I loved these debates but felt that they were hollow in totality. Sam had a lack of philisophical awareness about him and gave no ground when speaking about his ridgid factual ideology. Jordan Peterson matched Sam's ridgidity with overspecificity and omniscient levels of detail - in what should have been a topic about faith and love for life. They set the rules and fought a good fight, but the rules didnt allow for any development in either direction.
I feel much of the same. I think, as I said in my first video, that both of their hands were tied to a degree. They both wanted a transcendent Logos to deliver an ethical vision for life - for Harris the Logos is rationality, for Peterson it's the archetypal Christ figure - but for both their Logos is actually from below and it tethers them.
That’s the problem when you know millions of people are watching you and the hyper self-awareness of the modern age. Ego takes over. I could have had a more interesting conversation with either one over a few beers at the pub.
You dismissed Peterson Religion view of God, but you didn't give a one yourself, strictly speaking, Peterson claimed to give definition about God from the cognitive behavioral evolutionary perspective, he didn't rely on the revelation of the Bible, which is for Sam Harris, not an easy worldview to counter, since it shares his worldview common ground in basis of rationality (even in terminology) , I'm Christian myself and I believe in the revelation of Jesus Christ, but that guy (Peterson) is doing a hard job here.
Yes, I may have been a bit harsh on Peterson at that point. His definitions were at least important immaterial realities for which Harris has no explanation - so they are still points against Harris's materialism. But I think JBP still could have scored points against Harris by using orthodox definitions of God (e.g. Source of being, not, as the new atheists imagine, a superbeing within the created order). Such a definition would not have relied strictly on Biblical revelation, it would still have meaningfully countered Harris's reductionism, and it would have the benefit of being an actual definition of *God* and not, as this was, a naming of 'lesser gods' within the created order!
Yes, I do "youtube". :) Gary and I have a few talks on youtube. I have watched some of Jordan Peterson and was aware of these debates with Sam Harris. You have done a great job here in your points and critiques of the two positions and with your selection of sections of the debate. Thank you for taking the time! We have been finding ourselves getting into more "worldview" discussions ourselves and I watch with interest some of the discussions going on these days. So, well done!
Catherine Deddo As I watched the debates I was reminded of the Prodigal Son. There two ways of avoiding the Father's arms, not one. The elder brother also needs to find home!
Peterson is clear and precise in every word he sais. God is an abstract. An idea cultivated over time distanced from the purely momentarily material. Keep working on your attention span, before you word salad someone. It is obnoxious.
Glen, again I appreciate the depth to which you're taking the arguments. There are so many contexts here from which to view. And it sounds like "religion" in some peoples minds isn't the same as "religion" in other's minds. Continue to strive for clarity and truth will always emerge. I don't recall who said it, but I find it to be representative of reality. Unfortunately it can take a great deal of time in the process.
I just finished watching all five videos and thank you for them all! These topics will always come up and should because sometimes in my Christian bubble I forget why people believe what they do and these vids gave me a full view of the landscape of those who would rather do away with the God options. Keep up the good work!
