Dr. Shermer, I'm a Christian but just want to say thank you for hosting such a respectful dialogue. If all of us who engage in this debate followed your example, the world would be a little brighter.
There is no debate. Believing a an old man in robe watching everything being done in the sky is stupid. Thinking there should be some kind of debate on equal ground between reality and wishful thinking is delusional. Oh but wait, you’re a christian, so you’re already delusional, my bad.
"Anyone who takes these big questions seriously is a friend." That, for some reason really made me smile. It is true after all isn't it, yet rarely put into words.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
When I heard Shermer said he was an atheist, I immediately vomited, and turned it off. I grew up in the Soviet Union and I know atheists who are proudly declare they r atheists (unlike agnostics) are disgusting dangerous people, and I know what they did to humanity in the 20th century.
"Almost immediately after the introduction of any major technological advancement, humans inevitably end up employing it for porn." Meanwhile, Joe Rogan interviews with proponents of Atlantis hit 15 million views. There's room for everyone -- even Michael Shermer. jk, big fan since the 90's.
Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘
I'm amazed by Shermer's attitude. It's rare to find someone willing to truly listen to someone they disagree with honestly. This is how everyone should behave.
I’ve very slowly and only in selective ways warmed to Shermer, but I have to say this is him at his most pleasant. Good work and good job both for being civil, friendly and open.
Haven’t even listened and the fact that you bring on people you disagree with is admirable in times such as now. Love what you produce thank you for the content. Love to all.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
An intelligent conversation about intelligent design is just what the doctor ordered, and exactly what Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer have delivered. There is so much food for thought throughout these two hours, that I expect to go back many times for extra helpings. I was particularly struck by Mr Shermer's remarks after quoting from Leslie & Kuhn: "we are hitting an epistemological wall". When a materialist and idealist can readily agree on not being able to see what lies on the other side, I would venture to say we have reached a true milestone in the development of human consciousness.
Michael, I'm a Christian but I admired the way you interviewed Stephen. You led him into a really great conversation. You seem really fair minded and I think skepticism is really valuable in this crazy world we live in.
Two brilliant minds engaged in a civil and scientific discussion of foundational ideology! Wow, we need more of this. One of the most interesting interviews I have ever seen. Thank you.
Thank you so much for bringing Stephen Meyer on. I’ve learned so so much from him and am actually here because I follow him. I so much appreciate your kindness and fairness in how you engaged with him!! ❤️❤️❤️
Oh no Dana! He's a false prophet of pseudo science. Oh no!! What to do? What to do?! Please read all the textbooks and watch hundreds of hours, indeed a thousand hours of TH-cam. Maybe you're not totally lost?!?!! Oh my, Dana! Oh my!!
Stephen is nefarious as are all members of the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is not scientific. It's creationism, and therefore pseudoscience, in a shiny new package. It is designed to mislead people who don't have enough knowledge to refute the claims made. Many D.I. members have doctorates which boost their credibility, but the scientific claims they make are demonstrably inaccurate. Please educate yourself on the opposing side... you will see what I mean.
I am so impressed with Mike Shermer as he exhibited the qualities of conversation that was respectful of all ideas. Great Job Mike and I would love to watch more in the future! Steve was of the very same Respectful Value. Great example Stephen!
Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater. This man comes prepared and his arguments are very compelling and well-reasoned. I spent decades working on my atheism (I grew up in a religious family), and this man is doing a great job of challenging my beliefs and making sure I never fall in the trap of thinking any of this is settled. It isn't, regardless of my frustration with this fact. I do not like the idea of a creator, and I would like to be done with it, along with some of the childish and ill-founded dogmas of religions, which are mostly old and obsolete both philosophically and scientifically. But there are many problems with dispensing of intelligent design altogether and Stephen does a very good job of addressing them scientifically and empirically, while avoiding the low-resolution and ineptly-crafted arguments we usually get from many creationists who have only read one Book. I have nothing but respect for this man.
I'm glad to hear your candid admission, *"Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater."* Good on you. Keep it up and make your decision(s) on inferring to the best explanation you have at the moment. Your comment reminds me of two others from atheists. One a quote another a youtube link, "In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." -Thomas Nagel and, *th-cam.com/video/6VHiUj_3JTI/w-d-xo.html*
@@rejectevolution152 Sexual selection, mostly. War, second. I'm only guessing, I'm not an expert, exactly. We keep finding other species of hominins that date back thousands of years, which is proof that there was vast genetic diversity at some point. Usually, when we find stuff, it's just the tip of an iceberg. The fossil record keeps growing, and it always strengthens the evolution theories - not the creationist ones. The math is weird, yes. There doesn't seem to have enough time to explain the extent of the diversity sometimes (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), true. But evolution is still rock solid. We just need more time to figure things out.
@@jacquesd5781 What do you think about there not being evidence for the supposed catastrophe that caused the low genetic diversity 200k years ago? Or even evidence for these populations 200k years ago?
@@rejectevolution152 Considering the archeological boom basically only started in the mid 1800's (we hadn't even documented dinosaurs until 1842 or so), we cannot argue that a lack of evidence is proof of anything. Here's what we do know : the sciences of geology, paleontology, carbon-dating, archeology, biology, and many more, all confirm the theories of evolution. There is still a lot we do not know, but seeing God in every gap of knowledge is childish and primitive. Every time we make a scientific discovery that explains something that was a mystery until then, someone's God dies. This has been true for hundreds of years. Let's move on and get to work, and see where science leads us. 4,000 year old stories are cool and filled with certain wisdoms, true, but the science and history they contain are old and obsolete. Having said that, we have to keep ourselves in check and address our biases, and reject all forms of tribal worship - whether that be in the form of a God or a theory. So, keep 'em coming, I like the exercise.
A man who does no reserch at all himself and has never even attemted to present some evidence for this ill-defined intelligence/God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science..that he claims is responsible for life. He is a proponent of a pseudoscientific idea ID, which has never and will never contribute anything to our understanding of nature.
How nice was that! Shermer did a great job. I have long been an advocate of ID. However, to hear Shermer allowing and encouraging a full airing of Meyer's analyses, in such a friendly and positive way, was very impressive. Thank you.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
Wow, what a terrific discussion! I really appreciate the manner in which Michael and Stephen listen to each other. I have to say, I was blown away by Stephen Meyer's reasoning for Intelligent Design. Quite brilliant! I've just bought his book, Return to God, as a result of this video. Thank you again Michael for showing patience and humility when listening to Stephen.
Can I ask why? I'm listening and sounds like the usual hot air. It's not a hard to understand that it's silly to argue from a starting point that is a foregone conclusion, yet he does exactly this
@@drts6955 I am feeling the exact same. Hitch would have finished this conversation in under 100 words. Just because there seems to be a beginning... Doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent designer. Or miracles, answered prayers, and the like. To give the "creator" hyperintelligent, human qualities... Seems to me, to be the definition of arrogance. If there is a God, he is overly fond of beetles. Of which, there are over 350,000 species. He is also fond of viruses. There have been at least 10 viruses for every species to ever exist. And 99 percent of all species to ever live... Are now extinct. If there is a designer, he would seem rather bungling and incompetent. Or at least wasteful, by our standard.
@@gregbrown3082 As computer is programmed by 1010101... to work, you are ATCGGGGCCCTTTAA..., and all creatures are the same, what you can tell from the same? If you found out there are wisdoms in the programmed ATCGGGGCT..., then you will understand how come the birds know the season, destination thousand of miles away, the spiders know how to weave paralleled web, chicken comes before egg. These questions are more important than virus..
@@gregbrown3082 didn’t hitch come to think that aliens brought spores to earth to start life. Y’all have some intelligent people on your side. But all of them can’t answer the question of where the information for life came from.
As someone who has been quite evangelical on both sides of the argument, and while I don't know what it would take to move me back towards a more theist viewpoint, the older I get, the more I value friendly, civil conversations such as this. I think there is definitely still a time and place for strong argument and debate but what seems to be lacking everywhere these days is civility and the ability to disagree with each other and not take disagreement as a personal attack. Many thanks to both Mr. Shermer and Mr. Meyer for this talk. If I could make one critique to Mr. Shermer, and perhaps this couldn't be helped, but there seemed to be an audio delay that caused a bit of talking over each other at times.
This is precisely what is needed (as with Keating's podcast) as an interlocuter between science and the population at large. We must have these conversations. Thank you.
After watching the train wreck that was the debate between Meyer and Krauss, I was very happy to see a much more productive, deep, and friendly discussion here. Big thanks to Drs. Shermer and Meyer for this conversation, and I'm excited to read Meyer's book in the near future😁
Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect. His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian Taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Thank you for such a wonderful conversation. I think this is much better than debates. Going back and forth and exploring thoughts is such a good format.
