Bret Weinstein Debates Jordan Peterson & Jonathan Pageau on Religion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.พ. 2019
- Segment taken from footage of SFL 2017 | Vancouver , BC
The UBC Free Speech Club proudly Co-hosted SFL 2017. Our speaking guests were Dr. Jordan Peterson. Jonathan Pageau, and Bret Weinstein. Above is a segment where Jonathan engages in a healthy debate with Bret.
SUPPORT THE FSC:
WEBSITE: www.freespeechclub.com
PAYPAL: bit.ly/3aVK621
FACEBOOK: bit.ly/3dfS3k6
TWITTER: bit.ly/2SyuqeL
INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/3c1fQ7p
I can not beleive the moderaror ended the debate there
based
He was afraid that Weinstein was going to be destroyed.
I know lol weinstein completely got refuted it was gonna be much better if he let him respond to that last part in weinsteins very statement his whole argument fell apart.
@@F--B that would be if he was attached to the idea
It ends with Brett claiming that empiricism explains all the moral hierarchies?? It doesn’t explain them at all!!😂😂
Scientific truth cannot tell you what a "better" outcome is or why it is better. Only metaphorical truth can.
Also, contradicting truths from different traditions is an oxymoron. If they contradict, they cannot both be true. Scientific truth cannot parse that since it cannot measure "better" from the contradicting traditions. ONLY metaphorical truth can parse that.
In bret's model they can conflict, because what he calls the metaphor (you're reincarnated vs you go to heaven) conflict while the RESULT (which he asserts is the truth) is the same (we follow ethical norms more fervently)
The problem is that, i think and am not super familiar with him so feel free to correct me, he is implicitly saying that the ethical truth underlying the metaphors is what is "literally" true in a scientific sense (through evolutionary study) and that through the scientific method it is then verifiable. But the metaphors in this model have no such mechanism to parse each other
For him the literal truth is the ultimate truth which underlies the metaphor, but as you said this cannot tell you what is better because you bring that to the table to start with. Which is what bret can't seem to grasp
What I think you are getting as is not what he means when he says metaphorical truth. You're talking about axiomatic beliefs, base values. Things that cannot be derived. These are not metaphors, they're the things that bind reality together
@@papercut7141 I feel very confused from this comment. But I don`t see his point to be honest. Like if two things are both true how can one be more true than the other.
This is like having a married couple. If both spouses are married how can one be more married than the other?!
@@cowboybeboop9420I assume you're talking about weinstein, in which case it's because he's ultimately a hard materialist and believes in a final objective truth "out there" that we can find through scientific study.
The reason metaphorical truths are then "less true" is because, through complex social interactions and darwinian mechanisms (i.e. Blindly), they have arrived at stories which happen to accord with the real, underlying "literal" truth which science can find. So the religious person wanting to get into heaven (literally false belief) will because of this act better and society will hold together more effectively (literally true outcome). So "be good to get to heaven" is rendered literally false, but metaphorically true because it results in the truely good outcome.
Now, why some of these metaphors can then be less true literally but equally or even more true metaphorically (result in equal/better outcomes). If I'm using a gun and check the chamber for a round because I've been told to "treat every gun like it's loaded," even when I know it isn't, this is literally untrue but metaphorically true because it will keep me from accidentally shooting something. Now compare this with another potential metaphor, "check the chamber of every gun before you use it to make sure the gremlin Ahùdrad has not loaded a bullet there to cause mischief." Bret would say this is even less true than the first example, because it's farther from the literal truth, but it's equally true metaphorically because it still has the same result. Maybe even more effective if the people really really believe in gremlins
@@cowboybeboop9420 I think it's something along the lines of for example guns. One of the first rules in training of handling a weapon is to not point it at another person even if you are sure it is not loaded, or, you should always consider a gun as a loaded gun. However, scientifically there is no danger in pointing the weapon on a person if it is technically not loaded.
