Analyzing 10 Atheist Slogans w/ Alex O'Connor (@CosmicSkeptic)

In this episode, I sit down, in-person, with Alex O'Connor from @CosmicSkeptic to analyze 10 different slogans that atheists have put forward over the years.

0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:24 #1 There is no evidence
0:09:52 #2 The Kalam doesn't get you all the way to God
0:16:19 #3 If you had been born elsewhere you would not be a Christian
0:30:35 #4 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
0:39:41 #5 Claims are not evidence
0:45:00 #6 Science is the only reliable guide to truth
0:54:10 #7 Atheism is just a lack a belief in God
1:00:30 #8 I just believe in one less god than you do
1:06:12 #9 Evolution disproves God
1:15:50 #10 Who created God?
1:24:25 #11 Questions are not Arguments

---------------------------- FREE STUFF ----------------------------

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[CapturingChristianity]

I've had a lot of time to reflect on the last 30 minutes of the conversation and have some thoughts. First, I was hesitant to even include that section because I think I could have modeled the intellectual virtues a whole lot better. As some have noted in the comments, I came across stiff, robot-like, even defensive. However, instead of cut the clip out, I decided to keep it in as a lesson (to myself and others).

Second, during the editing phase, I realized that I said some pretty cringe stuff (e.g., "how can something represent something if it's not identical?") that I didn't need to to make the point I was attempting to make. For some reason, during the time, I really believed that arguments couldn't even be represented by questions (I no longer think that).

Third, as much as I'd like to say that, as a result of listening back, I now agree with Alex, I still have to say that I don't, at least in one important respect. Even if arguments can be represented by questions, which I'm now happy to grant, it doesn't follow that the two are *identical*. To use Alex's analogy, even if "the suitcase" and "un valise" represent the same thing, that doesn't make those two statements identical; one is English, the other is French. Nor does it make either statement (in either language) identical to a suitcase, a suitcase is a physical object, statements are not. My claim, my slogan, is a claim of identity. Questions are not identical to arguments. So ultimately, I still stand by my slogan.

Fourth, I am happy to agree with Alex that what a question represents can be the thing that ultimately has the most value.

Fifth, why are you still reading this?

Sixth, I think what this clip ultimately does is show the value of doing philosophy slowly. That's another reason to include it. Had I slowed down and stopped to reflect on what Alex was actually saying, I potentially could have realized what I've come to realize now. Philosophy is best done slowly.

[saltoftheegg]

I love how Alex’s youth and extreme polite Britishness clash so beautifully in his speech. “Oh dear, it appears someone’s been dunked upon.”

[mrmaat]

Cameron spent a bunch of money on his “Questions aren’t arguments” T-shirt’s, didn’t he?

[josiahsimeth]

I think Alex has the better case regarding questions vs. arguments. Questions often communicate arguments quite effectively.

[gingrai]

Cosmic skeptic definitely has done his homework and he understands Christianity. His discussion about Universalism and inclusiveism and annihilationism was excellent.

[dannyboi_]

I highly respect this level of conversation on a such a touchy topic.

[anthonymich]

You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

The last bit of the video is a slog. No matter who it is, watching someone in real time avoid thinking about another’s person’s ideas and merely repeat themselves without even the barest engagement is tedious in the least, and often, disheartening.

[ReclusiveAsta]

Alex: "Can you give me that apple?"

Cameron: "''Apple' is just a representation for the apple, it is not identical to the physical apple itself, so no, I cannot give you the 'apple'.

Alex: " You know what I mean, just give me the damn apple!" 😅

[thomasfurr]

I'm a Christian, but I need for Cameron to open up to active listening and see what is said about the t-shirt slogan. Don't be defensive. Accept the sound argument on that point. Change the t-shirt Slightly if necessary. It's ok to be wrong. I love the conversation all the way through.

[TheSandurz]

I think Alex's argument on questions as arguments is right. as soon as it was challenged I knew it was going to end up as a disagreement on language. because I'm a programmer, I like to think of it in terms of programming. in C there's something called a variable and a pointer. a variable is just a label for a specific piece of data saved in memory, and a pointer is the thing the label uses to indicate what bit of data it's representing. for instance, if I have a variable named "i" and had it pointing to an integer with the value "2" i is effectively referencing 2. now, I can also construct a variable "x" and also have it point to the same 2. the variables are distinct as I and x are different variables, but they're pointing at the same piece of memory. Alex was indicating that these questions and arguments are effectively variables pointing at the same state of mind.

[JohnVandivier]

Alex is brilliant and well-mannered. kudos.

[TheOpenCouchPodcast]

I really appreciate Alex being so respectful to Christianity! It honestly allows me to consider his thoughts 💭

[mf_hume]

Regarding the whole "Questions are not Arguments" bit at the end, I think it's worth pointing out other places where questions play a role other than just eliciting information. If you call your wife and tell say "Honey, I'm stuck in traffic. Can you pick up the kids from school?" and then you got home and she hadn't picked up the kids, you'd be rightfully pissed if she retorted that "Questions aren't imperatives." Part of the conversational function of questions in the place of imperatives is to sound nicer and less confrontational. I think often that is what’s happening when someone substitutes a question in place of an argument.

Furthermore, questions and arguments can be linked more or less directly. Perhaps most relevant to this point, questions could *embed* arguments: e.g., “What do you think of the argument [argument]?” Is that question identical to the argument it embeds? No, in the sense that the words and sentence structure aren’t identical. Is it going to play the same conversational role? Yes, exactly the same. I think another way of rephrasing Alex's points from the discussion is to say that questions can *implicitly embed* arguments (whereas in my above example the question *explicitly embeds* the argument). As long as the conversation partner recognizes the implication, a question can serve exactly the same role as an argument.

[CrackingAce]

Cameron saying "I don't know what you mean by thought" is in serious danger of being taken out of context 😂

[vincentsolis]

Cameron is really trying to weasel out of that last question, "questions aren't arguments". He'd earn more respect by just dropping it.

[Sir-Chancelot]

Slogans discussed -

1. There is no evidence - 1:24
2. The Kalaam doesn't get you all the way to God - 9:52
3. If you had been born elsewhere you would not be a Christian - 16:19
4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - 30:35
5. Claims are not evidence - 39:41
6. Science is the only reliable guide to truth - 45:00
7. Atheism is just a lack a belief in God - 54:10
8. I just believe in one less god than you do - 1:00:30
9. Evolution disproves God - 1:06:12
10. Who created God - 1:15:50

[cathyharrop]

In the whole time that Cameron was arguing that "Questions are not arguments" did he present one syllogism? Or did he spend his time asking questions and making assertions?

[skeptic_al]

“It can’t be representative because it’s not the same thing.” WTF?! That’s what it means to be representative. If it was the same it would be the thing, not representative of the thing.
Representative: adj. : Standing for something else

[agusmolfino]

1:50:09 In my mind 'wanting people to think logically' is a charitable interpretation of the slogan 'questions are not arguments' (side note: Alex is very charitable with the apologists. Something I both love and loath about his style of conversation). To me, the slogan comes off as a slightly snide dismissive that insists on the academic construction of all claims. Sort of as a way to shut down common sense and skeptical conversation.

[joebriggs]

If Alex was interested in “destroying” Cameron here…he definitely could have. He was on a different, higher level and Cameron really couldn’t compete.

But I respect Alex because that’s not his intention, he’s a good guy that genuinely wants to have a challenging conversation. He’s going to have to search a little harder for someone on his level though.