Countdown to Stephen Meyer being on Joe Rogan 🤞 Exposure seems to be what this guy needs, then hopefully more conversations with people educated enough to address his points head on
wow micheal shermer really got the interview right. no unfair characterizations, no personal attacks or psychologizing, none of the stuff i've gotten so used to with self described "skeptics." really good stuff, keep it idea-focused with mutual appreciation and a quest for understanding.
I generally find the lack of open discourse and free thinking among the atheist materialists disappointing and frankly unscientific. But Shermer is a breath of fresh air! Great chat
Seems like Shermer turned a corner since the trashing of Hancock. Admittedly, this guy is a scientist and Hancock is a writer, but seeing Shermer taking a look at a theory like this is refreshing. Definitely skeptical of this myself, but I am happy to entertain the notion. As a reformed 'militant athiest', I think it's important to consider all ideas that may be influencing our current reality. Understanding where others are comimg from and seeing their logical process is a much better approach than writing-off a notion off because it posits a "higher being".
@@guenthermichaels5303 could well be where the turn happened! I honestly appreciate Shermer's skepticism, it's important to question everything, in order to sniff out the BS or simply understand a subject better.
@@McAwesomeDelux I agree, I really respect Shermer's mind.. I'm not that excited about this interview. Too much philosophy...If you knew nothing about Stephen Meyer's scientific argument, one might be lost.. The science argument is really fascinating, and means Darwinism is dead and out dated.. My issue with Meyer is his leap from an intelligence behind the design, to it being a Christian God. The best discussion I have seen on this, is a Hoover institute interview, with Meyer and 2 Scientists..which really opened my mind. Here is the link Watch "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" on TH-cam th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html
The great thing about Michael Shermer and these debates is it has caused everyone to make their arguments better. There's a lot of BS on both sides of this debate. No BS in this discussion. Incredibly useful
@@bryanutility9609 I agree. Both the words objective and morality are never quite clear, at least not to me. I like to present people with a thought ecperiment: suppose you are a school teacher. You ask every student to draw a picture of a chair. Then you ask same students to draw picture of "the soul." The chairs will all look more or less like chairs but every picture of the soul might look different. This confirms my belief that the word chair reliably refers to a concrete object the existence of which we can all agree upon. However, the notion of the soul is so vague, so nebulous that nobody can agree upon its appearance let alone its characteristics. We can even safely presume that soul may in fact be a word for an object that does not exist, like unicorn, demon, angel, or any of a multitude of fictitious entities that are products of our imagination. I tend to agree with the empiricists that mathematical propositions and propositions that refer to tangible objects are valid, whereas all other propositions are questionable and likely invalid.
@@donaldwhittaker7987 I don’t think there’s anything invalid about love or consciousness. Just because something can easily be analyzed materially doesn’t mean it’s more valuable. Cockroaches are numerous & easy to draw but they do not inspire high art like the soul does. The highest level of meaning is something we can hardly describe in words and that is where poetry & art matter most. Our dreams create the future. Most mathematicians & the greatest scientists will agree.
@@bryanutility9609 ok. I would say that processes can be considered valid propositions, as in I love my wife. I know I have an ongoing feeling that I can describe or discuss without difficulty. But I do think that many objects that we know are vague, absurd, or improbable can be viewed as belonging to literature. If there is no such thing as an immortal soul or a supreme being or other intangibles it in no way diminishes my existence or my abilities or my interests. I can accept many intangibles as literature without the need to believe them real. We are programmed to believe in things we know might be unreal but we can outgrow them as we do the tooth fairy, etc. It often takes the brain many years to outgrow erroneous information we learn when young. I was able to do this by age 15. For other people it can be older or younger or never. The "never" is often the subject of tragedy in literature, such as in Shakespeare's 5 great tragedies.
Thank you both for having the conversation. I’m a very dysfunctional,angry atheist with issues towards theist like Steven. This was very therapeutic ✌🏻💜
I have all three of your most recent books, Stephen Meyer, and love listening to you speak, converse and debate. Thank you, Michael Shermer, for this video. Looking forward to your new book on conspiracy theories and conspiracies. That should be very interesting read!
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
Whether or not you agree with his conclusions (I don’t), Meyer sure knows his stuff and his arguments were thought-provoking. I really enjoyed this one.
@@markcredit6086 His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect.
a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." But, there is more than "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe Pity, according to the Cambridge Dictionary online, is "a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation." How can pity originate in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference?" Pity posits a universal value, that of life. All life values life; one could even posit that all matter is a denial of entropy and an affirmation of life. Why should such a value exist in a blind, pitiless universe? Value itself posits good versus evil; one thing is better than another, one thing is to be preferred over another.
Along with Dr Stephen Meyer, my other two favourite biologists are Dr Ruperrt Sheldrake and Dr Bruce Lipton. Would love to see them as guests on your pod cast. Thank you Mr Shermer 🙏🏼
Except ... Meyer isn't a biologist ... He holds a degree in "History and Philosophy of Science". He doesn't understand chemistry, physics and biology, and is caught red handed lying about scientific facts. He claims there were no animals living before the Cambrian ... lie ... fossel records have shown that. He claims the Cambrian only lasted 10 MA ... lie ... it lasted 70 MA. He doesn't understand DNA, it's code, reproduction, and how aminoacids are formed. But his ignorance doesn't hold him back to claim numerous falsehoods on. I can go on like forever ... In short, he's a fraud, and held up to the scrutiny of real scientists, he fails big time. Note that he never published his "findings" in a scientific paper which are the way scientists go about. Papers get reviewed by their peers, scrutinised and corrected if necessary. He knows he can't do that because then he would be exposed for the liar and fraud he is. And that's why he writes popular pseudoscience books where readers gulp up all his lies and misrepresentations ... to finally declare him their hero. ... just like you just did.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Goodness! Give the man a break. As a theist, I surely disagree with him. But his questions were insightful and quite useful. Shermer adds a lot to this debate. And he gave Stephen C. Meyer a full platform to discuss his ideas. That surely should count for something positive you could provide in your statement. I frankly like Michael Shermer a lot even with my stark disagreements with his ideas. I'll be listening to his podcast with much more regularity. Thanks, Michael. You made this fun and interesting. And I appreciate you very much. I hope my podcast sometime in the future gains enough prominence that you'll come on. Thank you.
@Darwinism is a fairy tale Hi Diaft. Do you really imagine that there are no cogent counter responses to Meyers' so-called arguments? If so, you need to comprehensively rethink your understanding of science, starting with Laplace and moving forward from there.
Love your show Michael I am so so glad you let people you interview give there side without a useless debate which on most shows is just a yelling match
thank you Dr Shermer for having this beautiful conversation with Stephen. Your point on economy - well there is is a question of "who created participants, money, goods, rules"
I agee. Like him a lot. I believe he is sincerely listening and trying to examine each idea and view the best he can. He really tries to see it the other person's way. Which other atheists, agnostics did the same.
@@markcredit6086 A guy who believes in supernatural forces of a "transcendent influencer" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) is suffering from a rather serious and disabling flaw.
Fascinating and deep conversation! Ive read all of his books. I’ve been studying these issues for years and have concluded that Stephen Meyer is the foremost expert on Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. He has a brilliant and inquisitive mind, and he is sympathetic and respectful to everyone regardless of their position. He is a gift to mankind, and a first rate example of how a Christian should behave.
"...concluded that Stephen Meyer is the foremost expert on Darwinian evolution ..." I think not. He says information can only come from a mind. The entire point of Darwinian evolution is that information can derive from a mindless process.
@@Andre_XX Hi Andre, I do know that’s what Darwinists believe. And thank you for your reply. But have you ever found anything in your human experience here on earth, where specified complexity arose without a mind behind it all? And what about the Big Bang? Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? How did the main elements (11?) necessary for life happen to arrive? And laws of nature (lawgiver maybe?). How bout our solar system being fine tuned for life? Then earth somehow resulted from the chaos? And then abiogenesis somehow occurred - life from non life (which our brightest minds haven’t been able to create yet). Then plants and photosynthesis arrived just in time to feed the animals? You and others believe all of this (and hundreds more processes and miracles) somehow “evolved”? I just cannot muster up enough faith to believe what you guys believe. Evolution is not a miracle worker. It’s simply one organism lives and one dies. Each organism is limited to its DNA. Evolution has no creative power to build new body parts. You guys are expecting evolution to create things way beyond our smartest engineers capabilities. I’m sorry Andre, You guys are placing evolution in place of the Creator. I hope some day you see that and you will develop a relationship with your creator that is more special than any relationships you find on this planet. Best wishes to you in your search for truth Andre.