So it's literally true that an unloaded weapon can't shoot your hunting partner as you aim on him and pull the trigger. But it's methaphorically true that you are an asshole if you do it. Even if you say "I know for a FACT the gun was not loaded when i aimed it at you" that does not make it alright, because in the sense of handling a gun the fact that it was unloaded, even if that fact is scientifically verifiable, can be considered (and is I believe, by sensible people) subordinate to the stated fact of gun rules that you don't aim a weapon on your friend.
There is no such thing as absolute or ultimate truth that is nonsense.
WE NEED A FOLLOW UP ON THIS POINT OF DISCUSSION
Wow I'd love to see that Peterson Pragau vs Weinstein Harris tagteam debate
The more I learn about how deeply saturated with metaphor our language is the more I realize how deeply wrong Weinstein is here
What Bret calls "scientific truth" it's just truth being manifested, truth it's not divided but Bret it's talking as if truth were divided in 2, metaphysical and scientific. Even when the truth has not been manifested yet, it is still the truth. So Bret is basically saying that it is better "seeing and believing" than "not seeing and believing/hoping/having faith".
Faith it's not blind, remember "faith without works is dead" and "you will know them by their fruits", truth has to be manifested or materialized.
Science doesn't tell you how to act in the world, how to treat other people. How to treat yourself. So to say it is the top truth in my eyes, is to Place greater importance on the material world than the subjective world.
But the subjective world is where our Humanity and our conscious and everything we really are in the deepest sense comes from. Science can't reach that place.
That's why I disagree with Brett about science being the top truth.
Science isn’t necessarily truth. It’s our best understanding of reality at a specific point in time. For example science 80 years ago was much different than it is today. it constantly changes views and positions as more data is added ( of course depending on the discipline) In some disciplines such as astrophysics there is a lot of speculation that sometimes gets shoved down our throats as truth
I agree with you.
I wonder if Brett is saying that because he feels it is objective and unbiased.
And why does truth have to tell you how to act? Isn't that a subjective matter?
Hmm..that's assuming we are more than just our bodies and that our subjective experience of self can't be explained by the constitutes of our bodies.
@@ataj585 yes. A subjective or metaphorical or Darwinian or pragmatic or religious truth.
Jordan "Science has an advantage when it comes to comparison that ethical systems don't have, but that doesn't indicate that science is a higher truth."
Brett "my brain is build around some sort of model that makes it hard for me to understand why we could possibly be disagreeing over this."
Jonathan "HAHAHAHA"
Do you guys understand why Jonathan finds this hilarious? It's because Brett's brain model is run on science and it perfectly exemplifies Jordan's argument that he just made. Just because Brett can say that his quantifiable data down below on the hierarchy is true (and Jordan and Jonathan's models require a more subtle comparison), doesn't mean that it instantly jumps to the top of the hierarchy and therefore the discussion is over.
For example, just because the legs of a chair can be proven to support the weight of a person in terms of physics, doesn't mean that this person finds it a comfortable chair to sit on and actually wants to sit down at this place in this moment with these people around him, etc etc. The science here doesn't trump this person's decision to sit down, which is a qualitative decision.
Preach
The virus example turned out to be very relevant during this pandemic and gain of function research.
You end it there!? That guy should be fired!
that much brilliance in one single stage. How wasn't I aware of this encounter until now?
It was just getting good!
How to tell which religion is the right one: experience the world or at least contemplate the meaning of existence through the lens of different religions and see where it leads to.
Your Comment is underrated my friend. I love this comment and its so true👍
Actually, the Torah does put monogamy over multiple wives; it was the human failings of the fallen world plus the many wars/ diseases/ etc that reduced the male population that they chose the latter. But God did indeed create a monogamous marriage.
Exactly. Interesting that a Jew (Weinstein) would get that wrong.
He also was merging apriori morality into his examples of supposedly
purely scientific truth and pretending that he had thus proved that
positivist science was superior to moral or metaphorical truth.
