The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
[PATV] Wednesday, January 9, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 5, Ep. 18: “God Does Not Play Dice”
You have no idea how happy I am you made this episode, as well as the past two. As a science loving Christian, I thank you, thank you, thank you all for braving your audience for this topic. It mean's a great deal to me.
I'm also upset that the large part of the comments were a big flame war, however large discussions aren't necessarily bad and while I didn't take part in the conversation, watching this episode kind of bums me out.
My biggest guff with the last episodes was the definition of faith in games. I felt that Dragon Age did an amazing job dealing with exactly what those abhorrent comments set out to argue: Who the hell is right when it comes to imposing will onto others? Ignorance in any form breeds conflict, because there are always those with drills to attempt to bust through their walls. So while we, the viewer, will attempt to drill and break apart very little bit of your videos, those who impose their will are basically putting up the wall, claiming "These are our best guesses for a solid truth".
So while I can appreciate this episode for attempting to clarify the definitions of exactly what you were trying to say, and oddly attempting to retaliate against those who are putting up bigger, immovable walls, I feel that the main point has been lost, and that is Religion in games is hard. When religion can be redefined for the 'self' at any moment, depending on the self and the experience, the task to incorporate that in a fairly new medium isn't just RISKY, it's invasive and only done properly, so far, in other art forms. Templars killing apostates notwithstanding. Because that shit was deep as hell and it took no faith in my part to think that.
Very well done, the topic does seem to draw enough heat, that the discussion over shadows the topic. One thing though, my "faith in science" is in science itself, not necessarily individual points. My faith, is that at any given point, it is the best, most repeatable explanation of how things work. It takes luck out of it as much as possible. Where the video seems to only point to specific areas, that technically speaking, its impossible to know for sure. On a side note, it was social science/psychology that warmed me up to Religion, that gave me a reason for it to exist. And in the end, if I ever believe, it will be science that finally convinces me. The difference is faith in the study of trying to find the answers, vs faith in an answer given, at least that is where it is, in the few instances science and religion really clash, it seems to me.
Anyway, love the show, always amazingly well done. Not even much of a gamer myself, its just that good.
Oh cripes, here we go with the apologist trying to define "faith" as "everything that isn't solipsism" as some sort of cheap rhetorical ploy, except now it's the narrator and not some slob in the comment section.
Well, okay, the first problem: Like it or not, you completely misrepresented Einstein's quote into something that meant something completely different from its actual meaning, but treated it like that was the full quote in its proper context. Good or bad intent behind it, it's still an abhorrent appeal to authority, and you owe your viewers an apology for treating it like the clinching argument, when it really meant anything BUT that.
Second problem: You still miss the point behind the arguments about science and religion and faith. At its core, Religion is about Faith. Yes, there are some other elements to it, the structure, the names and everything, but it's core purpose is faith.
Science is not about faith. Science is about taking as little 'on faith' as possible, and using that to explore and learn about the universe. Science is about that exploration, but the way you talk about it, it's about the faith in those axioms or in that what we see is true.
What faith that is involved in science is analogous to the hydrogen that makes up the human body. Yes, it's there. Yes, it could not exist without it. Yes, it's foolish to pretend that it's not there. But to go from there and say that the human body is no different from the Sun, because they both rely on hydrogen?
Descarte basically said "I think therefore I am" and that was the only thing you can prove about reality give or take. I don't think that's the point you're trying to make though, is it?
And color blindness as a metaphor for "who's to say your opinion is more valid than mine?". You implied that science is just religion with a different set of starting axioms. That's why everyone was pissed at you.
Axioms are not mystical hand-me-downs. Axioms include things like 1+1=2. Fuck you for saying having "faith" that that is true is the same as believing God separated the waters.
It's true that both science and religion rely on faith, but they differ in how they use and understand it, and that difference is not trivial. Many religions regard faith as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. Good scientists, as the episode mentions, *always acknowledge that they may be proven wrong* -- they value truth over the individual beliefs that they hold.
So if I'm grumpy about religion, it's because I see in it systems that promote irrationality and heap guilt upon those who don't embrace it. It bothered me that neither the previous episode nor this one touched upon that point -- for me, at least, it's crucial.
Just like last time I feel they miss one important aspect of talking about the concept of faith: The definition of what they observe as Faith. At best they explain how it correlates with belief, but belief and faith is not the same thing by definition. I can guess from how they argue faith (as they understand it) works within sience that they mean faith as something we accept as fundementally true, but this is a rather vague and unfufilling understanding compared to some of the more throughout definitions of faith you can find.