@@johncastino2730 How did polynesians "design" craft that could sail across the pacific ocean? They did not have degrees in nautical engineering. They copied the craft that came back. They did not copy the craft that sunk! You ask where did the energy come from. Are you sure there is any energy? There is an hypothesis that the net energy in the universe is zero. Life could have arisen by chance. Chance is a known phenomenon. Nature has had countless opportunities and only had to get it right once. We know there are uncountable solar systems out there - more than all the grains of and on all the beaches of the world. Ours happened by chance to be amenable for life. We are adapted to our solar system, the solar system is not adapted for us. If we don't know something it is intellectual dishonesty to plug the gap in our understanding with a god. Until you can explain the origin of your god, your arguments have no explanatory power and are merely wishful thinking.
Meyer's a trickster - a Discovery Institute shill. He sells you a reassuring fiction and you fall for it hook line 'n sinker. God doesn't exist and the Bible's a POS fantasy book: Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” Leviticus 25: 44-46 “You may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you […] You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.” Exodus 21:20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken for he (the slave) is his property” Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but on the seventh shall go out as a free man without payment” Exodus 21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are” 1 Peter 2:18 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” Psalm 137:9 “Happy/Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” Deut. 25:11-12 “If two Israelite men get into a fight and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man, you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” Deut. 22:28-29 “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. 1 Cor 14:35 “It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Lev 21:9 “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father’s holiness, and she must be burned to death.” Deut 21:10-11 “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman you may take her as your wife.” Numbers 31:17-18 “So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”
I had the privilege and pleasure to meet Dr. Michael at a seminar of the Skeptic Society when I was an atheist. I enjoyed his seminar immensely and am glad I attended. I met really nice people and the scientists who spoke were gracious and friendly. Dr. Shermer is not afraid of those who disagree with him. I wish him good health and good luck! Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I haven't read or listened to Shermer for a while but this interview reminds me just how valuable his commitment to ideas and rational argument is. With his books and public discussions he maintains a humorous and down to earth attitude which is enviable. I'll remember to keep in touch with his sane and intelligent world view in the future.
Meyer doesn’t explain how complexity can arise out of simplicity. He says that Dawkins & Co are not different from him because they say that physical matter and energy have always been here, whereas he’s saying that an intelligent mind has always been here. But Meyer’s theory is less satisfactory because it doesn’t explain how a complex thing like a mind (which must’ve been every bit as complex as the minds that it designed) could come about from something simple
Almost finished the book. Fantastic read. Meyer makes a great case for ID while refuting his critics and fearlessly examining alternative ideas about the origin of life. This is no God of the gaps, this is examine the evidence and ask yourself what is more probable based on the evidence we have.... random chance or intelligence.
Random chance is at least a known phenomenon. Immaterial, originless intelligence is utterly unknown. Don't be too persuaded by sophisticated-sounding illogical nonsense.
@@Andre_XX Random chance doesn't exist. Random chance means "I'm ignorant to how this is happening" And that is not an explanation. You can't say "I don't know did it"
@@HappyBloke81 I was trying to point out that even random chance is a known phenomenon - unlike supernatural bs. Evolution is a two stage process (1) random chance (2) non random selection. Creationists tend to concentrate on saying it is all random chance, which it is not.
Such a great video ! There is such accommodation, tolerance and respect for the other in this discussion. I like what Michael says @ 35.03 Will we ever get to a consensus 50 years & 100 years from now ? Then @39:11 If God handed us these moral values, how do we know what they are? Do we get them out of holy books, those holy books conflict with each other why can't we go straight to the source? why do we have to read it in a book?
I do find it problematic, namely the notion of a creator separate from the world and the life on it, who might have come, waved a magic wand and then left. The materialists make reference to the laws of Nature and naturalistic processes that are incredible in their complexity. Why is this considered to be mechanical when in fact it could be a primary example of an intelligent agency constantly modifiying the process of life from within and without? Philosophical idealism might offer an opportunity for a better model that could solve the materialist/ID divide.
ID has a big fat problem ( mechanism) there is no way of testing, analysing, evaluating, researching, studying or providing it ,thats why the book is called the God hypothesis, you can't need evidence for a hypothesis, to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism,......there is no mechanism for ID or a biblical God
@@mattberrytr1 yes but multi universe is natural phenomena, it only takes a piece of inflationary vacuum the size of a kilogram to start a big bang event, quantum theory allows this to happen without God, there is a strong theory of the inflationary vacuum increasing faster and getting hotter, however this huge amount of energy had to go somewhere, it went into creating the big bang, it's like thousands/ millions of tiny bubbles forming in a huge ocean, ever expanding and our universe is just one of those countess bubbles, black holes have evidence of an older universe, there are stars older than our known universe Our universe could be expanding off a dying universe and when our universe ends another expands off ours eternally, in an expansion and contraction ,getting better every time ( fine tuning) just like evolution our universe could be an improvement from the last and so on.
@@mattberrytr1 The multiverse is a scientific hypothesis. God claims are often untestable, arbitrary claims that are indistinguishable from nonsense. And this is not an accident. The history of religions and belief in gods shows a clear development away from falsifiable, testable god claims to arbitrary god claims that are immunized against any kind of criticism. What believers haven't realized is that this completely destroys any significance of the claim. If you have a claim which you can make arbitrary excuses for, then it also has zero explanatory power. It's useless.
Dawkins argument is a child equivalent of not understanding why parents choose not to spank a 17 year old for making a mistake or why a parent doesn’t fix every problem that 17 year old faces. If you assume God knows what the outcome of every interaction or non-interaction is and that anything more would ruin the outcome … then complaining about indifference is just dawkins not understanding or even weighing the question of how would God get people to genuinely love him and be morally inclined. 1) would people be more true in their character and love for God if they followed the few clues and hints at his existence. Or 2) an all powerful God appearing to them and the person being in awe and likely frightened at the power of and fear of offending God. Based on humans capacity to rebel against forced behaviour and supreme authority … I think we could all understand fundamentally that there would be a lot of problems with a big chunk of people rebelling against an actively involved God and that another larger chuck of people would just obey out of fear of consequences. The best analogue for people who are materialism (only believe in things that can be proved) based in their world view would be if you were a multi-billionaire that needed to find a wife who would never divorce you and would actually truly love you. Would you best achieve that by A) interacting with a partner without them knowing or seeing your vast wealth so that they fall in love with who you are as a person Or B) sweep your potential partner off their feet by spending millions on them and taking care of any problems they have …. Would that create a truly loving relationship that would last for eternity,
Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘
These guys just show how beautiful and Amazing the Mind is. They have talked short of two hours in every possible subject with impeccable clarity of their thoughts and focus. Just wondering if they're real. I like Michael's style of interview as he is a writer himself makes this show amazing. Stephen seems to know everything. Sometimes in places I wish he could speak English ( Like Marty Mcfly said to the prof).BEAUTIFUL MINDS !
The idea that Intelligence is behind the complexity of our earth and the life that crawls upon it, and is responsible for it, is so intuitively obvious. I call Him God. In the quiet of waking each morning, we say hello to each other. I am happy to trust in Him.
Regarding the part of the discussion that dealt with math and the mistake of assuming that math somehow (directly or indirectly) 'created' the universe, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book on this topic. The Book's title is _Lost in Math_ and deals with how physicists (many not all) have been seduced by Math and are trying to find explanations of quantum physics and quantum gravity that are based on elegant mathematical formulae. They believe that the state of the universe MUST be based on their beautiful mathematics. A good book by a brilliant mind who is a top of the line physicist. She has no problem kicking her fellow physicists in the balls (figuratively, of course) in this book (as she does from time to time on her TH-cam channel). After reading Dr. Meyer's book you should consider reading Hossenfelder's book. Both books are mind opening and educational.
Great respect to both men, Meyer is the first apologist I’ve seen that can put together a cogent argument for theism. I will seek out more of his work. My biggest question regarding ID, though, is why is it so vastly, unnecessarily complex and in the end - in the case of humans, at least - a very poor one? Born helpless, required to be unconscious one third of the time, must drink and eat or die in short order, unable to withstand moderate variations in heat or cold, rife with orifices into which pathogens can enter and kill us, aggressive and morally flawed…how did we ever survive this long (granted all but one species of hominids did not)? Seems more likely the result of a quite precarious “survival of the good enough” path.
29:30 - 29:55 How can Meyer even suggest that a multiverse requires more “explanatory postulates” than intelligent design when we have consistent historical precedence that this not the case? Had Meyer been alive a few centuries ago, he would have argued that the same about multiple planets or multiple galaxies. It’s also not clear how he quantifies the number of postulates for either hypothesis, especially given that there are multiple versions of the former and no clear framework of the latter.
I would also ask if you understand that the belief in multiple planets and in multiple galaxies originated with something other than empirical evidence?
Stephen Meyers and James Tour have flipped my perspective about the origins of life and the beginning of the universe. At first I didn't want to listen being an Athiest. However the evidence both provide is overwhelming rather highlight how little we know the more we understand the complexity. Thank you for such conversations and bringing them to light.