It seems like we are in a competition over values as a species. In regards to morality/ethics we evaluate whether an action/behavior is good or bad. Or right or wrong, moral or immoral, whatever terminology you are most comfortable with. We evaluate the action with respect to a value/goal. If an Atheist (such as myself) has different values than you do (as a Christian) we are never going to agree on morality/ethics because we have different values. Which seems to lend credence to the idea that morality is ultimately subjective. But we "act" as if though it's objective in regards to our specific values/goals. Now, if we are in a competition over values in the marketplace of ideas, I can't make sense of "Christian values." Whereas secular values such as well being, survival, flourishing, humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility, evaluating consequences of actions, scientific inquiry, technology, etc. I can make sense of. I can see the demonstrable positive impact that they have on society. We can both point to those values and observe how they have benefit to society. You cant point to God, Jesus, an afterlife, the supernatural, Heaven/Hell, etc. to me. You may claim that, "oh I share many of those same values that you share as well." Great, but I simply see those as "Human Values." Not "Christian values," or "Jewish values," or "Hindu values," or "Buddhist values," they are just human values. Why? Because they are not unique to Christianity, and are values that can be held by people from all over the world from different cultures/religions. Nor do they originate with Christianity either. You're never going to unite humanity through religion. Why? Because religion by definition is exclusionary, especially Christianity. It says, if you don't accept/value Jesus Christ, there is something wrong with you and you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, unless you accept him as your Lord and Savior. Now, you may not word it that way, but that is the crux of Christianity if you take the Bible seriously. It is divisive whether you like it or not. Whereas REASON, for example much like mathematics, is not subjective. There isn't "Christian reason," or "Jewish reason," or "Atheist reason," or "Buddhist reason," etc. There is just human reason. It's not Sam Harris' fault if religious people and non religious people alike don't value reason, and therefore take the easy route of subscribing to a pre packaged belief system or religion that tells you what to think. I agree with you, you're never going to get everyone to leave their religion in favor of a secular based system of ethics incorporating reason. But you can't honestly tell me that all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and yes even Atheists are using REASON to its fullest extent? If humans were to actually embrace more reason in their lives than they do now, there wouldn't be as many religions on planet Earth. Why? Because reason would have weeded them out. I mean, you probably agree with me in that you used your reason to reject all the other gods/religions that you don't believe in. Am I correct?
Thanks Cameron. There's a lot in there. First of all disagreement over ethical systems does not entail subjectivity. People disagree over many matters of fact, it doesn't mean there's no right answer. But to address your main point... You have a very high view of "humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility" and so on. That's excellent, so do I. But what do you notice about all these values? They are immaterial. And they cannot be derived from the material world. If you admit to "REASON" as an objective reality (perhaps even a supreme value?) then I don't see how you can hold onto materialism. Materialism says that matter in motion is all there is. I don't see how you get to REASON and equality and all the rest of it from those foundations. You have to take such values as axiomatic in order to proceed. I have no problem with that as a Christian. I think there is a Logos (a supreme rationality to the cosmos which enlightens all people (John 1:1,9). I think there is intrinsic moral value granted to humans as such (Gen. 1:26-28). I think there really is truth and there really is freedom (which is vital if you want to avoid the determinism that corrodes those moral categories you've highlighted, John 8:32). In short, secular humanism is an incredibly *Christian* enterprise (as Nietzsche saw and thus he despised humanism almost as much as Christianity). It seems to me you want to ditch God and hold onto 'the good'. I don't think that's possible. You finish with a question about whether I acknowledge reason as some kind of supreme value. Of course I do. I'm a Christian and I believe in the Logos. What I don't understand is why you see reason as some kind of adjudicating principle. Why should my two pounds of grey matter be any good at determining the truth of reality if it is *simply* the product of time and chance in the struggle for survival. Valuing 'survival' is not at all the same as valuing 'truth'. So why do you prize such immaterial values as minds, maths, meaning and morals?