Moral truth is not the same as the details on which the Religions differ but their essence which is compassion/Kindness.
Well, I doubt he studied the Torah, we has -at best- absorbed some of its teachings (and that of the Bible) through his upbringing and surrounding culture.
And I highly doubt as to whether the essence of religions is compassion/kindness. It's clearly not.
But most importantly, he ends stating that science explains all the others 1000 belief systems when it clearly doesn't. Just taking that simple example of monogamy/polygamy, why is having large numbers of sexually frustrated men a problem? That's just an immense pool of potential soldiers to draw from, the Arabs understood it, that is why they encouraged polygamy, they were in a constant state of war, before and after Islam. They do not practice it anymore (or very rarely) for the simple reason that they are no longer in war with other civilizations. Science analyzes. If you want to explain and draw conclusions, you will have to leave the realm of objectivity and thus, of science.
@@aquarius9043 this is bret's problem, he can't see the moral assumptions he's bringing to bear
Therefore, people should worship your god?
@@khanhminhnguyen7274 why do you people always jump straight to this? It's like you're allergic, or perhaps more likely traumatized by evangelical types
Most of us aren't worried about convincing you of believing in whatever, we can just have a normal conversation about what we believe without that baggage
What a ridiculous moderation decision.
"Performative truth" Say what???? "To use a performative expression is not to make a statement but to perform an action."
Scientific truth and "metaphorical" truth as Wienstien calls it can't be compared can they?. This might be a sloppy metaphor, but it's like comparing a lake of water and the jug with which you draw water from the lake to drink and then asking the question, which one is better? They're not in the same category. They work together. To say one is better than the other doesn't really make sense does it?
I'm now 76. I started out in education as hooked on philosophy. The thought that still intrigues me is: quality is the presence or absence of measures of quantity. If there is no quantity of something then HOW can there be a quality? Please explain without obfuscation.
Patrick G. Quantities include qualities as a characteristic of it. Its a subject within that object, as how the whiteness of the milk and its taste both constitute its existence
@@krishnamsdhoni How can a "subject" exist without the presence of quantity? It's still more and less of this and that. More hue/tone, and more sweet/bitter etcetera.
This is silly. “If there is no quantity, how can there be quality?” Really? If you haven’t any, it has no characteristics. Zero. Zilch. Quality is NOT the presence or absence of measures of quantity, but the measurement of characteristics of something that has already been established as having existence, i.e. quantity.
direct experience - a dream - has no quantity and yet has a palpable felt quality
I just want to thank you for an addition to my vocabulary: obfuscation. Heading to a dictionary in a minute, as I have no idea how to answer that question.
What, I subscribe to all three of these guys and didn’t know about this talk
a 1000 year old prophecy that comes true is scientific proof of truth.
Bret is incorrect when he says there is no mechanism for distinguishing between two different traditions of ¨metaphorical truths¨. CS Lewis addresses this in his book, Mere Christianity. CS Lewis argues that every normal person (who does not have a personality disorder, mental illness, or brain damage) has moral inborn intuition that allows for these distinctions and is not rooted in either of the two (or more) competing ¨metaphorical truths¨ (Lewis thinks these truths are literally true and also metaphorically true). His explanation in Mere Christianity is logical and easy to understand. Pageau deploys similar logic in this debate, as does Peterson. (¨a priori moral framework¨)
Ahhhh what kind of fucking ending/interview was that? Every time it started to get into a deeper realm you cut it off. First time watcher, good luck.
Bret is brilliant at understanding this stuff but he didn't really properly address some of the counterarguments. In the specific case where he's accused of accepting the moral framing of having a bunch of roving violent men in a society as "bad", it is not in fact necessary to view such a thing as bad in order to understand why it happens.
