In this episode, I speak with Anthony Magnabosco a founder and the current Executive Director of the nonprofit Street Epistemology International, an educational organization that is committed to addressing dysfunction in public and private discourse by encouraging rationality through civil conversation. Anthony has been involved with Street Epistemology since 2013, and has given dozens of talks and workshops at conferences and events domestically and internationally. Many of his conversations have been uploaded to YouTube and demonstrate how Street Epistemology can be applied to a variety of claims including ones that are spiritual, political, or societal.

  • cmoney@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    We make decisions based on our beliefs, ranging from who we vote for to flying airplanes into buildings. Having a method that can let us examine our reasons for holding a belief is worth exploring. Street epistemology is a method of asking someone to explain their reasoning for believing something and letting them come to their own conclusion, so I’m not sure that would be considered proselytizing.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      You’re saying that being atheist makes you more rational and being more rational causes better (more moral) decisions? I have problems with both of those premises.

      Their are perfectly secular reasons to do all the horrible. The Young Turks instituted a new government in what was left of the Ottoman Empire that was explicitly secular. Then they did the crime that coined the term genocide. The least religious country in the world is erasing a culture right now. I’ve watched online secular communities slide into alt-right ideology.

      I’m of the school of thought that believes normative ethics can’t be arrived at or justified with reason. So it doesn’t really follow that reason leads to ethics. Claims like “human life is valuable” or “stealing is wrong” inevitably rely on other normative claims, and trying to burrow down logically on these questions is like a dog chasing it’s tail.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The difference is that those secularists are shitty people in spite of their beliefs not because of them.

        We can draw direct correlations between religion and shitty behavior. Rape and slavery are explicitly ok in the Bible.

        Show me one “atheist text” that says anything even remotely similar. You can’t. There are none. There is no aspect of atheism you can point to and say that thing is bad.

        I can point out something horrible nearly every religion has done and is predicted on the belief that that horrible thing is ok when they do it.

        You just made a huge false equivalency.

        Atheism is not a religion or belief “system”. It is laughing at you when you say you believe in a sky genie.

        No one is saying atheists are better people or can’t be bad people. We are saying religion didn’t make is that way. But that is what religion does.

      • cmoney@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        I haven’t said anything here about being atheist or morality. Street epistemology focuses on the reasons and or decisions that may have led someone to a belief not the actual belief itself. When we try to explain why we really believe something lots of times people come to realize they may not have a good reason to hold a belief. This goal isn’t to change someones.mind on the spot, rather to get someone thinking and to reflect on why they believe something.

          • cmoney@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I get that but, he was saying I said something when in fact I had not, he was either making assumptions or purposely misrepresenting what I was saying.

      • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m of the school of thought that believes normative ethics can’t be arrived at or justified with reason

        So in order to have ethics we have to invent nonsense or believe in it?