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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Do you really need to imagine a creator (not that I’m aware of any proof for his existence) when it’s a proven fact that 50% of children in human history didn’t make it past the age of 5 (meaning that god intentionally condemned them to dying prematurely)
"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’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.
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
So basically we need a creator to explain information and complexity because it just cant have "happened". So we need a creator who embodies information and complexity who seems to have just "happened" by always existing. But it's dressed up in scientific jargon so ok then!
The argument is that information has in our current experience always been found to have a root source of consciousness, so it’s reasonable to assume that information found in DNA was also sourced from consciousness. What would be novel is information from randomness.
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.
_Skeptic_ believes that Stephen Meyer has enough scientific pedigree to bring him on for a rational dialogue. But guys _@Skeptic_, you have to catch on to the premise that Steve Meyer is a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute - a conservative Christian think tank that seeks to influence politics and public policy toward Christian theocracy. Meyer is in the business of 'teaching the controversy' in popular media, create hype, massage public opinion, and influence public policy makers to inflict a christian evangelistic aptitude on society. This is a concerted multi-year 'wedge' campaign against abortion, euthanasia, sexuality and other kinder, inclusive social movements that secular, scientific progress has brought about. The very fact that this agenda-driven shill is on your show, indicates that the strategy is working! In the entire talk, he postulates ownership of complexity and morality to a nebulous proposition shaped like Spinoza's god (deism) and then cloak-and-daggers the personal god (theism) into the listeners' peripheral vision. Hopefully, Skeptic's audience is mature enough to not let these pseudoscientific parasites shit all over the hard work of scientists that actually work in their fields without any 'theocratic' agendas!
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
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
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?
You know I don't doubt that there may be some kind of design to lie but 42b and a God that was invented by these man-made religions. I desperately dispute that because I just can't believe those old fable stories like that
I agree. The bible, to me, was just a way for the elite 2000 years ago to control the masses who were mostly illiterate....sort of how the elite of today use the smartphone to do the same thing.
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.
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,
After watching this I have to admit that Stephen Meyer is a very clever man. However, elevating pseudoscience to the level of "real" science is a false equivalence and can therefore be dismissed out of hand. Nothing new to see here. "Return of the God hypothesis" is just a fancy PhD's way of reframing Intelligent Design and Creationism using cleverly constructed "sciency" sounding word salad.
Its not word salad dude. He is very clear. The information is not even really disputable. ou can disagree with the conclusions. Probably sounds like word salad if you don't understand things.
@@gregkirk1842 He is not very clear at all. The information he gives is highly disputable. His arguments are based on a fundamentally flawed premise: A God exists. Therefore, his conclusions do not logically follow. Would you be happier if I replaced "word sald" with; _carefully crafted pseudo-scientific jargon_ ? I understood him just fine... and don't call me "dude".
@@bat2293 he doesn't mention God in this interview. He is looking at the laws of the physics, mathematical probabilities, and the complexity of living organisms to make a case that information was likely inserted into the Universe at It's creation. They are good arguments.
@@gregkirk1842 They are circular arguments. Therefore Null arguments. ie: Event A could only happen if A God exists. Event A happened, therefore God exists. Oh, and did you not see "God" in the title of his book? This interview was a discussion of the arguments _in his book_ . Who do you think "likely inserted" this information you are referring to? The tooth fairy? Come on man. I'm done here.
@@grassCrow No doubt, I am quite capable of confirmation bias. However that's not what I'm referring to here. This is concerning those people who are (desperately) hopeful , that out of all the thousands of recorded religious fantasies theirs is the real and right one.
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
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 a hopeless charlatan. Stephen should have gone to an actual intelligent person's podcasts to obliterate atheistic fallacies. >> See? I can make baseless assertions too.
@@juilianbautista4067 ID is a fraudulent pseudoscientific movement with no credibility in any serious scientific discussion. That is a factual statement. You can reserve your false equivalences for yourself.