@@SpeakLifeMedia First of all disagreement over ethical systems does not entail subjectivity. People disagree over many matters of fact, it doesn't mean there's no right answer. I agree with you. We can both recognize that murder is wrong, but for completely different reasons, based on our values. You would address the situation based upon your religious beliefs. I would address the situation based upon human well being, secular humanism, consequentialism or something along those lines. But to address your main point... You have a very high view of "humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility" and so on. That's excellent, so do I. But what do you notice about all these values? They are immaterial. Wrong. Values are not immaterial. Values are foundational beliefs that you deem as important based upon their merit, usefulness, and to serve as guiding principles to determine what is right or wrong. Beliefs by definition are a product of the mind. A mind is an emergent property of information processing in the brain. Nope, not immaterial. And they cannot be derived from the material world. Correct, values are not "out there" in the objective empirical world. They only exist in a subject's mind. Granted, we can learn things about the natural world that can shape our values. For example, based upon an understanding of reality, we are physical beings, living in a physical universe, that is governed by physical laws. And as such, our actions have physical consequences. If you admit to "REASON" as an objective reality (perhaps even a supreme value?) then I don't see how you can hold onto materialism. I don't see REASON as an objective reality (not quite sure what you mean by that.) I see reason as a process to come to true conclusions about reality. I'm a materialist simply based upon the fact that I see no evidence for anything immaterial. Science operates under methodological naturalism and is unable to detect supernatural causation. I see no pathway as to how anyone can demonstrate anything immaterial. Materialism says that matter in motion is all there is. Wrong. That would be philosophical naturalism, which is the philosophy that says only the material/natural world exists. I'm a methodological naturalist which is the philosophy that says that we are blocked from detecting supernatural causation for events even if the supernatural did exist. But science can only detect material/natural causes, so I see no pathway to the immaterial. You may see no distinction between these two philosophies, but the difference is, one is asserting that the natural world is all that exists, (a positive claim.) The other one is simply recognizing the limitations to our understanding of physics. I don't see how you get to REASON and equality and all the rest of it from those foundations. I already explained how I account for reason as a process. Reason involves an understanding of logic, logical fallacies, epistemology, ontology, scientific inquiry, empirical data, critical thinking, recognizing the limitations of human thought, and many other tools. The values are deduced from our experience in the natural world and our interaction with others. Through long periods of observation, trial and error, pragmatism, having to coexist with one another, we can then figure out which values are most useful, important, advantageous, etc. Useful in regards to what? Our survival, success, prosperity, well being, minimizing pain and suffering, flourishing, cooperation, yada yada yada. You have to take such values as axiomatic in order to proceed. I have no problem with that as a Christian. I don't take such values as axiomatic. I simply recognize they are in my best interest. If I don't care about other people's survival, safety, security, well being, they are not going to care about mine. It's simply reciprocal altruism. In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. We can observe this in chimps, gorillas, capuchins, and many other social species. They have no knowledge of any God, morals, ethics, etc. What's your explanation for them? What's your explanation for dogs who love their masters and can't wait until they get home? A dog can clearly experience the emotion of love, but has no concept of a God or religion. But we have plenty of social constraints built into society without any need for a God. For example, let's say I valued stealing. I could go rob a bank, but I would probably get caught, spend time in prison and once I got out, I would be distrusted. I would be socially ostracized. I would have a hard time finding a job, making money, making friends, gaining the trust of others, etc. Valuing stealing would therefore not be in my best interest. None of this involves a sky daddy to ensure peace and order in society. Of course you are going to have the individuals who don't care about the repercussions of stealing and how it affects others. Those people are the anomalies, and are probably sociopathic. They have sacrificed their moral integrity and humanity in favor of complete sadistic selfishness. I think there is a Logos (a supreme rationality to the cosmos which enlightens all people (John 1:1,9). I think there is intrinsic moral value granted to humans as such (Gen. 1:26-28). I think there really is truth and there really is freedom (which is vital if you want to avoid the determinism that corrodes those moral categories you've highlighted, John 8:32). This is exactly where Sam Harris said you would be "Jesus smuggling." I was a Christian for 20 years of my life, you're not telling me anything that I haven't already heard before. I don't care about your subjective interpretation of passages in the Bible anymore than you care about a Muslim's subjective interpretation of the Quran, or a Hindu's subjective interpretation of the Vedas, or a Buddhist's