I am surprised that the the religious belief in political authority wasn't explored more. As this belief in political authority is arguably the most dangerous religion on earth.
I feel like it was incredibly hard to listen to James since his reasoning and arguments seemed so weak and porous. Is he much smarter and intelligible in different contexts? He should prepare harder for debates or give them up if this his best.
I had Dr. Huemer as a professor in college. He makes clear arguments and goes through great pains to be understandable. Contrast that with his opponent who appears to prefer an approach of saying the word "materialism" with a great deal of negative emphasis. Sorry but that's not an argument.
Boy, that was a strange counter argument that guy had. We can still be spiritual humans and make progress without intentionally retarding our intellect and chasing after whimsy to do it. That whole 'memory lane' spiel it devolved into served as more of a diversion than a counter argument.. Don't need to subscribe to religious beliefs to be spirited..and we know for a fact that religion is frequently an impediment to peoples judgment... which is counter productive to a peaceful and just society..it causes people to make bogus decisions. People may have other muses and motivations compelling them to make progress that aren't based on fearing hell. Blindly believing some set of rules and principles without checking whether it actually evens out with reality creates much bigger problems for society. All the warm fuzzy feelings they may benefit from personally to do good work, still frequently causes them to make decisions that harm others within society, simply in the name of upholding their own religious beliefs. Seems like Huemer's argument was way over their heads here. But seeds were planted. Maybe someday it'll click.
Is religion good for society? It's an inevitability of society. Some are more honest about their religious alignments than others. The functionality of religion is a moral and values framework. The "enlightened" who believe they are too sophisticated for the backwards conventional religions just adopt a different religious framework, call it whatever trendy name of the month, then pretend its not a religion because believing in religion is so unfashionable. That's reality. Call it liberalism, progressivism, etc. And for all the progressives who claim to be atheists or "spiritual but not religious", the history of progressivism was an offshoot of protestant puritanism. The original progressives can track their lineage to the Woodrow Wilson's in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Saying one is not religious is just another status marker in the attention driven society of today. People who hold themselves to a moral/values framework that drives their behavior and proselytizes to all others (ahem woke) is a religion that doesn't call itself a religion. And there is a reason for that. Because if a religion doesn't classify itself as a religion, it is permitted to operate in the public square because of conventions like the separation of church and state. It therefore gets to hide behind that distinction and effectively operates as a super-predator religion with a monopoly on ideology in all institutions who claim themselves to be objectively neutral.
"Galileo was 600 years ago!" ... Wasn't Jesus around like 2000 years ago? Nice work on this one Mike. I thought you put forward some compelling arguments and responded well to many of James' points, which is saying something because there was a whole gish gallon of them!
I can't even attempt to figure out what Gaston's views are.
"I am a very simple minded guy" - James Gaston
I am surprised that the the religious belief in political authority wasn't explored more. As this belief in political authority is arguably the most dangerous religion on earth.
I feel like it was incredibly hard to listen to James since his reasoning and arguments seemed so weak and porous. Is he much smarter and intelligible in different contexts? He should prepare harder for debates or give them up if this his best.
Bruh I’m sorry, but Gaston’s argument throughout are j very very weak.
I say this as a fairly religious person, Gaston’s arguments and rebuttal were terrible.
Michael Tooley @ 26:43
I had Dr. Huemer as a professor in college. He makes clear arguments and goes through great pains to be understandable. Contrast that with his opponent who appears to prefer an approach of saying the word "materialism" with a great deal of negative emphasis. Sorry but that's not an argument.
Boy, that was a strange counter argument that guy had. We can still be spiritual humans and make progress without intentionally retarding our intellect and chasing after whimsy to do it. That whole 'memory lane' spiel it devolved into served as more of a diversion than a counter argument..
Don't need to subscribe to religious beliefs to be spirited..and we know for a fact that religion is frequently an impediment to peoples judgment... which is counter productive to a peaceful and just society..it causes people to make bogus decisions. People may have other muses and motivations compelling them to make progress that aren't based on fearing hell. Blindly believing some set of rules and principles without checking whether it actually evens out with reality creates much bigger problems for society. All the warm fuzzy feelings they may benefit from personally to do good work, still frequently causes them to make decisions that harm others within society, simply in the name of upholding their own religious beliefs.
Seems like Huemer's argument was way over their heads here. But seeds were planted. Maybe someday it'll click.
Religion was the first science then why does true religion de punk modern science or just because ambition of Monopoly if science and intelligent
God has been moved outside existence itself and now religion wants to start war on the senses.
Is religion good for society? It's an inevitability of society. Some are more honest about their religious alignments than others. The functionality of religion is a moral and values framework. The "enlightened" who believe they are too sophisticated for the backwards conventional religions just adopt a different religious framework, call it whatever trendy name of the month, then pretend its not a religion because believing in religion is so unfashionable. That's reality. Call it liberalism, progressivism, etc. And for all the progressives who claim to be atheists or "spiritual but not religious", the history of progressivism was an offshoot of protestant puritanism. The original progressives can track their lineage to the Woodrow Wilson's in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Saying one is not religious is just another status marker in the attention driven society of today. People who hold themselves to a moral/values framework that drives their behavior and proselytizes to all others (ahem woke) is a religion that doesn't call itself a religion. And there is a reason for that. Because if a religion doesn't classify itself as a religion, it is permitted to operate in the public square because of conventions like the separation of church and state. It therefore gets to hide behind that distinction and effectively operates as a super-predator religion with a monopoly on ideology in all institutions who claim themselves to be objectively neutral.
"Galileo was 600 years ago!" ... Wasn't Jesus around like 2000 years ago?
Nice work on this one Mike. I thought you put forward some compelling arguments and responded well to many of James' points, which is saying something because there was a whole gish gallon of them!