making a truth claim you are, there for you have to prove that you're claim is true.
Here we go with the silly word games and special pleading facilities
Atheist make reasoning impossible? How do you reason with someone who makes decisions influenced by an Invisible man in the sky who made a man out of mud and a woman out of the leftover bones but kicked them out of their home because a talking snake told them to eat a piece of fruit causing the invisible man to impregnate someone else's wife so He could have his own son tortured and killed, and somehow THEY think atheists make reasoning impossible?
If you're an atheist and actually think the enlightenment brought peace then you are absolutely insane beyond measure. The 20th century was responsible for more deaths from secular governments than the past 19 centuries COMBINED. Secularism hasn't been this great success, people today are crappier than ever.
If there is a material world
and if things about that world can be known
What must be added to materialsm such that i can know things about that world?
Your fairytale magic book is not an explanation for the complexity of life on Earth. Your bull buy is just superstitious nonsense.
Natural laws yes , not supernatural explanations, correct .
It's impossible for atheists to know anything ?
Because they don't believe in your invisible Jew god? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Will a theist mind picking up the ball Turek dropped, when he did not substantiate any of the claims he made in this video?
WHY can't atheists know anything?
HOW is this obviously an orderly universe, as opposed to a random one?
The first point is a classic textbook argument from incredulity. The conclusion doesn’t address the premise — why does being a ‘moist robot’ prevent us from believing our thoughts? It’s a bit like saying “if we’re just moist robots then how can anyone play the banjo?” There’s no connect between the assertion and the conclusion, nothing that links the two, other than (presumably) the argument “just because I said so..!”
The second point is actually just a misunderstanding of the concept of how order works in the universe. Order is statistical, determined by probabilities, not constrained by rules. In thermodynamics, for example, entropy happens not because there is some controlling mechanism that forces it to happen, but just because it is highly improbable that it won’t happen. The “laws” that some people think are rigid and imposed, are actually just mathematical probabilities — there’s no physical reason why any given system cannot deny the laws of thermodynamics, it is just massively overwhelmingly enormously vastly unlikely that it will.
Think of it this way: if you tossed a coin a hundred times it is highly unlikely to come up heads every single time — this is not because there is a god who is controlling which way the coin falls, but because statistically there is only one potential outcome that will give you 100 heads, but trillions upon trillions of potential outcomes that won’t (one way to “win” but lots of ways to “fail”.) If you continue to toss the coin, it will tend to grow ever closer to a 50/50 split between heads and tails. This orderly pattern is not because anyone is controlling the coin and MAKING it fall in particular ways just to get a 50/50 split, it is merely because mathematics determines that there are more potential outcomes grouped around the 50/50 mark than elsewhere, and the more coin tosses you do the more biased that position gets.
As far as not being able to know randomness without knowing order — maximum randomness is (mathematically speaking) the state of maximum unpredictability, and likewise maximum order is the state of maximum predictability. So it is a bit meaningless claiming that you can’t have one without the other, because they are opposite ends of the same scale, so obviously neither can be defined without reference to the other. And claiming that God is needed to make this relationship work is a bit like claiming you need God in order to tell left from right, or hot from cold, or light from dark.
👏👏👏👏😀Fantastic answer
How can Atheists overlook how the prophecy element is evidentially relevant. They always go straight to insults and conjecture. I'm personally sick of the smug and arrogant attitude most Atheist have. God help us all.
I don't know why Turek presents this nonsense. Why? We observe that brain damage, drugs, and genetics affect the ability to think in addition to the observation of our making NUMEROUS cognitive errors. I grant that it seems that we can always get to a point wherein we don't know, but the very fact of having ignorance PRECLUDES any claim. So, why insert "God" in to the gaps of our ignorance as opposed to simply acknowledging "We don't know."
Keep uploading so that Christians can be exposed to reason, testing and the absurdity of faith. Allowing a cult leader like Frank an abundant life is wrong.
Is faith a reliable way to come to know that something is true, if anyone can use it for anything?
Frank Turek vs Matt Dillahunty, anyone?
Frank you really need to open a dictionary and learn what atheism means. "Atheism lacks the tools to know anything". Do you lament how your disbelief that coconut is the best flavor of ice cream lacks the tools to know anything? Of course not because your disbelief is one stance on one subject, nothing more. "Atheism is true"? Atheism is defined as the disbelief in gods. Most commonly due to lack of credible evidence for a god. Atheism is valid because you have failed to provide credible evidence to show your god exists.
Steven Pinko; why do these notable atheists subscribe to cultural Marxism?
“Atheism is so senseless.”
Sir Isaac Newton
Moist robots! LOL
I really like his hand movements
Any such knowledge claim like 'There is no evidence for any kind of deity' is, at best, very ignorant. At worst, it is a very dishonest argument.
Ignorance is not something for which anyone should strive to achieve, atheists.
We don't know anything to be 100% true, yes. What's the problem here? Science is ok with this and it is why science always encourage doubts.
Is the universe order and constant? We are spinning around a huge fire ball that is releases much more energy in a single second then we will ever be able to achieve even with all the nukes we have. Not to mention that the sun will turn into a red giant and most likely engulf the Earth with it so not so orderly. And quantam mechanics tends to be random and not constant.
Bad logic by the speaker.
The LAWS of physics are mathematical models invented BY humans to describe our current model of reality.
The laws of logic and reason are basically our fence-posts in various logical model-types which support the most accurate and reliable and consistent models.
These laws are therefore WHOLLY consistent with materialistic methodologies. They even provide methods by which we CAN account for and overcome faulty reasoning and defective perceptions. That's the ENTIRE reason we continue to refine them.
Dunno who the speaker was, but his reasoning was dreadful.
Who is the Compère Apologist?
Aside from the self-defeating statement that Pinker's atheism lacks the tools to know anything 0:51, Turek knows Pinker is wrong because.. there are questions that HE (Turek) cannot answer. 1:10, 1:21, 1:49
There is ZERO proof of a conscious, intelligent "orderer" who actively sustains the universe (and attentively answers the prayers of Christians), in fact evidence points towards a self-sustaining universe without supernatural interference, though the religious cry for interference till they turn blue. And we have evidence that Turek's God and Holy Book are fictitious, and an primitive explanation for the beginnings of the universe (6-day creation), beginnings of mankind (Adam and Eve 6000 years ago) and how the universe is sustained (He has the whole world in his hand).
If he'd rely less on faith and allow himself to think uninfluenced by a disdain of atheists, Turek would notice that Christians do not have a monopoly on tools to obtain knowledge. In fact, if we didn't have the Bible, it could be argued that we'd be farther along in our knowledge of what we are and how we came to be this way. To this very day, the Church protests the idea that we have common ancestors with the other primates, or that we are animals/mammals/primates. Kids come to school thinking Darwin was a spawn of Satan, and they suspect their biology teachers of feeding them only lies. (I was one of these kids)
The Church used to kill, silence or imprison those who disagreed with orthodoxy. Now, it merely influences society through indoctrinated pastors, Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind and Frank Turek. Perhaps that's progress of a kind.
I think Frank is a good guy, who could put his talents towards less digressive ends.