subjective interpretation of the Sutras, or a Mormon's subjective interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, I'm not interested in Bible study. I want explanations, not prosyletizations. In short, secular humanism is an incredibly Christian enterprise (as Nietzsche saw and thus he despised humanism almost as much as Christianity). I don't see how it's a Christian enterprise when it is secular and humanism? Neither of which have anything to do with Christianity. It seems to me you want to ditch God and hold onto 'the good'. No, you haven't demonstrated that "the Good" has anything to do with God. It's actually the other way around. Do you own slaves? Do you condemn and stone homosexuals to death? Do you subjugate women? Do you stone women to death on their father's doorstep if they were not a virgin on their wedding day? Do you force women to get an abortion if they became pregnant outside of marriage? Do you tell your children they have inherited the sins of their ancestors? Do you stone unruly children to death? Of course you don't do any of those things. You know why? Because you have rejected the values and commandments of the Bible in favor of a secular reason based morality. You criticize me for not having a moral foundation while you shit all over your Holy Book by making yourself the authority over how it should be interpreted, not God. If you're a Christian, you don't get to pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible. You give me these verses that you falsely believe justify your ethics while simultaneously rejecting the bits endorsing slavery, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, violence, raping an pillaging, condemning homosexuals, etc. How utterly dishonest of you. You don't think Jesus will see right through this little hermaneutical game you're playing? I don't think that's possible. You finish with a question about whether I acknowledge reason as some kind of supreme value. Of course I do. I'm a Christian and I believe in the Logos. What I don't understand is why you see reason as some kind of adjudicating principle. Why should my two pounds of grey matter be any good at determining the truth of reality if it is simply the product of time and chance in the struggle for survival. Because you can use your two pounds of grey matter to reliably obtain effective results. If you couldn't, you would be dead by now. As your mental faculties would not have given you an accurate interpretation of reality. Valuing 'survival' is not at all the same as valuing 'truth'. So why do you prize such immaterial values as minds, maths, meaning and morals? Your whole problem is you think "minds" are an immaterial thing, and therefore the values that come with it are immaterial as well. As far as we can tell the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Have you ever seen a mind without a brain? Have you ever seen thoughts apart from a brain? Everything about you, your identity, personality, behavior, emotions, memory, motor skills, critical thinking skills, can be fundamentally changed as a result of brain trauma. If you believe the mind is something immaterial interfacing with the brain, these things should not change, but they do. How can your personality lift off the brain at death completely intact, but not seem to remain the same as a result of brain trauma? Mental states are just a label we use for brain states. There is no distinction. So I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that a mind is immaterial. Do you have any peer reviewed sources for that claim?
@@cameron339 Damn Cameron... You didn't have to do him like that... I mean, a complete Mic Drop... Now I see why he never replied back to this... Well broken down and explained.
I find it ironic that you slam Harris for being biased when you clearly have a massive bias against him from the start of the video. Perhaps because he’s against religion and you stated that you’re Christian. If you know anything about Sam then you’d realize it’s very disingenuous to say that he and his friends want to wear the robes. Are you suggesting he’s power hungry? I think he’s the exact opposite. The man is striving for a world based on reason, which seems to be the only hope for society at this point.
It sounds like your the one with the bias, I didn't like how he dismissed Jordan Peterson either but I'm not getting the world is ending butt hurt about it
Sam Harris should hire an artificial intelligence service (from the future, preferably) to assess his numerous biases. It is hard to even start a debate with someone who praises reason above all even though scientifically we are far from understanding it. He should write a paper explaining how our cognitive functions and consciousness interact with the world by filtering all the input (facts) in order to reach a "reasonably right (by what standards?)" result. I think not even A.I. is up to the standards he puts our reason capabilities. A.I. services so far only guarantee a percentage of probable correct result, even after being trained by, guess what, our human intellect abilities (and biases). To me he just created, the possibility of using, a new term: Scientific Dogma!
It's funny how "word salad" has really emerged as a badge of community membership. :)
I shouldn't throw stones. I'm a man more sinning than sinned against in this regard.
I loved these debates but felt that they were hollow in totality. Sam had a lack of philisophical awareness about him and gave no ground when speaking about his ridgid factual ideology. Jordan Peterson matched Sam's ridgidity with overspecificity and omniscient levels of detail - in what should have been a topic about faith and love for life.
They set the rules and fought a good fight, but the rules didnt allow for any development in either direction.