I'm not saying they don't have some points (cause they have, especially if you read the commentsection from last episode) but I think this episode would never have been necesary if they had concidered that some people have other definitons of faith than what they where working with and this could have been avoided if they took 5 seconds to give a clear definition of what they defined as 'faith'
TL;DR: They still only vaguely define what they understand with faith and that's troublesome when dealing with a topic like that.
+2
JacobyOHHHHH IT’S A SNAKECreature - SnakeRegistered Userregular
Great episodes, both this one and the last one! I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from re: faith and science (though I'd use the word "trust" instead).
I do have a bit of a problem with one thing you seem to be asserting: That new scientific discoveries completely overturn what has come before.
It would be better to say that our new understanding shows us *where* our previous understanding wasn't fully correct. For example, general relativity (Einstein) shows that classical mechanics (Newton) doesn't work in certain situations (near light speed or high gravity), and gives a better, more general, and (in many ways) more useful explanation of how the universe works, but the methods of classical mechanics still work. (In fact, if you assume speeds much lower than light speed, you can get Newton's equations out of Einstein's.)
Anyway, it's a minor point, but it's something that's bothered me about the way people talk about the history of science. Usually, we're not seeing the world in a completely different way, we're just getting a clearer picture.
Scientist who believe something absolutely and are not open to the possibility of their theory being wrong or ignore evidence to the contrary are bad scientist.
Religious people who believe something absolutely and are not open to the possibility of their religion being wrong or ignore evidence to the contrary are normal
And to the point of people who say religion is not compatible with reason being wrong I would disagree since most religion will reach a point where the logical outcome is that their religion is implausible/impossible and they will reject it.
Also the point about us being unable to be sure of anything (aka we may be in the matrix) is a non starter. We have NO CHOICE but to accept our observation's as true since their is no alternative to living life without them. The religion's of the world do not provide any evidence that can be observed by anyone and that is why they do not deserved to be put on the same level as science.
Sadly good people like you guy's give religion an enormous amount of respect that no other group of people are (or should be) afforded to them.
I think that faith is one of those words that bears almost no common meaning with one person to another.
The concept, process and (possibly) personal journey one has with faith will lead to many, many personal definitions.
What the word faith means to me, will likely have a similar theme but different meaning then another person's definition.
I believe that the idea and concept of faith will always bring such controversy and heat to it's discussion. That it is intrinsic to it's nature that so long as we try to debate the fine print of its meaning, given that it is largely a metaphorical concept.
Tangent: I mean, look at the story of the Tower of Babel. Even the bible has a giant disclaimer not to take the book literally on what is a collection of metaphors.
Maybe some headway might be made in discussion if brand new words/phrases were made to subdivide the concept of faith into smaller, more manageable pieces.
I feel that as it stands, we might as well be speaking separate languages.
I'm happy with the video, but a bit sad that it was necessary. Unfortunately, I don't think that many of the people that need to understand this video will think about it long enough, or be willing to challenge the core of their understandings. It's a frightening prospect. The more research I do in my field, the more I realize that everything we've spent the last century working on, and everything I've learned, is absolutely suspect. More frighteningly, dead wrong. Worse still, these conclusions are influencing massive sectors of the medical and legal systems, and, by extension, government policy. Science doesn't always get to stay safe and theoretical, so it can be hard for some people to admit that: the lives of millions of people, their entire understanding of the world, and the structure of our society, are all based on something that, while substantial, must be willing to tear itself down. Must admit to being inaccurate.
I've also got the sneaking suspicion that people are going to have trouble separating the concepts of faith from religion. Science is about careful observation and deliberate thought. So, if we're going to defend it, then let's employ some of its greatest strengths to help us out. We can't do all the work.
They say: "Hey, the only thing science can prove 100% for certain is that you, the person reading this, exists". And then go on to say that science cannot prove whether or not you are in the matrix. Thanks guys. Thanks for again, trying to belittle the idea of science. Believing that 1+1=2 as the foundation for mathematics doesn't mean that mathematics is just faith in disguise. Just because scientists need to start somewhere other than a blank slate, doesn't mean that you can go around saying science and religion are both founded in faith. That is intentionally misleading.
And yes, they have just proved why faith cannot exist in video games. That's because faith is something people believe without reason. And most people, even religious people, believe in things for reasons at least some of the time.
Science: Trust your observations, but verify.
Faith: Ignore your observations.
I could take it on faith that you guys are just trying to be fair to religion, but anyone who actually observed the most recent videos would have no choice but to think that you are conflating science together with your own ideas.
I believe this whole debate is a conflict of semantics between EC and its viewers.
Merriam-Webster has the following definitions of faith:
1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2) complete trust
3) something that is believed especially with strong conviction
EC seems to be defining and discussing 'faith' as 2), whereas viewers define it mostly as 1) or 3).