The point - as I think he would explain it - is that the societies that develop traditions that cause that society to flourish, grow, and expand are those societies that persist over time, that we are the descendants of. They are the societies that "worked". A society that allows polygeny tends to end up with some high status men pairing up with multiple women. Since the birth rates of men and women in the population are basically equal, 50% of a population is male and 50% is female at birth on average, this will mean that under normal circumstances there will be the same number of male and female adults. If some men can have multiple wives, partners, or whatever, this means there will be fewer women left over for the remaining men, so there will in effect be a "shortage" of women, just using basic math: if there are 100 men and 100 women in a population, for example, and the top 5 of the men each marry 10 women, then there are only 50 women left for the remaining 95 men to fight over. As Bret states, this kind of situation creates groups of men that have a lot of sexual frustration and may turn to violence because they feel society has not treated them fairly. This kind of force - a violent mob, horde, etc. - is very bad for the health of a society. If men are assaulting people, burning down buildings, forming into armed militias to hold people hostage, etc., that imposes a significant cost on the society and limits its ability to flourish and grow. Hence, those societies are less often successful and persistent over hundreds or thousands of years.
What many religions do very well is to encapsulate complicated principles and incentives into easy-to-understand fables that cause societies to function better if people believe they are do. This does not mean we should take their factual claims literally when it comes to describing the nature of reality. My opinion, and I think the opinion of many atheists, is that religion is not only unnecessary to understand the nature of reality, but also makes claims that are unsupported by evidence and in many cases far outside of the plausible. However, I do acknowledge that many people seem to gain an emotional benefit from it and can understand some of its appeal. I would simply feel deeply dishonest if I viewed it as a reliable source for any kind of literal truth. But I have no problem with people following religious practices if it improves their lives, I respect their right to do so as long as they don't try to force it on others.
Fan of all 3 of these men... how did I miss this. -_-)'
Now do you still want watch the Oscars?
Really the debate seemed to be between the pragmatic and the 'moral'...No?
Why do you say so?
Horrible ending. There is no division between religious truth (what Weinstein is calling metaphorical truth) and scientific truth. Both are inextricably linked, and if one or the other were missing you’d find yourself living in an utterly incomprehensible world
Like men can be women and woman can be men?
@G_Ozare haha well said my friend
johnathan pageau won the whole debate in the first minute
Love how JP highlighted the chicken and egg nature of this debate. Science may explain things better, but theories are subject to change from time to time, hopefully progressively better understanding of some specific thing, eg earth going round the sun. But the collection of scientific knowledge doesn't tell us how to behave constructively eg understanding how lightening happens doesn't stop me killing someone who keeps stealing my family's food. Rockets started as fireworks, became super artillery and also took us to the moon. We need an ethical framework AND scientific knowledge to prosper.
Science is not exactly truth. It’s the best understanding of our reality at a specific point in time , it changes as more data is added ...the problem is when science begins to speculate about a certain topic passing it on as truth ...astrophysics is a common offender and paleontology also comes to mind
@@AutotuneSucksBalls Science is not the only way to know, but one among many. It is one which focuses on quantifiable phenomena, I would say (am I wrong here?). So it is not focused on reality, because reality is not a quantifiable phenomena. Thus it has nothing to do with understanding of reality.
I hope it's obvious to you that "best" in your comment, comes not from science, but from some value judgement. What "best" mean there is not obvious to me, but if I would think that science is best in something I would notice that there is more basic understanding of reality that allows me to notice science as best.
Wouldn't that understanding be more important than science itself?
@@AutotuneSucksBalls also you have fly sitting on your avatar
Do Jonathan and Jordan believe truth is the act of valuing? Very postmodern
The issue with secular ethics as Brett describes is it contains a survivorship bias. He claims it wouldn't be a good thing if there was a lot of sidelined males, and even cites the unanimous agreement of the room as evidence.
This isn't self evident at all. It requires so many presuppositions in order to rank it above in the hierarchy compared to its alternatives. Ideas such as it being important than human beings flourish, that the species surviving is more important than the individual, that all lives are equally valid and thus the ideology that saves 100 is better than one that saves 99 etc.