I have several issues with Meyer's critique: regarding RNA World he seems to forget that time plays an enormous role. We know that after the last major asteroidal bombardment there was a period of 300-400 million years wherein the billions if not many trillions of replicators could have formed. These in turn could have easily become protobionts and later cellular culminating over this period into a plethora of "LUCA LIKE" ancestors competing for nutrients and energy. Nearly 1/2 a billion years is a long, long time. The interesting comparative molecular similarities between rhodopsin, hemoglobin, chlorophyll a,b,c,d, and the tetrapyrole (bile pigment) phycobilin found in bluegreen algal phycobilisomes shows pretty clearly the antiquity of these various pigments, their importance to life, and the conservative nature of evolution. Regarding the appearance of a profusion of Cambrian life, again we know that there existed a variety of organisms, albeit very poorly fossilized as Edicaran fauna, that are at least 100 million yrs older than early Cambrian fauna. So his reluctance to mention time is an obvious bias. There was no "Cambrian Explosion."
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.
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.
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?
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?
The universe consists of "blind, pitiless indifference"? That statement assumes that MANKIND isn't part of that universe, because many men DO have pity, and man CAN either show care or indifference about things. A car would have all the qualities we would expect it to have also, WHY? because it was DESIGNED by the manufacturer for the purpose of transportation. Thus, Dawkins' statement about the universe being pitiless and indifferent is seriously lacking in reason.
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.
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.
How does positing a "mind' behind the origin of the universe answer the question of origins? It's all well and good to talk about an "intelligent source," but what is it? And if the said "mind" exists, aren't we still stuck with the problem of infinite regress. Did a mind create the mind that created us? And did a mind create a mind that created the mind that created us?
We're not stuck with infinite regress. An uncaused first mover is the logical answer, but by definition is incomprehensible to us. An infinite regress is comprehensible to us, but completely illogical.
Good show. Two things: conflating "religion" isn't helpful, the various religions posit much different realities; each religion is a description of reality with (ideally) predictive power.
I would say that at minimum the thing just about all religions do agree on is that there is some form of transcendent being/power that exists. And that this power is responsible for all of existance. And the functional part of that that would minimally have to do with us is the fact such a being/power exists, and is responsible for our existance, that naturally lends itself to meaning there is some form of objective right, and wrong that exists. We may not know it innately, but that it is there.
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.
While I appreciate the high functioning intellectual dissemination of wildly debunked and easily disputed concepts Meyer purveys, his frantic leaps of logic and assumptions about ethical/value systems "embedded" is a dead giveaway of a kind of willful denial to see the simplicity of evolutionary ethics and values. He seems nice. Not impressed.
@@dougmattis9293 There is no such thing as "evolutionary values". If there is no God there is obviously no reason why the Nazis weren't justified. It's just another opinion. Oh you disagree with them? Too bad, they disagreed with you. Also they evolved that way and have no real free will so the only reason we would object to their genocide could possibly be our own subjective personal opinions and instincts which are again just what the laws of nature dictate us. You get rid of God you get also rid of objective moral truth and even truth in general. I do not agree with every "intelligent design" point as much of it at least to me seems unscientific (and empiricism seems to lead us to real facts about objective reality) but the metaphysical and philosophical points about morality and truth Meyer makes are sound and indisputable if you don't also cast out common sense.
@@dougmattis9293 Without even engaging on the ethics-based argument, Meyer said it isn’t even in his book; it was a very short side discussion with Shermer. What are the wildly debunked and easily disputed concepts that Meyer purveys in his published works?
@@affel6559 how have morals not evolved? Do our societies still have the exact same moral standards they did from back centuries ago? Is that why most countries are secular? To say, "you cant...without God" is an assumption, you must have disregarded all other arguments like, determinism, natural law.
The God hypothesis is an argument from ignorance fallacy all the way through. Arguing for it is also an exercise in cherry picking and fabricating the interpretation as one pleases. His interpretation of what information is subjective. Lots of things wrong with his argument, to get in here.