When EC conflated faith and science, viewers(such as myself I'll admit) took it to mean that EC was stating that science required 1) or 3). Which is of course wrong, as science requires proof and can be proven wrong.
EC in turn was baffled by why so many of its viewers were denying 2) in science so vehemently. To them the denial of 2) is close-minded. Which it is... if that was what the viewers were arguing. Which it isn't.
So all in all this was a rather messy misunderstanding. While I applaud you EC for at least acknowledging and addressing the debate, I suggest defining your terms better in the future or steer clear of such broad topics such as 'faith' in a 5 minute segment. Gaming is a better topic and I look forward to returning to that.
TopHatPanda on
+1
J. D. MilknutLord of ChipmunksPortland, ORRegistered Userregular
@TopHatPanda No no no! They are using all three definitions. Their point is that at the beginning of all things we hold to be true there are postulates that we cannot prove (1.) but this does not stop us from having a strong conviction in the things we hold to be true such as the existence of electrons or whatnot, or even the effectiveness of the scientific method itself (3.). True these concepts have religious connotations in our culture. EC's point seems to be that they shouldn't have those connotations because faith is so much larger than religion. It's the method by which we hold concepts in our minds and understand literally everything around us.
+2
J. D. MilknutLord of ChipmunksPortland, ORRegistered Userregular
@dickdongler Faith =/= religion. Look up the definition of faith and you'll find EC is completely accurate in the points they make in this video. Incidentally the points they make are entirely in keeping with mainstream scientific and philosophical thought, if that makes any difference to you. In other words, they didn't come up with this stuff. Really smart people who everybody studies in college if they want a philosophy degree came up with it.
The logic is sound and haters are gonna hate! If they still don't like it or complain, that's their problem!
The last few videos resonate with me, especially as a graduate researcher now. I used to think that way too: that there's a "FINAL ANSWER" that we can find just by digging hard and long enough. Yet, we forget that at the most core of all academic work, we build on some basic precepts that are really, really hard to pin down.
And no, the observations and colorblindness thing isn't just some play on the word, or some squirreling of the issue into something simple. It's a good way to show that same "start with faith, then move forward" dynamic that science has. You start with it - that trust that there's validity in what you observe, then move forward.
The Scientific Method as applied in research is full of that: "has it been done in previous literature?" "What have other scientists done?" "What can we use to formulate a hypothesis?" We take on faith that other research, valid and rigorously proven (even if we've never seen it happen ourselves in front of us) is true, and we build on it. That's how science works. It necessitates trust and conviction, much like religion, but its goal is to check on itself.
Religion has that "trust that this is true" and runs with it, but with less a direction and more of "that trusting in your truth sheds light on other things". So it has lore, and mechanics, and they work in sync. It guides people to find answers, and while they won't show up on a Geiger Counter, it might be there. Worse, people use it to "feed" people wrong answers, and that's why it's distrusted by many, but it need not always be "evil".
Thanks EC. I'm excited to get the year started too.
Don't be disheartened by this. I know we are having trouble grasping or discussing the concepts. I know there was a particularly strong reaction to this and your previous videos. It's just part of the larger conflict going on in the world. It also stems from a poor understanding of the root workings of scientific theory, and a sort of reductio ad absurdum of the concepts themselves. BUT, if we're going to discuss faith, then share some of mine in humanity. This is how we work stuff out. Even the most obstinate ponder, especially as evidence mounts. Believe, in part, that we will wonder.
I would like to add a couple things to supplement the video in response to some comments:
Science is not a monolith. Neither is religion.
The scientific process =/= scientific knowledge.
Faith is belief. Axioms are basic postulates. Many axioms are only provable in the systems they create. Outside of that, we rely on belief.
Religion does question itself, it's called theology, and it was once considered high scholarship.
Being validated does not mean you weren't working from faith at some point.
I can guarantee that, at some point, people in the future will all think that we were doddering fools for believing the tripe we do now.
If religious folks never questioned, then we wouldn't have so many different splinter churches
Just because it's not 100% certain doesn't mean it's not workable. We can't 100% evolution by any means, but it's the best we've got and we're damn certain of it. That doesn't diminish it by any amount. Don't fall for that same faulty logic that the "just a theory" opponents did, but in the opposite direction.