You picked 2 guys who do no reaserch in that field (meyer does no reaserch at all), odd choice. There is no evidence for the ID side..their entire "argument" rests on some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.
The concept of intelligent design is interesting. Where do these guys define what they mean by god? What does Meyer mean by the Judeo Christian concept of god? How can we decide what we think about what he is saying without this definition? Why has he chosen Christianity rather than one of the other forms of theism? That Isaac Newton believed in some form of god is no big deal. He had no idea of the size of the universe. I guess I’ll have to read his book.
The presumption that scientists should not, and therefore do not, select and interpret evidences according to preconceptions and paradigmatic biases is unhelpful (and _itself_ a paradigmatic bias). In short, to err is human. Science is merely a tool of human use, not an innoculation against bias, mistake, or alas dishonesty.
I have heard a lot of different definitions of Science. I often say something along the lines of its a set of practices and tools for increasing or decreasing confidence in an idea. I've come across a few definitions that state it is a set of practices to minimize bias. My favourite definition is from Lisa Feldman Barrett- "Science is the quantification of doubt." I not sure if it is true, but I do like it.
I am not sure to make of Stephen's conflation between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. If I caught it correctly, he has a degree in philosophy of science. Can this be true? Does he not think the conceptual gap between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is vast? Why would he call methodological naturalism a "bias" that does not allow for the miraculous instead of the inductively assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? And if now wants, for some odd reason, to equate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, what does he want to call this assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? It is clearly a concept of immense value? If we start calling philosophical and methodological naturalism identical, we will need to agree on a coherent tag for this inductive track record concept. This concept is at the core of a coherent epistemology: that which has shown to have the most predictive power in the past, to the degree that it has proven predictively superior, to that degree we favor it in the future. Stephen, if you're reading, could you explain this odd conflation between these two very different kinds of naturalistic dispositions?
Conflating the two for a philosopher, especially one with a degree in philosophy of science, is intellectual suicide. But the agenda is obvious: denigrate "natural" science to clear the field for inserting the supernatural aka the arbitrary, or even shorter: BS. Because you can make up arbitrary supernatural claims. Their truth can not be determined and they are indistinguishable from other nonsense.
yeah and just before he says that he mentions confirmation bias within the scientific community. clearly he doesn't understand how peer review works and independent reproducibility.
Interesting conversation. His use of Occam's razor to distinguish the god hypothesis from other hypotheses was also interesting. An unconscious eternal state of affairs like a multiverse or cyclic universe would seem to be simpler in that unconsciousness is simpler than consciousness.
Hahahaha cmon.......IF a God really exists, he could NEVER EVER be a homophobe racist and destroyer vengeful religious one........all of them are evil and stupid and sick and medieval horrible gods, fortunately non existent
@@raymondluxury-yacht1638 infact they are whole wrong and false, to me at least. Maybe a Supreme God or Supreme Consciousness exists, maybe, I'm agnostic, plausibilistic agnostic, therfore i do not exclude anything and do not give anything for certain until i don't get proofs, however religious gods are bullshit as religions too of course
cool. I'm atheist but since Atheist philosophers started talking about the simulation hypothesis, they need to stop calling theists dumb. besides it's cool reading opposing views. Why would you only listen to things you already agree anyway?
"If I'm right we will never know. If you're right, we'll find out in the next life and I'll argue to apologize. Hoping we'll be in the same place.And we'll ask The Mind 'Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Micheal Shermer. Touching closing statement.
Dr. Shermer, I'm a Christian but just want to say thank you for hosting such a respectful dialogue. If all of us who engage in this debate followed your example, the world would be a little brighter.
no, world would be better without mixing science and religion. Keep your religion aside
@@marojupavanyep, telling people what to do always makes the world better. 👍
Depends on what's being said. Anyway pointless discussion since no one is going to change their mind based on comment threads.@@mindsigh4
There is no debate. Believing a an old man in robe watching everything being done in the sky is stupid. Thinking there should be some kind of debate on equal ground between reality and wishful thinking is delusional. Oh but wait, you’re a christian, so you’re already delusional, my bad.
@@marojupavan - Maybe there is a point to be made though…what is religion?
"Anyone who takes these big questions seriously is a friend."
That, for some reason really made me smile. It is true after all isn't it, yet rarely put into words.
have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube?
have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube?
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?
have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
what a great discussion instead of debating, arguing and getting nowhere. Stephen Meyer is a new found scholar worth learning from for me
I appreciate you Michael Shermer for debating opposing points of views
The best part is how earnest and with mutual respect it is done. Very refreshing.
Well it wouldn’t be much of a debate were it not for opposing views.
This wasn't a debate.
When I heard Shermer said he was an atheist, I immediately vomited, and turned it off. I grew up in the Soviet Union and I know atheists who are proudly declare they r atheists (unlike agnostics) are disgusting dangerous people, and I know what they did to humanity in the 20th century.
@@b.g.5869?
That was a good conversation. Two hours, and not a dull moment. I haven't read Meyer's book yet, but I plan to.
I find them very informative.
Why bother.
@@Resenbrink exactly what I was thinking lol
Yes, they are pretty good, even for someone like me who is not an ID believer. Read Michael Behe on evolution as well. Fascinating stuff.
@@stefan2292 Nonsese, every bit of it.
Stephen Meyer is not only a brilliant intellectual...but also a gentleman. Thank you Dr. Shermer for hosting Dr. Meyer.
Thank you for making these beautiful discussions public! THIS is what the Internet should be about!
a hearty amen!
"Almost immediately after the introduction of any major technological advancement, humans inevitably end up employing it for porn." Meanwhile, Joe Rogan interviews with proponents of Atlantis hit 15 million views. There's room for everyone -- even Michael Shermer. jk, big fan since the 90's.
Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘
I'm amazed by Shermer's attitude. It's rare to find someone willing to truly listen to someone they disagree with honestly. This is how everyone should behave.
Well, when the masses have been hypnotized to believe they are just animals does it come as any surprise that they're gonna behave like animals?
@@quantumpotential7639They weren’t hypnotized to think they are animals. They are animals.
It's because he was once on the other side of this argument. He knows most believers aren't evil nor stupid.
@@quantumpotential7639 well trumps followers are anyway
I’ve very slowly and only in selective ways warmed to Shermer, but I have to say this is him at his most pleasant. Good work and good job both for being civil, friendly and open.
For me, very very slowly. Shermer seems a lightweight between the two.
I completely agree. I was never really a fan, but I just discovered his podcast, and his interviews have been excellent so far.
Haven’t even listened and the fact that you bring on people you disagree with is admirable in times such as now. Love what you produce thank you for the content. Love to all.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
@@jamesginty6684
Your records got a scratch on it...
have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?
@@scottcarter1689Why do I think the only upvotes are his own...
Fascinating discussion with two men who clearly respect each other. Worth watching the whole two hours.
I like listening to these guys a lot and this approach, to have a talk instead of trying to win a debate in front of an audience, is much nicer.
It's a must to be what? Nice? It's not a mandate. It's a substrate. OK? Okay super then. Excellent. And thanks
This is a great discussion. I've always liked Meyer but now I have a new appreciation and respect for Shermer as well.
An intelligent conversation about intelligent design is just what the doctor ordered, and exactly what Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer have delivered. There is so much food for thought throughout these two hours, that I expect to go back many times for extra helpings. I was particularly struck by Mr Shermer's remarks after quoting from Leslie & Kuhn: "we are hitting an epistemological wall". When a materialist and idealist can readily agree on not being able to see what lies on the other side, I would venture to say we have reached a true milestone in the development of human consciousness.
An intelligent discussion of Intelligent Design only occurs after you’ve been hit on the head with a hammer. And then a doctor is ordered.
@@gabriellebakker6489 Sort of a like a little bang that eventually leads to (seeing) stars? :-)
This was incredible. We need more open and honest conversation like this. I appreciate how both men were polite and honorable.
Michael, I'm a Christian but I admired the way you interviewed Stephen. You led him into a really great conversation. You seem really fair minded and I think skepticism is really valuable in this crazy world we live in.
Two brilliant minds engaged in a civil and scientific discussion of foundational ideology! Wow, we need more of this. One of the most interesting interviews I have ever seen. Thank you.
A really great discussion between two fair-minded intellectuals. We don’t see this very often.
Thank you so much for bringing Stephen Meyer on. I’ve learned so so much from him and am actually here because I follow him. I so much appreciate your kindness and fairness in how you engaged with him!! ❤️❤️❤️
Oh no Dana! He's a false prophet of pseudo science.
Oh no!! What to do? What to do?!
Please read all the textbooks and watch hundreds of hours, indeed a thousand hours of TH-cam. Maybe you're not totally lost?!?!! Oh my, Dana! Oh my!!