@@ilidiomcbarros It’s not even an hypothesis. My evidence is this: creationists and apologists rely on intentional misrepresentation of facts to build their cases. Intentional misrepresentations are known colloquially as lies, which, depending on your subjective interpretation of scripture, is either a fatal sin, or no big deal (assuming you are lying for Jesus and/or are forgiven to sin all you want because you have been saved). So either no objective morality exists, in which case there is no reason for the biblical God, or it does and Christians don’t believe in it any more than atheists do.
Thank you both for having the conversation. I’m a very dysfunctional,angry atheist with issues towards theist like Steven. This was very therapeutic ✌🏻💜
not all slaves want to be free, just ask those who have been in prison for 40 years, once you become institutionalized its very hard to survive outside of that context, so just asking a "slave" is not enough to make something good or not, the answer rests outside a mere opinion or emotion in any given context.
Ultimately beyond the word-salads Meyer spews...the ID education efforts in the US is generally focused on forced teaching "creation" from Christian (certainly not Eastern) aspect. I'm okay with that; it only takes about 5 second out of class to mention: "oh the other competing hypothesis is: god did it". Meyer and the ID crowd are not advocating the teaching of information theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and solutions to second-order, differential equations...the stuff Meyer invokes to support his hypothesis. Why not, if you need them to compete with current hypotheses for origin and evolution? After DeQ, QM, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, I'm quite sure the students would be convinced that Lord Jesus is the simpler explanation. I am surprised that Shermer didn't bring up the politics of the Discovery "Institute"...bet their labs are buzzing with new discoveries and publication in peer-review. Meyer was the force behind the "teach the controversy" angle...all the big fighting among Darwin's followers we're told about but can't find in the literature. Anyway, I suppose someone has to talk to him, and Shermer is an excellent choice.
I am om the side of 'evolution in school, creationism in church'. I think its the obvious choice - teaching ID as a competative theory is very misguided, because no matter how well reasoned, there is no falsifiable hypothesis in ID, therefore it is not scientific.
@@McAwesomeDelux Someone once said that churches should have warning signs placed, by law, conspicuously outside the entrances; to wit: IMPORTANT...IF TRUE. You're are exactly right, and I think Shermer lets Meyer off without the noting that precise difference between the "competing" hypotheses". Complexity as evidence of the divine, is intriguing, but is also explained, at least to first-order, by non-equilibrium thermo without the necessity of godly information input.
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 liked the friendly tone but I wonder If it is really a honest attempt to search the truth or just another attempt to justify intelligent design. Some examples: - At the end Stephen rejects universe from math base on the argument that the rules of universe could change at any moment. And isn't it the old problem of Induction of Hume? We have this problem in Science anyway. And even with God he could change the rules if he wants! In fact, miracles are by definition a break of the rules. Given that a mathematical universe needs a mathematical definition it surely will have rules tp define it no matter how complex. And that is just what he can confirm by experience. - Quantum fields are not invented by scientist to avoid introducing God. Instead, they had provided the most precise predictions confirmed by countless experiments. Parallel universe and other cosmologies are certainly more philosophy of science and truly a lot Scientist define them as unfalsifiable, But it also can be considered an extension of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics that was not invented to avoid God... it was proposed by Everett to explain the Schrödinger cat paradox. And those many worlds are already in Schrödinger's equation. It is just that we do not agree about how to explain that electron that uses both slides at the same time - "You can base everything on matter & energy and a replicator (of life) or you can base everything on God". But we are 100% sure that matter and energy do exist. Life do reproduce. Basing everything on something that you do not know if it exists is not a good idea. Even if it existed, you do not understand God so it won't help science at all. But that does't seem to matter because God was the original goal. The alpha and the omega, that is, a circular argument. - Most of the arguments in the video can be summarised into: 1 - Find hard or impossible to explain X 2 - ...??? 3. - God But forgets to demonstrate why it is impossible. (Argument from ignorance. Ej. Viking says I cannot explain how a could thunder exist without Thor so the Thor, God of thunder, must be real.) - If they really believe in intelligent design: are species created separated? If not, they be very interested in creating a taxonomy of life declaring what are those separated animals. Had lions and tigers a different origin? lions and cats? cats or rats? rats and reptiles? I they had a single origin from LUCA, what is really the difference from evolution with extra steps. Is not very different from the Pope accepting evolution but suggesting that the loving hand of God helped in the process but being indistinguible. The fact there is not much interest in defining how this work make me suspect that it not an attempt to create science but to justify God
Nah, it’s more akin to finding regular scrawls in stone and concluding an intelligence produced them vs random natural process. In fact it could be either but the debate itself is worth having.