I am so happy that you guys at Extra-Credits hold these beliefs and values. I'm a senior in High School and therefore have a very limited classical knowledge despite my free time spent reading as much philosophy as possible. However, given what I do know based upon both my studies and my personal experiences I can say (and have argued in the past) that Science is in-fact faith based. And in the exact why you described. It makes me jolly in all the right ways to find someone who shares in at least a small part of my beliefs and opinions of the world. As someone who is religious (for reasons of personal experience) but also someone who reads quite a lot of literature that effectively attempts to debunk monotheistic beliefs I run into far too many people whose beliefs are "dogmatic." Whether it's Pentecostal Christians or staunch Atheists, I find that all people have a tendency create artificial barriers where they become overly defensive about their beliefs. I guess the reason why I'm writing this, and I suppose the reason why I think it's important to write this inner monologue, is because I think the tendency for people to cling their previous knowledge can be described as basic human nature. The information and theories that have previously made sense to an individual then become safe and comfortable to that individual. The problem with this line of thinking is that it's not necessarily correct. I don't need to elaborate on this any more because you gave plenty of arguments that can relate to this based on your discussion of faith in this video. All-in-all this on-going has no specific place to go other than these last two thoughts. The first being a quote from whom I believe to be Aristotle that helps me set a reference point for how I should hold myself, and how I should accept others opinions. The quote being "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." The second of my final thoughts being; Thank you... from the bottom of my heart thank you. As a youth, with his own problems and thoughts, it means so much to be able to learn about the video-game industry as well as scientific background and beliefs.
PS. I wrote this comment for many reasons among the forefront being that you were disappointed with the last videos comments. I hope that you know how much I value and appreciate these videos. You deserve all my feels.
As much as I like that they did a response, I find it disheartening how they essentially just dismissed all who disagree as "angry and irrational", with no rational debate present.
Apparently they never read the most high-rated comments in the previous comment section, most of which could not be described as anything other than rational, like Titanium Dragon's comment which is one of the highest voted.
But all of these comments seem to be simply ignored, while EC just focused on whatever angry and irrational ones that were, seemingly just so they didn't have to rethink their position whatsoever. I'm disappointed.
And the problem with the Einstein quote, James, is that it was a case of QUOTE-MINING.
Do not try to play it off as a joke.
This is a pretty disgusting abuse of a soapbox, you may as well have made a videos titled "How my girlfriend effects games", "why my girlfriend is awesome", and now "She is not a bitch, you don't know her like I do". There was absolutely *nothing* here about game design in any shape or form, nor was there in the second religion episode.
Those so called "haters" are people who *have* explored religion more than the average believer, there have been studies showing atheists usually have a better knowledge of religion than most religious people. Also, "Faith" is fundamentally the rejection of exploration so it is arrogant and insulting to accuse people who disagree with you of "not exploring enough". Consider the possibility that they might actually be aware of aspects that you are not. Also be aware that it is perfectly natural to overlook the negatives of any person or idea that you are in love with. Anyway, hope to see more of your excellent videos about game design soon.
The thing that bothered me the most with the previous, and even this particular video, is that even if you accept the term "faith" when describing our fundamental acknowledgements in science, it is still has a starkly different connotation than when applied to religion, and quite frankly a totally different definition. Taking it on faith that calculus works is much different than having faith that there is a god. Religion is intensely personal, and good science is absolutely impersonal.
I still think the problem is the PATV misunderstanding that faith to many people is different that hope.
Many scientist hope that their theory is true or believe that it is true based on evidence but one that has faith that their theory is 100% true despite being untested or disproved is less of a scientist because of it.
When a scientific theory is proven wrong they move on, when a religious belief is proven wrong they deny of change parts of the religion.
Also that past about relying of unprovable human observation was while something to think about also has no value in and of itself as our universe only exist in so far as we observe it. The laws of physics have always existed we just did not/do not know enough about them.
Most of the criticism I see of faith and by extension religion seems to have a very bizarre and distorted idea of what faith is.
"Faith begins as an experiment and ends as an experience." - William Ralph Inge
I love this quote because it highlights that the process of faith requires a measure of both trust and questioning that it allows you to experience things that you did not fully grasp before.
I would therefor define Faith (capitol letter) as an Intellectual Intuition that allows the person to move forward with the growth of his understanding in those instances where he does not yet have conclusive proof.
Faith (capitol letter) does not equate to dogma, a belief, or a set of beliefs, neither is it the ability to accept things without proof, and it certainly is not the wildfire of self perpetuating mass stupidity that you paint it as.
Faith is a dear friend to Reason, and not its bitter enemy.
Your position puzzles me. Science does not accept even basic axioms on faith; they had to be proven in some way. They had to match experimental evidence, or make accurate predictions. They had to be falsifiable. If they are proven wrong, they are dropped and new positions are adopted, as you note; but that means, by definition, that they were never accepted on faith; everything in science is provisional. You promote the scientific method, but the scientific method is, in essence, the removal of faith from the process. You make statements that are contradictory. To me, you sound confused.