Stephen's interview on suboor ahmed's channel is brilliant
Stephen is nefarious as are all members of the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is not scientific. It's creationism, and therefore pseudoscience, in a shiny new package. It is designed to mislead people who don't have enough knowledge to refute the claims made. Many D.I. members have doctorates which boost their credibility, but the scientific claims they make are demonstrably inaccurate. Please educate yourself on the opposing side... you will see what I mean.
You learned a lot of fiction from him. He constantly misrepresents science in order to sneak in imaginary things that he wants to be real.
Great interview. That’s how discussions between two opposing views should be handled. With grace and respect. Kudos Michael.
I am so impressed with Mike Shermer as he exhibited the qualities of conversation that was respectful of all ideas. Great Job Mike and I would love to watch more in the future! Steve was of the very same Respectful Value. Great example Stephen!
Shermer is one of the sharper of minds, and I think this format is the most helpful. Kudos to both these gents!
Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater. This man comes prepared and his arguments are very compelling and well-reasoned. I spent decades working on my atheism (I grew up in a religious family), and this man is doing a great job of challenging my beliefs and making sure I never fall in the trap of thinking any of this is settled. It isn't, regardless of my frustration with this fact. I do not like the idea of a creator, and I would like to be done with it, along with some of the childish and ill-founded dogmas of religions, which are mostly old and obsolete both philosophically and scientifically. But there are many problems with dispensing of intelligent design altogether and Stephen does a very good job of addressing them scientifically and empirically, while avoiding the low-resolution and ineptly-crafted arguments we usually get from many creationists who have only read one Book. I have nothing but respect for this man.
I'm glad to hear your candid admission, *"Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater."*
Good on you. Keep it up and make your decision(s) on inferring to the best explanation you have at the moment.
Your comment reminds me of two others from atheists. One a quote another a youtube link,
"In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
-Thomas Nagel
and, *th-cam.com/video/6VHiUj_3JTI/w-d-xo.html*
What do you think about humans having such low genetic diversity?
@@rejectevolution152 Sexual selection, mostly. War, second. I'm only guessing, I'm not an expert, exactly. We keep finding other species of hominins that date back thousands of years, which is proof that there was vast genetic diversity at some point. Usually, when we find stuff, it's just the tip of an iceberg. The fossil record keeps growing, and it always strengthens the evolution theories - not the creationist ones. The math is weird, yes. There doesn't seem to have enough time to explain the extent of the diversity sometimes (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), true. But evolution is still rock solid. We just need more time to figure things out.
@@jacquesd5781 What do you think about there not being evidence for the supposed catastrophe that caused the low genetic diversity 200k years ago? Or even evidence for these populations 200k years ago?
@@rejectevolution152 Considering the archeological boom basically only started in the mid 1800's (we hadn't even documented dinosaurs until 1842 or so), we cannot argue that a lack of evidence is proof of anything. Here's what we do know : the sciences of geology, paleontology, carbon-dating, archeology, biology, and many more, all confirm the theories of evolution. There is still a lot we do not know, but seeing God in every gap of knowledge is childish and primitive. Every time we make a scientific discovery that explains something that was a mystery until then, someone's God dies. This has been true for hundreds of years. Let's move on and get to work, and see where science leads us. 4,000 year old stories are cool and filled with certain wisdoms, true, but the science and history they contain are old and obsolete. Having said that, we have to keep ourselves in check and address our biases, and reject all forms of tribal worship - whether that be in the form of a God or a theory. So, keep 'em coming, I like the exercise.
Thank you for having Dr. Meyer on. In light of recent scientific data, he makes compelling points we should consider.
A man who does no reserch at all himself and has never even attemted to present some evidence for this ill-defined intelligence/God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science..that he claims is responsible for life.
He is a proponent of a pseudoscientific idea ID, which has never and will never contribute anything to our understanding of nature.
Stephen Meyer's a shill for the Discovery Institute. He's a trickster.
How nice was that! Shermer did a great job. I have long been an advocate of ID. However, to hear Shermer allowing and encouraging a full airing of Meyer's analyses, in such a friendly and positive way, was very impressive. Thank you.
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
@@jamesginty6684 I'm in love with Aron's brain 🧠 😍
Ive been watching these two for more than a decade now. seeing them grow old and lose their hairs make me emotional. time flies
Wow, what a terrific discussion! I really appreciate the manner in which Michael and Stephen listen to each other. I have to say, I was blown away by Stephen Meyer's reasoning for Intelligent Design. Quite brilliant! I've just bought his book, Return to God, as a result of this video. Thank you again Michael for showing patience and humility when listening to Stephen.
Can I ask why? I'm listening and sounds like the usual hot air.
It's not a hard to understand that it's silly to argue from a starting point that is a foregone conclusion, yet he does exactly this
@@drts6955 I am feeling the exact same. Hitch would have finished this conversation in under 100 words.
Just because there seems to be a beginning... Doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent designer. Or miracles, answered prayers, and the like. To give the "creator" hyperintelligent, human qualities... Seems to me, to be the definition of arrogance.
If there is a God, he is overly fond of beetles. Of which, there are over 350,000 species.
He is also fond of viruses. There have been at least 10 viruses for every species to ever exist. And 99 percent of all species to ever live... Are now extinct.
If there is a designer, he would seem rather bungling and incompetent. Or at least wasteful, by our standard.
@@gregbrown3082 But remember God works in mysterious ways...
@@gregbrown3082 As computer is programmed by 1010101... to work, you are ATCGGGGCCCTTTAA..., and all creatures are the same, what you can tell from the same?
If you found out there are wisdoms in the programmed ATCGGGGCT..., then you will understand how come the birds know the season, destination thousand of miles away, the spiders know how to weave paralleled web, chicken comes before egg. These questions are more important than virus..
@@gregbrown3082 didn’t hitch come to think that aliens brought spores to earth to start life. Y’all have some intelligent people on your side. But all of them can’t answer the question of where the information for life came from.
It's good to see people who disagree in things not calling names.
As someone who has been quite evangelical on both sides of the argument, and while I don't know what it would take to move me back towards a more theist viewpoint, the older I get, the more I value friendly, civil conversations such as this. I think there is definitely still a time and place for strong argument and debate but what seems to be lacking everywhere these days is civility and the ability to disagree with each other and not take disagreement as a personal attack. Many thanks to both Mr. Shermer and Mr. Meyer for this talk.
If I could make one critique to Mr. Shermer, and perhaps this couldn't be helped, but there seemed to be an audio delay that caused a bit of talking over each other at times.
This is precisely what is needed (as with Keating's podcast) as an interlocuter between science and the population at large. We must have these conversations. Thank you.
After watching the train wreck that was the debate between Meyer and Krauss, I was very happy to see a much more productive, deep, and friendly discussion here. Big thanks to Drs. Shermer and Meyer for this conversation, and I'm excited to read Meyer's book in the near future😁
Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect.
His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian Taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Thank you for such a wonderful conversation. I think this is much better than debates. Going back and forth and exploring thoughts is such a good format.
I think this is really the only way to see both sides clearly. I’ve always found debates inconclusive.
I’m a christian and first time checking out Michael’s page. This was a great conversation. Always enjoy listening to Michael.
[...] " first time checking out Michael’s page." ... "Always enjoy listening to Michael."
"first time" - "Always" seems to be a conflict here....
Countdown to Stephen Meyer being on Joe Rogan 🤞 Exposure seems to be what this guy needs, then hopefully more conversations with people educated enough to address his points head on
I came across Stephen on the Hoover institution's 'Uncommon Knowledge' series.
Joe won't have him on. Joe hates Christianity.
Joe claims to love having conversations with opposing views but how often does he actually have people with the opposite views on his show
@@burnsloads So did I, though I was disappointed to see their comment section was disabled. The comments would have been good to read.
Scientists have better things to do
wow micheal shermer really got the interview right. no unfair characterizations, no personal attacks or psychologizing, none of the stuff i've gotten so used to with self described "skeptics." really good stuff, keep it idea-focused with mutual appreciation and a quest for understanding.
I generally find the lack of open discourse and free thinking among the atheist materialists disappointing and frankly unscientific. But Shermer is a breath of fresh air! Great chat
have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?
It's the opposite but sure xd
@@faikerdogan2802 Sure, sometimes and sometimes not. But your comment proves my point ;)
@@jamesginty6684 Yes, Professor Dave speaks on every scientific topic, and frankly I find him lacking.
@@dantheman909 LOL
Jeez, Michael Shermer just keeps churning them out. Fantastic work rate. Becoming my favourite podcast
Fantastic conversation. Stephen has a pretty impressive intellect.
@@jamesginty6684 I'm sure it must be very interesting, but I was referring to Stephen only. Regardless of any shady associations.