If Brett did this in a room full of people who were nihilistic, misanthropic, anti western etc. He'd find his belief is not popular, and then he'd be forced to contend with the fact that he actually does have a guiding ethic that he refuses to acknowledge that doesn't come from science.
Hence, when rooms full of atheists like Dawkins and Weinstein and Hitchens discuss secular ideology, they have no idea how much heavy lifting religious thinking has done to even give them the luxury of pruning their beliefs. Look at the secular ideology of the Columbine killers or Jonestown.
Not to mention, we are only within a couple of generations from a primarily religious society. It is not obvious at all that in many generations when the Judeo-Christian ideas have become diluted that this rational type approach to moral truths nestled in science will be proliferated and understood as a moral alternative.
Bret speaks English, Jonathan speaks English but it sounds like Swahili to Bret.
Is Scientific Truth superior to Metaphorical Truth?
Pageau and Weinstein at Vancouver. Pageau, his eyes open. Peterson, Pageau, and Weinstein on the ocean.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonouring of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.
Romans 1:18-25
The logos, the word of the universe is the truth, the truth isn’t an it, it is an is and a who, who is living and has always lived, the Godman Christ, God incarnate, begotten of the unbegotten Father who created all things but not the word His son, who was uncreated.
An IS is not an OUGHT, but there are objective facts about means used in reality to try and achieve an OUGHT. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what truth you put at the Apex of the hierarchy, because if you use the wrong methods and strategies in reality to try and achieve your oughts you will make matters worse. Declared Values & morality absent from experience is meaningless, wishful thinking & ignoramus. We “Qualify” wishful thinking into sound values by acting in reality / hence “faith without works is dead”. “The road to hell is paved by good intentions” however Weinstein’s refines this quote by saying it differently…. The road to hell is paved by utilizing the wrong methods and strategy in reality regardless of focusing on the correct hierarchy of truth.
This is what Weinstein means when he argues that science is the mechanism needed in order to determine which methods and strategies are best. Visions, ideas and goals are inside the mind until we act. How are we to achieve our ultimate vision in reality without acting? Therefore, we must choose a method or strategy to achieve our ends.
By acting out our methods in reality a.k.a. “God” gives us feedback and that feedback comes in the form of both negative and positive consequences. Believing in God does not give us objective morality, because the hundreds of millions of other people who also believe in a God argue for a different morality, therefore, still leaving us with moral relativism.
Hey Bret, why should the cooperative survival of the human species be preferable to its extinction?
That is your blind spot where you brought an a-priori moral assumption into science.
"Hey Bret, why should the cooperative survival of the human species be preferable to its extinction?" - because Bret is a human and has skin in the game of survival. He didn't bring a-priori moral assumption into science. He just shared his own moral assumptions. To be blunt, a-priori moral assumption is not at all part of the scientific method. Science in its purest form is completely amoral.
For example, let's assume there is an alien life form, that is sentient, intelligent and also hellbent on eradication of the human species. The destruction of the humanity is on the top of it's moral hierarchy sort of speak. All it's culture is based on the expected extinction of everything human. Moreover, the absence of the human race would give them much needed chance to survive and thrive, so it is necessary for the continuation of their species. All the scientific knowledge, obtained by them thru observing and experimenting with certain phenomena, will be the same as the knowledge obtained by human scientists, provided they use the same tools and techniques, completely independent of the moral or religious framework of each of the species.
@@fuiscklam4087 I think you have not understood me.
1. Yes, Bret has skin in this game, and that is a subjective moral opinion which is not warranted by science proper.
It is indeed an a-priori moral assumption which he unconsciously combines with evolutionary science in order to claim that pure science is superior to metaphysical assumptions.
2. I fully agree with your second point.
Pure science is amoral and would not contain a bias towards human
survival.
Bret's point of view of scientific truth does contain that bias and that is why his argument is flawed.