Your use of the word faith while not exactly inaccurate is misleading. Faith in the religious context is commonly understood to mean belief in absence of evidence which is anathema to science. You could say i have faith that when i wake up tomorrow gravity will still exist. By the same token a religious person has faith that when they pray god hears them.
We may both have our own beliefs but the basis of those beliefs is were the fundamental difference lies.
@dickdongler, you keep saying that 1+1=2. Where is the proof?
Frankly I find these episodes hilarious. Atheists can be very dense sometimes...and really are no better off than the religious extremists they profess to hate so much. Absolute faith in science to ignore everything else. The question is very simple...what causes science? What caused the Big Bang? What causes chemical reactions? Why does Hydrogen bond with Oxygen? What causes the genetic mutations that allow us to evolve.
Maybe there's an answer out there, which is "scientific" and not religious, but there's no proof.
@playest Absence of evidence? Think about the staggering unlikelihood that you should gain consciousness to even be asking these questions. You are a tiny little spec of flesh on a grain of dirt flying through space...a miniscule planet in a miniscule star system, in a miniscule galaxy which is merely a part of a cluster of galaxies, which by itself is utterly insignificant in comparison to a Universe full of them...and it's theoretically possible even our Universe is insignificant when compared to the possibilities. What is the likelihood that I should meet the people I do, and come on here to talk to you, out of billions of people on this planet?
The creation of all existence seems like a lot of evidence to me.
@DukeOfNukes - Except that it is not. Since Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution, science has consistently shown that not only are we not particularly special, we are in fact practically inevitable. Oh, it is highly unlikely that a similar occurrence will be exactly like us, but that is just the anthropic principle rearing its head.
So existence is not evidence for... well, anything really, except that we exist. Further scientific inquiry has determined that existence did indeed have a cause, but that cause was the inevitability of evolution, abiogenesis, and planetary and stellar formation after the big bang, not anything magical.
I've been reading PA for years, and watching Extra Credits since the Gaming Addiction episodes, but I've never had the urge to set up a forum account, let alone post until now.
I personally have found the past two videos to be both even handed and very well articulated. I think they were fantastic, and while this past one may have deviated somewhat from the normal topic of discussion, it was well warranted.
I can only imagine the level of patience it must have taken write and produce a response that didn't result in nuking the board.
I want to propose a little game to anyone having an especially hard time grasping the subject at hand.
It's called, "Why?". It's a fun little game we all played as children, whether you know it or not, but I assure you, your caretakers can attest to it. The goal of the game is to question. Pick any subject. Any subject or material in the known, or unknown universe. Now, ask yourself, Why? Why is that what it is? Why does it do what it does? When you find your answer, ask why the answer is what it is. Just keep asking why. Even when you finally make it to that final, absolute answer, ask why again. And when you get to that final, unanswerable why, then step back, and really look at what your left with.
This episode was brought to you by philosophical skepticism ~ because its not like if there's such a thing as unreasonable doubt.
Your group may be diverse but it apparently doesn't have anyone knowledgeable about Objectivist epistemology who at least considers it worth mentioning.
"Atheism the case against God" has a great part about philosophic skepticism that I'd recommend to you guys.
Knowledge isn't dependent on or requires faith because the postulates are not arbitrary.
Something that I see many of you arguing is EC's use of the term faith. Many of you are basically arguing the connotation of the term faith. This ideology of dissent is summarized well by Caibbor's post and as such I will reference my opposing statements with his post. I'll attempt to make it fairly straight forward and quick.
First: The connotation of a word is largely based on the on it's perspective crowd. This is referenced to Aritotle's use of Ethos and how people bias information based on the speaker and it's audience.
Second: Given the supposition of the first I can say that from the perspective of religious person you are in some way correct. The connotation of the word "faith" is very different to a majority of religious people. However, the base and underlying theme of the word faith is still kept in-tact. What it comes down to is that when you accept something "on faith" you accept it without having full knowledge of the situation. The people at EC are arguing (if you can call it that) that in most cases we won't "know everything" whether that be in science or religion.
Third: You make a point to say that good science is impersonal, I would argue that good theology is also impersonal. Many well respected authors and theologians approach debates with acclaimed scientists with as little suppositions as possible. Or at minimum arguments stem from premises that are widely accepted.
Some very classic examples of Theists that argued from a logical perspective are Socrates, Aristotle, Heidegger, Kant, Jefferson, and a slightly less scientific equivalent though brilliant in his own right would be one of the original Inklings C.S. Lewis.
I also find it impertinent that a comment of Burnswell's be addressed. While I have many issues with your comment over-all something that jumps out at me is what you said here
"Those so called "haters" [People of dissenting opinion] are people who *have* explored religion more than the average believer, there have been studies showing atheists usually have a better knowledge of religion than most religious people."