@Miles Doyle you are obviously very passionate. maybe just a few less words, 1 cor 2:4. ask for a word in season
Seems like Shermer turned a corner since the trashing of Hancock. Admittedly, this guy is a scientist and Hancock is a writer, but seeing Shermer taking a look at a theory like this is refreshing.
Definitely skeptical of this myself, but I am happy to entertain the notion. As a reformed 'militant athiest', I think it's important to consider all ideas that may be influencing our current reality. Understanding where others are comimg from and seeing their logical process is a much better approach than writing-off a notion off because it posits a "higher being".
Hmm. I thought the turning point was Deepak Chopra..they had some nasty encounters but have now become good friends.
@@guenthermichaels5303 could well be where the turn happened! I honestly appreciate Shermer's skepticism, it's important to question everything, in order to sniff out the BS or simply understand a subject better.
@@McAwesomeDelux I agree, I really respect Shermer's mind.. I'm not that excited about this interview. Too much philosophy...If you knew nothing about Stephen Meyer's scientific argument, one might be lost.. The science argument is really fascinating, and means Darwinism is dead and out dated.. My issue with Meyer is his leap from an intelligence behind the design, to it being a Christian God.
The best discussion I have seen on this, is a Hoover institute interview, with Meyer and 2 Scientists..which really opened my mind.
Here is the link
Watch "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" on TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html
@@guenthermichaels5303 listening now! Thanks for tracking down the link, always a pleasure to hear "cooler heads" talking about these subjects.
The great thing about Michael Shermer and these debates is it has caused everyone to make their arguments better. There's a lot of BS on both sides of this debate. No BS in this discussion. Incredibly useful
I appreciate the work of Stephen Meyer tremendously.
Me too
@@revelationtrain7518 +1
@@familykeepersca
Social credit score.
I think he's wasted his time, trapped in a rabbit hole he's unwilling to get out of, yearning for acceptance.
@@matthiusantonin2652 I can think of a myriad of other ways to get attention.
Shermer is always worthwhile. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I wish he’s offer more evidence for his “objective morality”. I don’t see it.
@@bryanutility9609 I agree. Both the words objective and morality are never quite clear, at least not to me. I like to present people with a thought ecperiment: suppose you are a school teacher. You ask every student to draw a picture of a chair. Then you ask same students to draw picture of "the soul." The chairs will all look more or less like chairs but every picture of the soul might look different. This confirms my belief that the word chair reliably refers to a concrete object the existence of which we can all agree upon. However, the notion of the soul is so vague, so nebulous that nobody can agree upon its appearance let alone its characteristics. We can even safely presume that soul may in fact be a word for an object that does not exist, like unicorn, demon, angel, or any of a multitude of fictitious entities that are products of our imagination. I tend to agree with the empiricists that mathematical propositions and propositions that refer to tangible objects are valid, whereas all other propositions are questionable and likely invalid.
@@donaldwhittaker7987 I don’t think there’s anything invalid about love or consciousness. Just because something can easily be analyzed materially doesn’t mean it’s more valuable. Cockroaches are numerous & easy to draw but they do not inspire high art like the soul does. The highest level of meaning is something we can hardly describe in words and that is where poetry & art matter most. Our dreams create the future. Most mathematicians & the greatest scientists will agree.
@@bryanutility9609 ok. I would say that processes can be considered valid propositions, as in I love my wife. I know I have an ongoing feeling that I can describe or discuss without difficulty. But I do think that many objects that we know are vague, absurd, or improbable can be viewed as belonging to literature. If there is no such thing as an immortal soul or a supreme being or other intangibles it in no way diminishes my existence or my abilities or my interests. I can accept many intangibles as literature without the need to believe them real. We are programmed to believe in things we know might be unreal but we can outgrow them as we do the tooth fairy, etc. It often takes the brain many years to outgrow erroneous information we learn when young. I was able to do this by age 15. For other people it can be older or younger or never. The "never" is often the subject of tragedy in literature, such as in Shakespeare's 5 great tragedies.
these kind of talks are very useful for staying calm in this times
Have to commend Michael for being very respectful and charitable. Good to see.
You have to hand it to theism, it really has upped its game recently
It helps to not be suppressed, and I am aware that all power structures have more than a proclivity to do so.
It helps when you don't have smear campaigns against you and disinformation campaigns
@@Minister-Peter-V1-Church • 👍 You put it better than I did.
You’ve got to be kidding!
@@gabriellebakker6489 I don't think they are! Incredibly. I might start a smear campaign just to make them feel less wrong 🤣
Thank you both for having the conversation. I’m a very dysfunctional,angry atheist with issues towards theist like Steven. This was very therapeutic ✌🏻💜
It's therapeutic for us theists who actually respect Michael Shermer for his honest approach to truth and reality even in disagreement.
@@JimPfaff your a good man
@anzu that u admitted ur condition already shows a maturity that u have that many, me including, don’t have
I have all three of your most recent books, Stephen Meyer, and love listening to you speak, converse and debate. Thank you, Michael Shermer, for this video. Looking forward to your new book on conspiracy theories and conspiracies. That should be very interesting read!
+1 I have 2
Fun to listen to such knowledgeable and articulate people talking about something we should all be interested in
have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?
Whether or not you agree with his conclusions (I don’t), Meyer sure knows his stuff and his arguments were thought-provoking. I really enjoyed this one.
(I don’t”) could be (I don’t know) the mind is still open
I highly doubt you are remotely qualified to comment on his work
@@markcredit6086 His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.
If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect.
wow. one of the few non-vitriolic dialogues i've witnessed in this area. nice to see. thank you.
a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
But, there is more than "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe Pity, according to the Cambridge Dictionary online, is "a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation." How can pity originate in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference?" Pity posits a universal value, that of life. All life values life; one could even posit that all matter is a denial of entropy and an affirmation of life. Why should such a value exist in a blind, pitiless universe? Value itself posits good versus evil; one thing is better than another, one thing is to be preferred over another.
Great conversation! I love a good debate but this was very, very refreshing! In a world of violent division, dialogue is pleasant and welcome.
I've been an inquiring Atheist for 57 years and this is the best talk from across the table back and forth I've heard. Thank you Gentleman.
Along with Dr Stephen Meyer, my other two favourite biologists are Dr Ruperrt Sheldrake and Dr Bruce Lipton. Would love to see them as guests on your pod cast.
Thank you Mr Shermer 🙏🏼
Except ... Meyer isn't a biologist ...
He holds a degree in "History and Philosophy of Science".
He doesn't understand chemistry, physics and biology, and is caught red handed lying about scientific facts.
He claims there were no animals living before the Cambrian ... lie ... fossel records have shown that.
He claims the Cambrian only lasted 10 MA ... lie ... it lasted 70 MA.
He doesn't understand DNA, it's code, reproduction, and how aminoacids are formed. But his ignorance doesn't hold him back to claim numerous falsehoods on.
I can go on like forever ...
In short, he's a fraud, and held up to the scrutiny of real scientists, he fails big time.
Note that he never published his "findings" in a scientific paper which are the way scientists go about.
Papers get reviewed by their peers, scrutinised and corrected if necessary.
He knows he can't do that because then he would be exposed for the liar and fraud he is.
And that's why he writes popular pseudoscience books where readers gulp up all his lies and misrepresentations ... to finally declare him their hero. ... just like you just did.
Just bought this book on audible. Really looking forward to reading/ listening to it.
I am on the same journey! The the narrator is very good-, but I am quite thankful for the rewind function:-)
@@giotor5603the rewind function is well used for sure 😂
Great coversation. Thank you for hosting it and making it available. I'll be back to see more.
Ohhhhh damn!!!! I have been wanting to hear Meyer talk to a skeptic lol
Shermer will keep living in denial, doesn’t have any good objections to Meyers arguments
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Goodness! Give the man a break. As a theist, I surely disagree with him. But his questions were insightful and quite useful. Shermer adds a lot to this debate. And he gave Stephen C. Meyer a full platform to discuss his ideas. That surely should count for something positive you could provide in your statement. I frankly like Michael Shermer a lot even with my stark disagreements with his ideas. I'll be listening to his podcast with much more regularity. Thanks, Michael. You made this fun and interesting. And I appreciate you very much. I hope my podcast sometime in the future gains enough prominence that you'll come on. Thank you.
@Darwinism is a fairy tale Hi Diaft. Do you really imagine that there are no cogent counter responses to Meyers' so-called arguments? If so, you need to comprehensively rethink your understanding of science, starting with Laplace and moving forward from there.
@@rexdalit3504 there aren't and you can't name any, Darwin is dead get over it
Love your show Michael I am so so glad you let people you interview give there side without a useless debate which on most shows is just a yelling match
Great discussion. Thank you, gentlemen
thank you Dr Shermer for having this beautiful conversation with Stephen. Your point on economy - well there is is a question of "who created participants, money, goods, rules"
Dr Shermer is unbelievably tolerant and patient. I admire that so much.