I feel much of the same. I think, as I said in my first video, that both of their hands were tied to a degree. They both wanted a transcendent Logos to deliver an ethical vision for life - for Harris the Logos is rationality, for Peterson it's the archetypal Christ figure - but for both their Logos is actually from below and it tethers them.
That’s the problem when you know millions of people are watching you and the hyper self-awareness of the modern age. Ego takes over. I could have had a more interesting conversation with either one over a few beers at the pub.
You dismissed Peterson Religion view of God, but you didn't give a one yourself, strictly speaking, Peterson claimed to give definition about God from the cognitive behavioral evolutionary perspective, he didn't rely on the revelation of the Bible, which is for Sam Harris, not an easy worldview to counter, since it shares his worldview common ground in basis of rationality (even in terminology) , I'm Christian myself and I believe in the revelation of Jesus Christ, but that guy (Peterson) is doing a hard job here.
Yes, I may have been a bit harsh on Peterson at that point. His definitions were at least important immaterial realities for which Harris has no explanation - so they are still points against Harris's materialism. But I think JBP still could have scored points against Harris by using orthodox definitions of God (e.g. Source of being, not, as the new atheists imagine, a superbeing within the created order). Such a definition would not have relied strictly on Biblical revelation, it would still have meaningfully countered Harris's reductionism, and it would have the benefit of being an actual definition of *God* and not, as this was, a naming of 'lesser gods' within the created order!
@@SpeakLifeMedia I don't think you were harsh. I think you are spot on. Thank you for your videos!
This deserves more than 80 likes
Thanks Glen--we enjoyed all of these musings very much!
Thanks Cathy. Didn't know you TH-camd! :)
Yes, I do "youtube". :) Gary and I have a few talks on youtube. I have watched some of Jordan Peterson and was aware of these debates with Sam Harris. You have done a great job here in your points and critiques of the two positions and with your selection of sections of the debate. Thank you for taking the time! We have been finding ourselves getting into more "worldview" discussions ourselves and I watch with interest some of the discussions going on these days. So, well done!
Catherine Deddo As I watched the debates I was reminded of the Prodigal Son. There two ways of avoiding the Father's arms, not one. The elder brother also needs to find home!
@@SpeakLifeMedia Yes, I agree! Great point. I pray for both men to meet the Reality Himself. :)
Peterson is clear and precise in every word he sais. God is an abstract. An idea cultivated over time distanced from the purely momentarily material. Keep working on your attention span, before you word salad someone. It is obnoxious.
Glen, again I appreciate the depth to which you're taking the arguments. There are so many contexts here from which to view. And it sounds like "religion" in some peoples minds isn't the same as "religion" in other's minds.
Continue to strive for clarity and truth will always emerge. I don't recall who said it, but I find it to be representative of reality. Unfortunately it can take a great deal of time in the process.
I just finished watching all five videos and thank you for them all! These topics will always come up and should because sometimes in my Christian bubble I forget why people believe what they do and these vids gave me a full view of the landscape of those who would rather do away with the God options. Keep up the good work!
Great series Glen!
Thanks Laura!
Just WOW 💞 so excellent!!💯
Thank you for deciphering their babble nonsense..
Bret Weinstein is the moderator, not his brother Eric.
It seems like we are in a competition over values as a species. In regards to morality/ethics we evaluate whether an action/behavior is good or bad. Or right or wrong, moral or immoral, whatever terminology you are most comfortable with. We evaluate the action with respect to a value/goal. If an Atheist (such as myself) has different values than you do (as a Christian) we are never going to agree on morality/ethics because we have different values. Which seems to lend credence to the idea that morality is ultimately subjective. But we "act" as if though it's objective in regards to our specific values/goals.
Now, if we are in a competition over values in the marketplace of ideas, I can't make sense of "Christian values." Whereas secular values such as well being, survival, flourishing, humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility, evaluating consequences of actions, scientific inquiry, technology, etc. I can make sense of. I can see the demonstrable positive impact that they have on society. We can both point to those values and observe how they have benefit to society. You cant point to God, Jesus, an afterlife, the supernatural, Heaven/Hell, etc. to me.