@@thenowchurch6419 At this point I think maybe we should start using different terminology instead of just the word "truth" to avoid confusion. Too much meanings have been ascribed to this word. Let's put it this way: I think Bret's point is that scientific method provides more accurate factological information (least individually dependent), thus being superior in epistemological sense. All other types of truth (narrative, religious, metaphorical etc) might be of equal validity, or even more valid (the example with the ebola and smalpox combination) in moral sense, but the scientific view provides the most accurate (though probably not perfect) epistemological representation of reality.
Materialism is sense based, sense perception has been disproved again and again because we act on reason and the consequences of it eventually leads to possibilities that are beyond the confination and conditioning of the physical eyes or other senses. Even the idea that senses make you think you want somethint but when you attain you experience discntent is proof of its actual unreliability which is physically appearing to be true but in reality, very false. Like how the sense perception makes people believe they are fine compared to tribals but if we realistically and reasonably look at it, the amount of consumption of sugar a modern office going person takes per year is same size as that of a large bag where as tribals who lived and worked physically on a higher scale consumed the exact amount of sugar from fruits as it was necessary for the body and life style blended accordingly. So yes, sense perception and its appearences that conditions mind to a particular sphere eventually leads to dangerous situations in the name of modernization. The reason is because its not the source nor can it attain balance of functions. Its always focused on abilities, which are both temporary and relative. Its limited and therefore, once universally applied, the mind gets conditioned from its flexibility which leads to exclusivity, dissective seperation from existence and its nature and non growth due to vanity. Its pretty much like a fly getting caught on the spiders net. Physicality encourages constipation of life. If this is about brahmanical, rebirth is exponential multiplication. Its like flower bearing many seeds of its kin. Not one to another. Memory multiplies itself depending on its deeds. And eventually after unification, it attains liberation
The highest important in certain cultures are usually celibacy. And monogamy is subject to gender proportion amongst the population. If many are sages and most of your population is women. Monogany would not be a reasonable ideology considering, its generalized and not specific to the people that mate because partners and their capacity do play a role in formation of their well being. Like if you have five male and females. Four are drunk and bound to be trouble where as the other one male had capacity to take care of all five properly. Can we really generalize subjective situations of rightousness? How the hell is celibacy frustrating anyways? Climbing the mountain is easier without a baggage. Objectives matter
"it works .. bitches "
Science haters!
Bret was confusing himself and every body else.
He was merging apriori morality into his examples of supposedly
purely scientific truth and pretending that he had thus proved that
positivist science was superior to moral or metaphorical truth.
Moral truth is not the same as the details on which the Religions differ but their essence which is compassion/Kindness.
Not this
11:40 "Sticking science in with the rest of it, it's belief system..."
The problem is that every belief system contains some way of gaining knowledge. And science is not a belief system, but such way of gaining knowledge (one among many) that "lives" in some belief systems (and in some - doesn't).
So Bret Weinstein here is ignoring that which supports science. It's like an overabstraction of science, taking it apart from conditions where it may be alive.
Also science is a way of knowing that emerged in a special environment, in special conditions which tells something about such conditions (and about part of them - belief system).
Truth is that what is. That what is, is always changing. This is unchangeble. This is the truth. The truth is a living thing. You cannot know the truth because you are the truth. Because you are that what is. That is a fact. The fact is that you are that what is. That what is is always changing. Truth is alive. Because you are. .V.
Brett’s objection to metaphysical truth according to the existence of differing religions positing different moral systems is Hitchens-tier foolishness. Come on man.
These men are all Darwinists and believe humanity is working towards a singularity. Here is the truth. We are the singularity. The age of aquarius is a return to the love of the source.
Pray Jesus reveals Himself to you all.
Spiritual science is the top hierarchy. It was lost in the age of Pisces but the water bearer will teach the HO condition.
Science put men on the moon. 'Nuff said.
Lol what does that mean 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Science created the Hydrogen bomb. 'Nuff said.
@@johndeschlong591 Yes, another great accomplishment. Keep that in mind if you're conservative.