I agee. Like him a lot. I believe he is sincerely listening and trying to examine each idea and view the best he can. He really tries to see it the other person's way. Which other atheists, agnostics did the same.
I don't think he was forceful enough in pointing out the flaws in what Meyer was saying.
@@Andre_XX what flaws Shermer is barley qualified to talk to him
@@markcredit6086 A guy who believes in supernatural forces of a "transcendent influencer" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) is suffering from a rather serious and disabling flaw.
What a great conversation! Thank you both!
I'm a creationist, however, I really enjoy listening to Michael Shermer.
Once again, two beautiful brothers pushing us to the limits.
That was extraordinary... Thank you for sharing the conversation.
Thank you. Enjoyed being able to listen to a 2 hour conversation.
Wow! Looking forward to go dig thru this. Thanks Michael!
This is what we call an intelligent conversation between two people who disagree with each other. Very nice
An intelligent conversation from their intelligently designed minds.😊
Fascinating and deep conversation! Ive read all of his books. I’ve been studying these issues for years and have concluded that Stephen Meyer is the foremost expert on Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. He has a brilliant and inquisitive mind, and he is sympathetic and respectful to everyone regardless of their position. He is a gift to mankind, and a first rate example of how a Christian should behave.
"...concluded that Stephen Meyer is the foremost expert on Darwinian evolution ..." I think not. He says information can only come from a mind. The entire point of Darwinian evolution is that information can derive from a mindless process.
@@Andre_XX Hi Andre, I do know that’s what Darwinists believe. And thank you for your reply. But have you ever found anything in your human experience here on earth, where specified complexity arose without a mind behind it all? And what about the Big Bang? Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? How did the main elements (11?) necessary for life happen to arrive? And laws of nature (lawgiver maybe?).
How bout our solar system being fine tuned for life? Then earth somehow resulted from the chaos? And then abiogenesis somehow occurred - life from non life (which our brightest minds haven’t been able to create yet). Then plants and photosynthesis arrived just in time to feed the animals?
You and others believe all of this (and hundreds more processes and miracles) somehow “evolved”? I just cannot muster up enough faith to believe what you guys believe. Evolution is not a miracle worker. It’s simply one organism lives and one dies. Each organism is limited to its DNA. Evolution has no creative power to build new body parts. You guys are expecting evolution to create things way beyond our smartest engineers capabilities. I’m sorry Andre, You guys are placing evolution in place of the Creator. I hope some day you see that and you will develop a relationship with your creator that is more special than any relationships you find on this planet.
Best wishes to you in your search for truth Andre.
@@johncastino2730 How did polynesians "design" craft that could sail across the pacific ocean? They did not have degrees in nautical engineering. They copied the craft that came back. They did not copy the craft that sunk!
You ask where did the energy come from. Are you sure there is any energy? There is an hypothesis that the net energy in the universe is zero.
Life could have arisen by chance. Chance is a known phenomenon. Nature has had countless opportunities and only had to get it right once.
We know there are uncountable solar systems out there - more than all the grains of and on all the beaches of the world. Ours happened by chance to be amenable for life. We are adapted to our solar system, the solar system is not adapted for us.
If we don't know something it is intellectual dishonesty to plug the gap in our understanding with a god. Until you can explain the origin of your god, your arguments have no explanatory power and are merely wishful thinking.
Meyer's a trickster - a Discovery Institute shill. He sells you a reassuring fiction and you fall for it hook line 'n sinker. God doesn't exist and the Bible's a POS fantasy book:
Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.”
Leviticus 25: 44-46 “You may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you […] You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.”
Exodus 21:20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken for he (the slave) is his property”
Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but on the seventh shall go out as a free man without payment”
Exodus 21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are”
1 Peter 2:18 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.”
Psalm 137:9 “Happy/Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”
Deut. 25:11-12 “If two Israelite men get into a fight and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man, you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”
Deut. 22:28-29 “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
1 Cor 14:35 “It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Lev 21:9 “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father’s holiness, and she must be burned to death.”
Deut 21:10-11 “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman you may take her as your wife.”
Numbers 31:17-18 “So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”
I had the privilege and pleasure to meet Dr. Michael at a seminar of the Skeptic Society when I was an atheist. I enjoyed his seminar immensely and am glad I attended. I met really nice people and the scientists who spoke were gracious and friendly.
Dr. Shermer is not afraid of those who disagree with him. I wish him good health and good luck!
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Love this! You are now on my podcast list. Awesome.
I haven't read or listened to Shermer for a while but this interview reminds me just how valuable his commitment to ideas and rational argument is. With his books and public discussions he maintains a humorous and down to earth attitude which is enviable. I'll remember to keep in touch with his sane and intelligent world view in the future.
These guys know the secret of HOW TO END WORLD WARS, respectful dialogue
Meyer doesn’t explain how complexity can arise out of simplicity. He says that Dawkins & Co are not different from him because they say that physical matter and energy have always been here, whereas he’s saying that an intelligent mind has always been here. But Meyer’s theory is less satisfactory because it doesn’t explain how a complex thing like a mind (which must’ve been every bit as complex as the minds that it designed) could come about from something simple
Almost finished the book. Fantastic read. Meyer makes a great case for ID while refuting his critics and fearlessly examining alternative ideas about the origin of life. This is no God of the gaps, this is examine the evidence and ask yourself what is more probable based on the evidence we have.... random chance or intelligence.
No one could have said better. Thank you
Random chance is at least a known phenomenon. Immaterial, originless intelligence is utterly unknown. Don't be too persuaded by sophisticated-sounding illogical nonsense.
@@Andre_XX Random chance doesn't exist.
Random chance means "I'm ignorant to how this is happening"
And that is not an explanation.
You can't say "I don't know did it"
@@HappyBloke81 I was trying to point out that even random chance is a known phenomenon - unlike supernatural bs. Evolution is a two stage process (1) random chance (2) non random selection. Creationists tend to concentrate on saying it is all random chance, which it is not.
@@Andre_XX random chance is a known phenomena?
Wow I've never seen it in existence. Can you show me where to see it
I LOVE you both talking!!! Thank you!
Such a great video ! There is such accommodation, tolerance and respect for the other in this discussion. I like what Michael says @ 35.03 Will we ever get to a consensus 50 years & 100 years from now ?
Then @39:11 If God handed us these moral values, how do we know what they are? Do we get them out of holy books, those holy books conflict with each other why can't we go straight to the source? why do we have to read it in a book?
Excellent. Thank you Michael. A mature discussion and both great minds had a great chance for expression.
I do find it problematic, namely the notion of a creator separate from the world and the life on it, who might have come, waved a magic wand and then left. The materialists make reference to the laws of Nature and naturalistic processes that are incredible in their complexity. Why is this considered to be mechanical when in fact it could be a primary example of an intelligent agency constantly modifiying the process of life from within and without? Philosophical idealism might offer an opportunity for a better model that could solve the materialist/ID divide.
Stephen Meyer is easily the best ID interlocketer out there.
ID has a big fat problem ( mechanism) there is no way of testing, analysing, evaluating, researching, studying or providing it ,thats why the book is called the God hypothesis, you can't need evidence for a hypothesis, to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism,......there is no mechanism for ID or a biblical God
@@mattberrytr1 yes but multi universe is natural phenomena, it only takes a piece of inflationary vacuum the size of a kilogram to start a big bang event, quantum theory allows this to happen without God, there is a strong theory of the inflationary vacuum increasing faster and getting hotter, however this huge amount of energy had to go somewhere, it went into creating the big bang, it's like thousands/ millions of tiny bubbles forming in a huge ocean, ever expanding and our universe is just one of those countess bubbles, black holes have evidence of an older universe, there are stars older than our known universe
Our universe could be expanding off a dying universe and when our universe ends another expands off ours eternally, in an expansion and contraction ,getting better every time ( fine tuning) just like evolution our universe could be an improvement from the last and so on.
@@mattberrytr1 The multiverse is a scientific hypothesis. God claims are often untestable, arbitrary claims that are indistinguishable from nonsense. And this is not an accident.
The history of religions and belief in gods shows a clear development away from falsifiable, testable god claims to arbitrary god claims that are immunized against any kind of criticism. What believers haven't realized is that this completely destroys any significance of the claim. If you have a claim which you can make arbitrary excuses for, then it also has zero explanatory power. It's useless.
What a fantastic conversation. Much better then debates.
Wow, this was really great. Invigorating actually.
This is definitely refreshing/ mutual respect with intelligent exchange ❤
Dawkin's line about "pitiless indifference" seems to be in a style inspired by Nietzsche.