You may claim that, "oh I share many of those same values that you share as well." Great, but I simply see those as "Human Values." Not "Christian values," or "Jewish values," or "Hindu values," or "Buddhist values," they are just human values. Why? Because they are not unique to Christianity, and are values that can be held by people from all over the world from different cultures/religions. Nor do they originate with Christianity either. You're never going to unite humanity through religion. Why? Because religion by definition is exclusionary, especially Christianity. It says, if you don't accept/value Jesus Christ, there is something wrong with you and you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, unless you accept him as your Lord and Savior. Now, you may not word it that way, but that is the crux of Christianity if you take the Bible seriously. It is divisive whether you like it or not.
Whereas REASON, for example much like mathematics, is not subjective. There isn't "Christian reason," or "Jewish reason," or "Atheist reason," or "Buddhist reason," etc. There is just human reason. It's not Sam Harris' fault if religious people and non religious people alike don't value reason, and therefore take the easy route of subscribing to a pre packaged belief system or religion that tells you what to think. I agree with you, you're never going to get everyone to leave their religion in favor of a secular based system of ethics incorporating reason. But you can't honestly tell me that all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and yes even Atheists are using REASON to its fullest extent? If humans were to actually embrace more reason in their lives than they do now, there wouldn't be as many religions on planet Earth. Why? Because reason would have weeded them out. I mean, you probably agree with me in that you used your reason to reject all the other gods/religions that you don't believe in. Am I correct?
Thanks Cameron. There's a lot in there. First of all disagreement over ethical systems does not entail subjectivity. People disagree over many matters of fact, it doesn't mean there's no right answer.
But to address your main point... You have a very high view of "humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility" and so on. That's excellent, so do I. But what do you notice about all these values? They are immaterial. And they cannot be derived from the material world. If you admit to "REASON" as an objective reality (perhaps even a supreme value?) then I don't see how you can hold onto materialism. Materialism says that matter in motion is all there is. I don't see how you get to REASON and equality and all the rest of it from those foundations. You have to take such values as axiomatic in order to proceed. I have no problem with that as a Christian. I think there is a Logos (a supreme rationality to the cosmos which enlightens all people (John 1:1,9). I think there is intrinsic moral value granted to humans as such (Gen. 1:26-28). I think there really is truth and there really is freedom (which is vital if you want to avoid the determinism that corrodes those moral categories you've highlighted, John 8:32). In short, secular humanism is an incredibly *Christian* enterprise (as Nietzsche saw and thus he despised humanism almost as much as Christianity). It seems to me you want to ditch God and hold onto 'the good'. I don't think that's possible.
You finish with a question about whether I acknowledge reason as some kind of supreme value. Of course I do. I'm a Christian and I believe in the Logos. What I don't understand is why you see reason as some kind of adjudicating principle. Why should my two pounds of grey matter be any good at determining the truth of reality if it is *simply* the product of time and chance in the struggle for survival. Valuing 'survival' is not at all the same as valuing 'truth'. So why do you prize such immaterial values as minds, maths, meaning and morals?
@@SpeakLifeMedia
First of all disagreement over ethical systems does not entail subjectivity. People disagree over many matters of fact, it doesn't mean there's no right answer.
I agree with you. We can both recognize that murder is wrong, but for completely different reasons, based on our values. You would address the situation based upon your religious beliefs. I would address the situation based upon human well being, secular humanism, consequentialism or something along those lines.
But to address your main point... You have a very high view of "humanism, honesty, fairness, equality of opportunity (not outcome) empathy, reason, cooperation, compassion, humility" and so on. That's excellent, so do I. But what do you notice about all these values? They are immaterial.
Wrong. Values are not immaterial. Values are foundational beliefs that you deem as important based upon their merit, usefulness, and to serve as guiding principles to determine what is right or wrong. Beliefs by definition are a product of the mind. A mind is an emergent property of information processing in the brain. Nope, not immaterial.