While your evidence is anecdotal I'll still argue my point. According to the ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey) 73% of people in the U.S. identify themselves as Christians the other 8% that had no religious affiliation practiced other religions. Also consider that unless you are a Romantic of Leibniz proportions you would probably consider a majority of the population "ignorant of their beliefs" as Jefferson so eloquently put it. With this information consider a couple of different sociological perspectives. The two that come to me almost immediately are as such. People are inclined to answer that they are christian on the basis that it was "how they were raised" or because "they agree with certain church doctrines" such as a stance on abortion or some other socially important issue. The other is that humans have a tendency to be agreeable unless they are strongly opposed to an idea. Most strong opposition comes from either a good amount of research or a strong dogmatic belief.
Posts
My biggest guff with the last episodes was the definition of faith in games. I felt that Dragon Age did an amazing job dealing with exactly what those abhorrent comments set out to argue: Who the hell is right when it comes to imposing will onto others? Ignorance in any form breeds conflict, because there are always those with drills to attempt to bust through their walls. So while we, the viewer, will attempt to drill and break apart very little bit of your videos, those who impose their will are basically putting up the wall, claiming "These are our best guesses for a solid truth".
So while I can appreciate this episode for attempting to clarify the definitions of exactly what you were trying to say, and oddly attempting to retaliate against those who are putting up bigger, immovable walls, I feel that the main point has been lost, and that is Religion in games is hard. When religion can be redefined for the 'self' at any moment, depending on the self and the experience, the task to incorporate that in a fairly new medium isn't just RISKY, it's invasive and only done properly, so far, in other art forms. Templars killing apostates notwithstanding. Because that shit was deep as hell and it took no faith in my part to think that.
Anyway, love the show, always amazingly well done. Not even much of a gamer myself, its just that good.
Just very well done.
Well, okay, the first problem: Like it or not, you completely misrepresented Einstein's quote into something that meant something completely different from its actual meaning, but treated it like that was the full quote in its proper context. Good or bad intent behind it, it's still an abhorrent appeal to authority, and you owe your viewers an apology for treating it like the clinching argument, when it really meant anything BUT that.
Second problem: You still miss the point behind the arguments about science and religion and faith. At its core, Religion is about Faith. Yes, there are some other elements to it, the structure, the names and everything, but it's core purpose is faith.
Science is not about faith. Science is about taking as little 'on faith' as possible, and using that to explore and learn about the universe. Science is about that exploration, but the way you talk about it, it's about the faith in those axioms or in that what we see is true.
What faith that is involved in science is analogous to the hydrogen that makes up the human body. Yes, it's there. Yes, it could not exist without it. Yes, it's foolish to pretend that it's not there. But to go from there and say that the human body is no different from the Sun, because they both rely on hydrogen?
Yeah, that's just silly.
And color blindness as a metaphor for "who's to say your opinion is more valid than mine?". You implied that science is just religion with a different set of starting axioms. That's why everyone was pissed at you.
Axioms are not mystical hand-me-downs. Axioms include things like 1+1=2. Fuck you for saying having "faith" that that is true is the same as believing God separated the waters.
So if I'm grumpy about religion, it's because I see in it systems that promote irrationality and heap guilt upon those who don't embrace it. It bothered me that neither the previous episode nor this one touched upon that point -- for me, at least, it's crucial.
I'm not saying they don't have some points (cause they have, especially if you read the commentsection from last episode) but I think this episode would never have been necesary if they had concidered that some people have other definitons of faith than what they where working with and this could have been avoided if they took 5 seconds to give a clear definition of what they defined as 'faith'
TL;DR: They still only vaguely define what they understand with faith and that's troublesome when dealing with a topic like that.
I do have a bit of a problem with one thing you seem to be asserting: That new scientific discoveries completely overturn what has come before.
It would be better to say that our new understanding shows us *where* our previous understanding wasn't fully correct. For example, general relativity (Einstein) shows that classical mechanics (Newton) doesn't work in certain situations (near light speed or high gravity), and gives a better, more general, and (in many ways) more useful explanation of how the universe works, but the methods of classical mechanics still work. (In fact, if you assume speeds much lower than light speed, you can get Newton's equations out of Einstein's.)
Anyway, it's a minor point, but it's something that's bothered me about the way people talk about the history of science. Usually, we're not seeing the world in a completely different way, we're just getting a clearer picture.
Switch: nin.codes/roldford
Religious people who believe something absolutely and are not open to the possibility of their religion being wrong or ignore evidence to the contrary are normal
And to the point of people who say religion is not compatible with reason being wrong I would disagree since most religion will reach a point where the logical outcome is that their religion is implausible/impossible and they will reject it.