Dawkins argument is a child equivalent of not understanding why parents choose not to spank a 17 year old for making a mistake or why a parent doesn’t fix every problem that 17 year old faces.
If you assume God knows what the outcome of every interaction or non-interaction is and that anything more would ruin the outcome … then complaining about indifference is just dawkins not understanding or even weighing the question of how would God get people to genuinely love him and be morally inclined.
1) would people be more true in their character and love for God if they followed the few clues and hints at his existence.
Or
2) an all powerful God appearing to them and the person being in awe and likely frightened at the power of and fear of offending God.
Based on humans capacity to rebel against forced behaviour and supreme authority … I think we could all understand fundamentally that there would be a lot of problems with a big chunk of people rebelling against an actively involved God and that another larger chuck of people would just obey out of fear of consequences.
The best analogue for people who are materialism (only believe in things that can be proved) based in their world view would be if you were a multi-billionaire that needed to find a wife who would never divorce you and would actually truly love you. Would you best achieve that by
A) interacting with a partner without them knowing or seeing your vast wealth so that they fall in love with who you are as a person
Or
B) sweep your potential partner off their feet by spending millions on them and taking care of any problems they have …. Would that create a truly loving relationship that would last for eternity,
Dawkins is mean...what did the Universe do to him😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘
Good discussion. I learned a lot from both parties. This was the most interesting book I've read in a long time.
I commend Michael Shermer for so patiently listening to Mr. Meyer's retrodictions. Reminds me of the Scopes monkey trial.
These guys just show how beautiful and Amazing the Mind is. They have talked short of two hours in every possible subject with impeccable clarity of their thoughts and focus. Just wondering if they're real. I like Michael's style of interview as he is a writer himself makes this show amazing. Stephen seems to know everything. Sometimes in places I wish he could speak English ( Like Marty Mcfly said to the prof).BEAUTIFUL MINDS !
The idea that Intelligence is behind the complexity of our earth and the life that crawls upon it, and is responsible for it, is so intuitively obvious.
I call Him God. In the quiet of waking each morning, we say hello to each other. I am happy to trust in Him.
Regarding the part of the discussion that dealt with math and the mistake of assuming that math somehow (directly or indirectly) 'created' the universe, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book on this topic. The Book's title is _Lost in Math_ and deals with how physicists (many not all) have been seduced by Math and are trying to find explanations of quantum physics and quantum gravity that are based on elegant mathematical formulae. They believe that the state of the universe MUST be based on their beautiful mathematics. A good book by a brilliant mind who is a top of the line physicist. She has no problem kicking her fellow physicists in the balls (figuratively, of course) in this book (as she does from time to time on her TH-cam channel). After reading Dr. Meyer's book you should consider reading Hossenfelder's book. Both books are mind opening and educational.
Great respect to both men, Meyer is the first apologist I’ve seen that can put together a cogent argument for theism. I will seek out more of his work. My biggest question regarding ID, though, is why is it so vastly, unnecessarily complex and in the end - in the case of humans, at least - a very poor one? Born helpless, required to be unconscious one third of the time, must drink and eat or die in short order, unable to withstand moderate variations in heat or cold, rife with orifices into which pathogens can enter and kill us, aggressive and morally flawed…how did we ever survive this long (granted all but one species of hominids did not)? Seems more likely the result of a quite precarious “survival of the good enough” path.
29:30 - 29:55 How can Meyer even suggest that a multiverse requires more “explanatory postulates” than intelligent design when we have consistent historical precedence that this not the case? Had Meyer been alive a few centuries ago, he would have argued that the same about multiple planets or multiple galaxies.
It’s also not clear how he quantifies the number of postulates for either hypothesis, especially given that there are multiple versions of the former and no clear framework of the latter.
I am from one of those multiverses.
Are you suggesting that we lacked empirical evidence for multiple planets a few centuries ago?
I would also ask if you understand that the belief in multiple planets and in multiple galaxies originated with something other than empirical evidence?
Stephen Meyers and James Tour have flipped my perspective about the origins of life and the beginning of the universe. At first I didn't want to listen being an Athiest. However the evidence both provide is overwhelming rather highlight how little we know the more we understand the complexity. Thank you for such conversations and bringing them to light.
You picked 2 guys who do no reaserch in that field (meyer does no reaserch at all), odd choice.
There is no evidence for the ID side..their entire "argument" rests on some ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.
Yes im with you it takes an open mind the truth is all that matters
The concept of intelligent design is interesting. Where do these guys define what they mean by god? What does Meyer mean by the Judeo Christian concept of god? How can we decide what we think about what he is saying without this definition? Why has he chosen Christianity rather than one of the other forms of theism? That Isaac Newton believed in some form of god is no big deal. He had no idea of the size of the universe. I guess I’ll have to read his book.
Excellent question, the idea of the Christian god logically and rationally aligns with the reality we live in.
This was awesome Michael! Great job!!
The presumption that scientists should not, and therefore do not, select and interpret evidences according to preconceptions and paradigmatic biases is unhelpful (and _itself_ a paradigmatic bias).
In short, to err is human. Science is merely a tool of human use, not an innoculation against bias, mistake, or alas dishonesty.
I have heard a lot of different definitions of Science. I often say something along the lines of its a set of practices and tools for increasing or decreasing confidence in an idea.
I've come across a few definitions that state it is a set of practices to minimize bias.
My favourite definition is from Lisa Feldman Barrett- "Science is the quantification of doubt." I not sure if it is true, but I do like it.
"Science is merely a tool of human use..." I'm not sure the word "merely" is appropriate here. It is the best tool we have, and with no close second.
Can you imagine 100,000 years of science? I can’t. We’ve already reached the interface of human redundancy
I am not sure to make of Stephen's conflation between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. If I caught it correctly, he has a degree in philosophy of science. Can this be true? Does he not think the conceptual gap between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is vast? Why would he call methodological naturalism a "bias" that does not allow for the miraculous instead of the inductively assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? And if now wants, for some odd reason, to equate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, what does he want to call this assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? It is clearly a concept of immense value? If we start calling philosophical and methodological naturalism identical, we will need to agree on a coherent tag for this inductive track record concept. This concept is at the core of a coherent epistemology: that which has shown to have the most predictive power in the past, to the degree that it has proven predictively superior, to that degree we favor it in the future. Stephen, if you're reading, could you explain this odd conflation between these two very different kinds of naturalistic dispositions?
I would love to see a response to this.
Conflating the two for a philosopher, especially one with a degree in philosophy of science, is intellectual suicide.
But the agenda is obvious: denigrate "natural" science to clear the field for inserting the supernatural aka the arbitrary, or even shorter: BS. Because you can make up arbitrary supernatural claims. Their truth can not be determined and they are indistinguishable from other nonsense.
yeah and just before he says that he mentions confirmation bias within the scientific community. clearly he doesn't understand how peer review works and independent reproducibility.
Interesting conversation. His use of Occam's razor to distinguish the god hypothesis from other hypotheses was also interesting. An unconscious eternal state of affairs like a multiverse or cyclic universe would seem to be simpler in that unconsciousness is simpler than consciousness.
Ok so lets say i'm convinced that god exists. How do I know which one to worship? Probably a stupid question.
Hahahaha cmon.......IF a God really exists, he could NEVER EVER be a homophobe racist and destroyer vengeful religious one........all of them are evil and stupid and sick and medieval horrible gods, fortunately non existent
If a beginning creative mind existed, it doesn't imply it is worthy of worship.
It doesn't matter, why would it?
That question alone is enough to invalidate theism. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
@@raymondluxury-yacht1638 infact they are whole wrong and false, to me at least. Maybe a Supreme God or Supreme Consciousness exists, maybe, I'm agnostic, plausibilistic agnostic, therfore i do not exclude anything and do not give anything for certain until i don't get proofs, however religious gods are bullshit as religions too of course
Philosophy is the mother of all science.
cool. I'm atheist but since Atheist philosophers started talking about the simulation hypothesis, they need to stop calling theists dumb. besides it's cool reading opposing views. Why would you only listen to things you already agree anyway?
Name one thinker who accepts Bostrom's simulation hypothesis. Not even Nick Bostrom himself accepts it.
@@imusmoedelaun1787 you sound more like a conspiracy theory nut to me.
And ultimately...No one really knows if there is or isn't a god. Guess we'll all find out.
@@GenX4ever Yeah, we don't really know whether square circles exist either. For exactly the same reason. Oh, wait.
@@StefanTravis yes they do. I've got one. Lol!
"If I'm right we will never know. If you're right, we'll find out in the next life and I'll argue to apologize. Hoping we'll be in the same place.And we'll ask The Mind 'Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Micheal Shermer. Touching closing statement.
People who don't want to believe will always find a way to not believe regardless of the evidence... a simple fact about human nature.
@damien roberts People who want to believe will always find a way to believe regardless the evidence or lack there of