And they cannot be derived from the material world.
Correct, values are not "out there" in the objective empirical world. They only exist in a subject's mind. Granted, we can learn things about the natural world that can shape our values. For example, based upon an understanding of reality, we are physical beings, living in a physical universe, that is governed by physical laws. And as such, our actions have physical consequences.
If you admit to "REASON" as an objective reality (perhaps even a supreme value?) then I don't see how you can hold onto materialism.
I don't see REASON as an objective reality (not quite sure what you mean by that.) I see reason as a process to come to true conclusions about reality. I'm a materialist simply based upon the fact that I see no evidence for anything immaterial. Science operates under methodological naturalism and is unable to detect supernatural causation. I see no pathway as to how anyone can demonstrate anything immaterial.
Materialism says that matter in motion is all there is.
Wrong. That would be philosophical naturalism, which is the philosophy that says only the material/natural world exists. I'm a methodological naturalist which is the philosophy that says that we are blocked from detecting supernatural causation for events even if the supernatural did exist. But science can only detect material/natural causes, so I see no pathway to the immaterial. You may see no distinction between these two philosophies, but the difference is, one is asserting that the natural world is all that exists, (a positive claim.) The other one is simply recognizing the limitations to our understanding of physics.
I don't see how you get to REASON and equality and all the rest of it from those foundations.
I already explained how I account for reason as a process. Reason involves an understanding of logic, logical fallacies, epistemology, ontology, scientific inquiry, empirical data, critical thinking, recognizing the limitations of human thought, and many other tools. The values are deduced from our experience in the natural world and our interaction with others. Through long periods of observation, trial and error, pragmatism, having to coexist with one another, we can then figure out which values are most useful, important, advantageous, etc. Useful in regards to what? Our survival, success, prosperity, well being, minimizing pain and suffering, flourishing, cooperation, yada yada yada.
You have to take such values as axiomatic in order to proceed. I have no problem with that as a Christian.
I don't take such values as axiomatic. I simply recognize they are in my best interest. If I don't care about other people's survival, safety, security, well being, they are not going to care about mine. It's simply reciprocal altruism. In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. We can observe this in chimps, gorillas, capuchins, and many other social species. They have no knowledge of any God, morals, ethics, etc. What's your explanation for them? What's your explanation for dogs who love their masters and can't wait until they get home? A dog can clearly experience the emotion of love, but has no concept of a God or religion.
But we have plenty of social constraints built into society without any need for a God. For example, let's say I valued stealing. I could go rob a bank, but I would probably get caught, spend time in prison and once I got out, I would be distrusted. I would be socially ostracized. I would have a hard time finding a job, making money, making friends, gaining the trust of others, etc. Valuing stealing would therefore not be in my best interest. None of this involves a sky daddy to ensure peace and order in society. Of course you are going to have the individuals who don't care about the repercussions of stealing and how it affects others. Those people are the anomalies, and are probably sociopathic. They have sacrificed their moral integrity and humanity in favor of complete sadistic selfishness.
I think there is a Logos (a supreme rationality to the cosmos which enlightens all people (John 1:1,9). I think there is intrinsic moral value granted to humans as such (Gen. 1:26-28). I think there really is truth and there really is freedom (which is vital if you want to avoid the determinism that corrodes those moral categories you've highlighted, John 8:32).
This is exactly where Sam Harris said you would be "Jesus smuggling." I was a Christian for 20 years of my life, you're not telling me anything that I haven't already heard before. I don't care about your subjective interpretation of passages in the Bible anymore than you care about a Muslim's subjective interpretation of the Quran, or a Hindu's subjective interpretation of the Vedas, or a Buddhist's subjective interpretation of the Sutras, or a Mormon's subjective interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, I'm not interested in Bible study. I want explanations, not prosyletizations.
