Atheism Requires Justification Too | Graham Oppy

- VIDEO NOTES

Graham Oppy is Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University, CEO of the Australasian Association of Philosophy, Chief Editor of the Australasian Philosophical Review, Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, and serves on the editorial boards of Philo, Philosopher's Compass, Religious Studies, and Sophia. He was elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 2009.

He joins me today to talk about atheism, whether it has a burden of proof, and whether people can be mistaken about the nature of their own beliefs.

- LINKS

- TIMESTAMPS

0:00 Why do you talk about God so much as an atheist?
2:40 How should atheism be defined?
6:42 Do agnostics have a burden of proof?
27:47 How certain do you have to be to not be agnostic?
30:55 Is Jordan Peterson right that beliefs are revealed through behaviour?
35:58 Can people be mistaken about their own beliefs?
44:49 Do atheists “just believe in one less god”?
55:26 What is the biggest mistake theists make?
58:34 What is the most effective argument for God’s existence?
1:02:42 What is the most overrated/underrated argument for God’s existence?
1:05:39 Is atheism always a simpler explanation than theism?
1:16:47 Outro

- SPECIAL THANKS

As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:

John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf

- CONNECT

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

- CONTACT

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

------------------------------------------

[jefcaine]

I love how Graham is so smart, and so well respected - yet also so down to earth and willing to show up in a hoodie for all kinds of podcasts large and small.

[JavHos]

Alex face when oppy said there is no compelling arguments for neither side 🤣

[michaelnewsham]

Love how Alex keeps referring to food inthe fridge, and Graham keeps shifting the reference to beer. Australia rules!

[JacobHawkins-ioij]

I've been waiting for this one, Oppy is not only incredibly knowledgeable and erudite but in my opinion stands out for his serious lack of arrogance and ego

[blakejohnson]

Alex we seriously need you to host/moderate a debate or discussion between Oppy and Craig! Their discussion on the applicability of mathematics was delightful, both stimulating and entertaining. Would love to see these two intellectuals have another interaction publicly

[t.d.]

IT'S FINALLY HERE. OPPY and Alex. I've waited years for this, and it's finally here 😭😭

[Infidelskeptic]

If a juror votes not guilty, it “could” be because he’s convinced that the person is innocent. However, a vote of not guilty could simply mean the juror is not convinced of the accused’s guilt based on the evidence presented. He’s not obligated to believe the accused is innocent just because he’s not convinced he’s guilty. What burden of proof could possibly be expected from a juror who is not convinced of someone’s guilt or innocence?

[masterofkaarsvet]

Wonderful conversation, you really got some new juices out of Dr. Oppy!

[ragnarokfps]

You guys should've talked more about intuitions. There's reasons for why people believe something, whether that's atheism or theism, but I've found that quite often when we get down through the reasons, there's this kindof bedrock place where there just aren't any explicable reasons for having a particular belief. In those cases, it's often described as being an intuition that led someone to a belief, and so I wanted to explore more about what intuitions are and how beliefs can form from intuitions.

[aliraza]

Dr. Oppy is my favourite atheist philosopher. Such a refreshing and original voice in the philosophy of religion.

[daveyofyeshua]

As Christian I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Alex's approach of late is really wonderful to see, as he knows the views well from both sides.

What makes sense to one person won't to another, to which this is how we were all made.

[Frogfish]

This is my favorite interview of yours yet!

[skepticcoach]

He's saying he doesn't believe in Burden of proof and then goes on to explain the burden of proof using different words.

[hhK]

Wow. I should have known better than to start this video when I was going to bed in "10 minutes". Like a book that is impossible to put down, I just couldn't pry myself away. Thank you both.

[RMan]

It's a great pleasure to finally hear from the man on his thought regarding religion and god. It was also a pleasure to work on the translation of his book "Arguing about God" into Bahasa Indonesia recently. I had no idea that the man is so well-received and well-known up until I started working on the translation 😅 I guess, the more I know (?)

[worldpeace]

Alex, the professional of asking questions to keep someone talking interestingly 😊

[mad-official]

This was a great conversation This guy knows what he's talking about.

[fadhilashraf]

The collab we were all waiting for :')

[Censeo]

Love this discussion. Great questions asked. If we contend that we all are limited minds that have loads of ignorance, and also with different ways to map the world, I would say we can find some questions already agreed upon enough. But we still argue cause we simply don't like the POV of the other, meaning the language and emphasis of parts of the other thinker isn't like our own. Here I'm thinking of things like atheism and panentheism. Both agree on the obvious things. The universe exist and minds exist. The exact way of how they interact is if we're being honest so shrouded in mystery today that I don't think one view has leverage over the other. With how much science has been able to improve our lives, there is this physicalism prevalent, where a question about the origin of mental is handwaved as probably a produce of particles. If that should be a serious proposition, then I don't see why panentheism shouldn't be a serious proposition too. Maybe we are too dumb to even have good propositions

[TimCCambridge]

Considering considerations considerately considered, I agree with you.