Also the point about us being unable to be sure of anything (aka we may be in the matrix) is a non starter. We have NO CHOICE but to accept our observation's as true since their is no alternative to living life without them. The religion's of the world do not provide any evidence that can be observed by anyone and that is why they do not deserved to be put on the same level as science.
Sadly good people like you guy's give religion an enormous amount of respect that no other group of people are (or should be) afforded to them.
The concept, process and (possibly) personal journey one has with faith will lead to many, many personal definitions.
What the word faith means to me, will likely have a similar theme but different meaning then another person's definition.
I believe that the idea and concept of faith will always bring such controversy and heat to it's discussion. That it is intrinsic to it's nature that so long as we try to debate the fine print of its meaning, given that it is largely a metaphorical concept.
Tangent: I mean, look at the story of the Tower of Babel. Even the bible has a giant disclaimer not to take the book literally on what is a collection of metaphors.
Maybe some headway might be made in discussion if brand new words/phrases were made to subdivide the concept of faith into smaller, more manageable pieces.
I feel that as it stands, we might as well be speaking separate languages.
I've also got the sneaking suspicion that people are going to have trouble separating the concepts of faith from religion. Science is about careful observation and deliberate thought. So, if we're going to defend it, then let's employ some of its greatest strengths to help us out. We can't do all the work.
And yes, they have just proved why faith cannot exist in video games. That's because faith is something people believe without reason. And most people, even religious people, believe in things for reasons at least some of the time.
Faith: Ignore your observations.
I could take it on faith that you guys are just trying to be fair to religion, but anyone who actually observed the most recent videos would have no choice but to think that you are conflating science together with your own ideas.
Merriam-Webster has the following definitions of faith:
1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2) complete trust
3) something that is believed especially with strong conviction
EC seems to be defining and discussing 'faith' as 2), whereas viewers define it mostly as 1) or 3).
When EC conflated faith and science, viewers(such as myself I'll admit) took it to mean that EC was stating that science required 1) or 3). Which is of course wrong, as science requires proof and can be proven wrong.
EC in turn was baffled by why so many of its viewers were denying 2) in science so vehemently. To them the denial of 2) is close-minded. Which it is... if that was what the viewers were arguing. Which it isn't.
So all in all this was a rather messy misunderstanding. While I applaud you EC for at least acknowledging and addressing the debate, I suggest defining your terms better in the future or steer clear of such broad topics such as 'faith' in a 5 minute segment. Gaming is a better topic and I look forward to returning to that.
The last few videos resonate with me, especially as a graduate researcher now. I used to think that way too: that there's a "FINAL ANSWER" that we can find just by digging hard and long enough. Yet, we forget that at the most core of all academic work, we build on some basic precepts that are really, really hard to pin down.
And no, the observations and colorblindness thing isn't just some play on the word, or some squirreling of the issue into something simple. It's a good way to show that same "start with faith, then move forward" dynamic that science has. You start with it - that trust that there's validity in what you observe, then move forward.
The Scientific Method as applied in research is full of that: "has it been done in previous literature?" "What have other scientists done?" "What can we use to formulate a hypothesis?" We take on faith that other research, valid and rigorously proven (even if we've never seen it happen ourselves in front of us) is true, and we build on it. That's how science works. It necessitates trust and conviction, much like religion, but its goal is to check on itself.
Religion has that "trust that this is true" and runs with it, but with less a direction and more of "that trusting in your truth sheds light on other things". So it has lore, and mechanics, and they work in sync. It guides people to find answers, and while they won't show up on a Geiger Counter, it might be there. Worse, people use it to "feed" people wrong answers, and that's why it's distrusted by many, but it need not always be "evil".
Thanks EC. I'm excited to get the year started too.
I would like to add a couple things to supplement the video in response to some comments:
Science is not a monolith. Neither is religion.
The scientific process =/= scientific knowledge.
Faith is belief. Axioms are basic postulates. Many axioms are only provable in the systems they create. Outside of that, we rely on belief.
Religion does question itself, it's called theology, and it was once considered high scholarship.
Being validated does not mean you weren't working from faith at some point.
I can guarantee that, at some point, people in the future will all think that we were doddering fools for believing the tripe we do now.
If religious folks never questioned, then we wouldn't have so many different splinter churches
Just because it's not 100% certain doesn't mean it's not workable. We can't 100% evolution by any means, but it's the best we've got and we're damn certain of it. That doesn't diminish it by any amount. Don't fall for that same faulty logic that the "just a theory" opponents did, but in the opposite direction.
PS. I wrote this comment for many reasons among the forefront being that you were disappointed with the last videos comments. I hope that you know how much I value and appreciate these videos. You deserve all my feels.