In short, secular humanism is an incredibly Christian enterprise (as Nietzsche saw and thus he despised humanism almost as much as Christianity).
I don't see how it's a Christian enterprise when it is secular and humanism? Neither of which have anything to do with Christianity.
It seems to me you want to ditch God and hold onto 'the good'.
No, you haven't demonstrated that "the Good" has anything to do with God. It's actually the other way around. Do you own slaves? Do you condemn and stone homosexuals to death? Do you subjugate women? Do you stone women to death on their father's doorstep if they were not a virgin on their wedding day? Do you force women to get an abortion if they became pregnant outside of marriage? Do you tell your children they have inherited the sins of their ancestors? Do you stone unruly children to death? Of course you don't do any of those things. You know why? Because you have rejected the values and commandments of the Bible in favor of a secular reason based morality. You criticize me for not having a moral foundation while you shit all over your Holy Book by making yourself the authority over how it should be interpreted, not God. If you're a Christian, you don't get to pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible. You give me these verses that you falsely believe justify your ethics while simultaneously rejecting the bits endorsing slavery, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, violence, raping an pillaging, condemning homosexuals, etc. How utterly dishonest of you. You don't think Jesus will see right through this little hermaneutical game you're playing?
I don't think that's possible. You finish with a question about whether I acknowledge reason as some kind of supreme value. Of course I do. I'm a Christian and I believe in the Logos. What I don't understand is why you see reason as some kind of adjudicating principle. Why should my two pounds of grey matter be any good at determining the truth of reality if it is simply the product of time and chance in the struggle for survival.
Because you can use your two pounds of grey matter to reliably obtain effective results. If you couldn't, you would be dead by now. As your mental faculties would not have given you an accurate interpretation of reality.
Valuing 'survival' is not at all the same as valuing 'truth'. So why do you prize such immaterial values as minds, maths, meaning and morals?
Your whole problem is you think "minds" are an immaterial thing, and therefore the values that come with it are immaterial as well. As far as we can tell the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Have you ever seen a mind without a brain? Have you ever seen thoughts apart from a brain? Everything about you, your identity, personality, behavior, emotions, memory, motor skills, critical thinking skills, can be fundamentally changed as a result of brain trauma. If you believe the mind is something immaterial interfacing with the brain, these things should not change, but they do. How can your personality lift off the brain at death completely intact, but not seem to remain the same as a result of brain trauma? Mental states are just a label we use for brain states. There is no distinction. So I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that a mind is immaterial. Do you have any peer reviewed sources for that claim?
@@cameron339 Damn Cameron... You didn't have to do him like that... I mean, a complete Mic Drop... Now I see why he never replied back to this... Well broken down and explained.
I find it ironic that you slam Harris for being biased when you clearly have a massive bias against him from the start of the video. Perhaps because he’s against religion and you stated that you’re Christian.
If you know anything about Sam then you’d realize it’s very disingenuous to say that he and his friends want to wear the robes. Are you suggesting he’s power hungry? I think he’s the exact opposite.
The man is striving for a world based on reason, which seems to be the only hope for society at this point.
It sounds like your the one with the bias, I didn't like how he dismissed Jordan Peterson either but I'm not getting the world is ending butt hurt about it
we dont need your input, just let the men talk.
Sam Harris should hire an artificial intelligence service (from the future, preferably) to assess his numerous biases. It is hard to even start a debate with someone who praises reason above all even though scientifically we are far from understanding it. He should write a paper explaining how our cognitive functions and consciousness interact with the world by filtering all the input (facts) in order to reach a "reasonably right (by what standards?)" result. I think not even A.I. is up to the standards he puts our reason capabilities. A.I. services so far only guarantee a percentage of probable correct result, even after being trained by, guess what, our human intellect abilities (and biases). To me he just created, the possibility of using, a new term: Scientific Dogma!
Peterson sees Revelation from the "bottom up" -- in contradistinction to the Christian view, which sees Revelation from the "top down."
Found these videos really helpful Glen, thank you!