Without all that, it’s a philosophy.
Thats a pretty big insult to philosophers. His babbling rant barely approaches a philosophy. In response to the 10 minute video I would say:
He has me up until the “I don’t know what they mean by God”. A pretty standard igtheist stance. But then he qualifies that as a “our two concepts of God are probably not the same” then he loses me. It’s one thing to expect someone to give a coherent answer about the subject in question and not answer it until they properly define things…it’s another thing to discard a question because you both define something differently. Define it and listen to the other person’s definition and if possible work out the differences. It then gets even more silly with the “divinity of Christ”. That isn’t exactly the most ineffable question. Was Jesus the Earthly temporal incarnation/realisation of the creator of the Universe (or something pretty similar)? You can be pretty sure that’s what 99.9% of people and even theologists would define it. He is simply avoiding the question by appealing to the difficulty of agreeing on definitions when in reality it’s not that hard. This is really lazy critical thinking.
But then wait, he defines the divine in a way I have never heard before, misusing the term logos in a way no philosopher or Greek person has ever used (logos) and then talks about some bizarre case of losing something of yourself when you are wrong (he meant change your world view when you admit your belief wasn’t true). What on Earth that has to do with logos…I have no idea and how that directly ties into the divinity of Christ…we have to jump over several chasms with leaps of faiths to arrive there. And sometimes you have to die to admit your are wrong? Do you? Does this infer that God had to become a human and die to admit he was wrong about humanity? Can an all perfect God admit he was wrong? This is a mess and it is only the first minute of the bloody video.
His whole premise of admitting he acts as though something is real, but not claiming it is real, and then defining what he acts as though it is real, in a way nobody else defines it, and then claims he can go along with it…is horrid tortured reasoning that makes no sense. If we apply it to something else it seems absurd:
I act as if the universe speaks to me (we are talking your world view and how you live). Does that mean I believe the universe speaks to me (I would hope so if you route your whole life around it)?
I act as though communism is the best political/economic solution. Does that mean I believe in it? (Is it wise to do this otherwise?)
I act as though the universe was created by three elephants standing on a turtle. Does that mean I believe in the balancing elephants? (You can believe what you want and act as though something is true but in all these cases it comes across as pretty pointless and crazy)
I act as though there is absolutely no meaning to the universe and we live in a cold purposeless indifferent mechanical universe. Does that mean I believe it?
And then at the end of the two minute mark he refers to dying and being reborn as an analogy for real physical transformations.
Really?
I am unaware of any animal that has died and was reborn. Do you know of any?
I am also unaware of any human who has physically transformed into something new because they admit something was wrong. Where do you find that in nature? The only case I know is in a fictional book written 1920 years ago.
After the two minute mark he is so abusing the term logos that I cannot stand listening to any more of his bullshit. He’s an intellectual fraud and
Davis 4 days, 15 hours ago.
Unseen.