Apparently they never read the most high-rated comments in the previous comment section, most of which could not be described as anything other than rational, like Titanium Dragon's comment which is one of the highest voted.
But all of these comments seem to be simply ignored, while EC just focused on whatever angry and irrational ones that were, seemingly just so they didn't have to rethink their position whatsoever. I'm disappointed.
And the problem with the Einstein quote, James, is that it was a case of QUOTE-MINING.
Do not try to play it off as a joke.
Those so called "haters" are people who *have* explored religion more than the average believer, there have been studies showing atheists usually have a better knowledge of religion than most religious people. Also, "Faith" is fundamentally the rejection of exploration so it is arrogant and insulting to accuse people who disagree with you of "not exploring enough". Consider the possibility that they might actually be aware of aspects that you are not. Also be aware that it is perfectly natural to overlook the negatives of any person or idea that you are in love with. Anyway, hope to see more of your excellent videos about game design soon.
Many scientist hope that their theory is true or believe that it is true based on evidence but one that has faith that their theory is 100% true despite being untested or disproved is less of a scientist because of it.
When a scientific theory is proven wrong they move on, when a religious belief is proven wrong they deny of change parts of the religion.
Also that past about relying of unprovable human observation was while something to think about also has no value in and of itself as our universe only exist in so far as we observe it. The laws of physics have always existed we just did not/do not know enough about them.
"Faith begins as an experiment and ends as an experience." - William Ralph Inge
I love this quote because it highlights that the process of faith requires a measure of both trust and questioning that it allows you to experience things that you did not fully grasp before.
I would therefor define Faith (capitol letter) as an Intellectual Intuition that allows the person to move forward with the growth of his understanding in those instances where he does not yet have conclusive proof.
Faith (capitol letter) does not equate to dogma, a belief, or a set of beliefs, neither is it the ability to accept things without proof, and it certainly is not the wildfire of self perpetuating mass stupidity that you paint it as.
Faith is a dear friend to Reason, and not its bitter enemy.
We may both have our own beliefs but the basis of those beliefs is were the fundamental difference lies.
Frankly I find these episodes hilarious. Atheists can be very dense sometimes...and really are no better off than the religious extremists they profess to hate so much. Absolute faith in science to ignore everything else. The question is very simple...what causes science? What caused the Big Bang? What causes chemical reactions? Why does Hydrogen bond with Oxygen? What causes the genetic mutations that allow us to evolve.
Maybe there's an answer out there, which is "scientific" and not religious, but there's no proof.
The creation of all existence seems like a lot of evidence to me.
So existence is not evidence for... well, anything really, except that we exist. Further scientific inquiry has determined that existence did indeed have a cause, but that cause was the inevitability of evolution, abiogenesis, and planetary and stellar formation after the big bang, not anything magical.
I personally have found the past two videos to be both even handed and very well articulated. I think they were fantastic, and while this past one may have deviated somewhat from the normal topic of discussion, it was well warranted.
I can only imagine the level of patience it must have taken write and produce a response that didn't result in nuking the board.
Very well done.
It's called, "Why?". It's a fun little game we all played as children, whether you know it or not, but I assure you, your caretakers can attest to it. The goal of the game is to question. Pick any subject. Any subject or material in the known, or unknown universe. Now, ask yourself, Why? Why is that what it is? Why does it do what it does? When you find your answer, ask why the answer is what it is. Just keep asking why. Even when you finally make it to that final, absolute answer, ask why again. And when you get to that final, unanswerable why, then step back, and really look at what your left with.
Think about it.
Your group may be diverse but it apparently doesn't have anyone knowledgeable about Objectivist epistemology who at least considers it worth mentioning.
"Atheism the case against God" has a great part about philosophic skepticism that I'd recommend to you guys.
Knowledge isn't dependent on or requires faith because the postulates are not arbitrary.
First: The connotation of a word is largely based on the on it's perspective crowd. This is referenced to Aritotle's use of Ethos and how people bias information based on the speaker and it's audience.
Second: Given the supposition of the first I can say that from the perspective of religious person you are in some way correct. The connotation of the word "faith" is very different to a majority of religious people. However, the base and underlying theme of the word faith is still kept in-tact. What it comes down to is that when you accept something "on faith" you accept it without having full knowledge of the situation. The people at EC are arguing (if you can call it that) that in most cases we won't "know everything" whether that be in science or religion.
Third: You make a point to say that good science is impersonal, I would argue that good theology is also impersonal. Many well respected authors and theologians approach debates with acclaimed scientists with as little suppositions as possible. Or at minimum arguments stem from premises that are widely accepted.
"Those so called "haters" [People of dissenting opinion] are people who *have* explored religion more than the average believer, there have been studies showing atheists usually have a better knowledge of religion than most religious people."