@@jonmeador8637 science is a great tool to get from point A to point B, but doesn't discern what B ought to be. Or where we should go. Or what the ideal is, or our values, fundamentally. we can harness nuclear energy for good and for evil. we have the scientific tools but the tools cannot be *used* effectively without a framework of what is good and evil. science in a vacuum is materialistically meaningless. why did we not simply nuke our adversaries into oblivion at the first chance which arose ? what I am getting at is the rationality of science is nested in an "irrational" framework of good and evil by which the science is used, which is detached from rationalism. Equality is scientifically nonsense as quite obviously scientifically every human is different, only under the eyes of 'God' are people equal. A strange and *irrational* yet pragmatic idea, no ? religion did not teach to not use tools to create great works or things of utility such as shelter or farming. rather to use the tools for good. from my point of view the "battle" between science and religion is rather futile and is comparing apples to oranges. you can believe in atheism but to ipso facto conclude life is meaningless , and you tread that path naively at your own peril. a lesson we learned from the 20th century , hence the resurrection of spiritualism or religion which we see today. Remember that the very giant whose shoulders you are standing on is predicated on religion, the very laws which western society obeys are directly linked to the ten commandments which were written in stone. written in stone indeed they were because they are still followed today, religiously . without religion could such a civil society be created in order to put so much time into science? poverty is the norm, prosperity is the exception from a Darwinian perspective. Science is simply a tool to look at the world from a materialistic lens, as useful as it is, that is not the lens which you and I look out at the world.
putting metal into space good? it wasn't 'science' that decided putting a man on the moon had value.
I don't know who this Jonathan Pageau guy is, but he should simply have kept his mouth shut. Or maybe abstained from whatever drugs he took before the discussion. Language is supposed to be for communication, not obfuscation.
You should watch a couple of his videos. His background is religious rather than scientific but once you get around the jargon he uses you can pick on a lot of the deeper insights that he has
@@caseyharrington4947 I am sorry, but I am just not that interested in the views of people who are intentionally hiding their simple thoughts behind complicated jargon. If they want to make it hard to understand them, who am I to try anyway?
Don’t let the effort to understand someone else and translate between your and their cultures, language and norms put you off from learning from them and experiencing whatever beauty they can show you. Sometimes the feeling misunderstanding signifies that you’ve bumped into an idea that you didn’t know that you didn’t know
@@caseyharrington4947 And sometimes it's just a weirdo who doesn't know how to communicate.
I am in the happy situation that I can spend an enormous amount of time widening my horizon -- e.g. learning various languages, or looking in depth (i.e. somewhat obsessively) at various episodes in ancient history, archaeology and religion. Preparing new editions of very old books. But some people are obvious time wasters not worth even trying to understand if you are not on drugs.
@@johaquila why do you think being on drugs would help you to understand Pageau?
The Torah opposes polygamy for kings, and since anyone could be God's anointed, everyone should seek to be monogamous. Also, Genesis 2 clearly paints a picture of monogamy, one that Jesus specifically references to condemn divorce.
Where is that exactly, honest question. Because I seem to remember Solomon, the wisest king, having 700 wives and 300 concubines
@@papercut7141 Deuteronomy 17:17 is the verse. Also, the kingdom was split in half as punishment from God for Solomon marrying all those women, and building the high places.
One could interpret that he can marry few women; however, the commands about a priest marrying in Leviticus 21 heavily imply one wife for a priest, and numerous other moral verses refer to marriage in a monogamous way.
Given what happened with David and his sons, then Solomon and his children, because they married multiple women; it's pretty clear they were not supposed to marry more than one wife. Also, other kings even bad ones like Ahab only had one wife.
Some people argue it was due to the fact that the mosaic law was a land covenant between God and the Israelites that the reason God speaks against taking many wives is to prevent inheritance problems. For example, Abraham ran into problems in regard to Ishmael and Isaac, and as I mentioned earlier David with his problems regarding Michal, Bathsheba, Absalom, Tamar, Amnon, Solomon, etc.