Mind's purpose is - conscious & willingly connected life; therefore: Mind begets material. They beget life. Life begets consciousness - and eventually, (after exploring other options) willingly connects with Mind. Mind's purpose is then accomplished. The cycle is: Mind, Material, Life, Consciousness & Mind. Science now clearly shows that Mind must come before Material.
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!
Quote from the Host's own mouth Track: 56:56-58..."So the mind would be like something like our mind but smarter, bigger, more powerful." "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..(Genesis 1:26) ...For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9 So is my word that goes out from my mouth It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire-- Isaiah 55:10.
@@markallenbialik Mere assertion is not an argument. If you're asking which "god" just to be a troll and you don't actually care about the answer, then that's fine. But it's unfortunate, because the message of the gospel offers forgiveness and peace with your creator.
@@D-meist it’s not a mere assertion: not only does the Bible contradict itself, but the supposed “god” from the stories in it doesn’t manifest in reality even by it’s own supposed criteria, as per Jesus. And, no, I’m not interested in fake “salvation” . I was a Christian for 36 years, and have read the Bible cover-to-cover 4 times in my lifetime; you aren’t offering any new nonsense I haven’t already heard.
Morals, good, bad, right, wrong, evil, divine, correct and incorrect all resolve to opinion. There is no objective way to sort that out. Us humans do the best we can with a consensus of opinion. Most of the arguments by theists and atheists alike would be answered if they only learned the object/concept distinction. Knowing the difference between concepts and objects and learning to define concepts objectively that are used in scientific sentences having to do with rational explanations of phenomena. The concept MORALS for one is a hallmark of religion. Religion being defined as irrational explanations for reality, which is really no explanation. MORALS can not be defined objectively, non synonymously or unambiguously.
With all due respect to Mr. Meyer I find his view of math, biology, and cosmology insultingly arrogant. There is always the chance that our understanding is wrong and is certainly incomplete. Science is the pursuit of ever decreasing our uncertainty and finding all the ways we are incorrect. His God only lives in these margins but I respectfully ask that he not disingenuously attempt to keep those gaps wide against the interest of further scientific understanding.
How at all is it arrogant? If there are holes in formulating an entirely materialistic conception of the universe why should those not be brought forward? This comment is just a finely dressed up ad hominem
He keeps saying it’s fine tuned for life.Obviously the laws of physics have produced life but talking about fine-tuning implies that someone or something was aiming to create life. It’s only after life has occurred that we, vaingloriously look at the fact that we are the result and declare it to be amazing.
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?
This is an argument on theism verse atheism. Meyer does not seem to be making a case for Allah, budha, Jesus, etc. Just that a creative force outside the material world is at work.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Please present a piece of evidence for ID that establishes a causal relationship between the supernatural and the natural. Let me make a prediction: you will not. You will either evade or not respond at all. You aren't even able to demonstrate mere plausibility. You claim you're winning a marathon but you haven't even managed to take a step out of your bed.
Steve seems like a smart guy but correct me if I'm wrong all his arguments are based on fallacies. God of the gaps, arguments from ignorance being his top go-to solutions to unknowns. We can not insert a god to explain anything until we can first demonstrate a god is an option in reality. I find it so telling and so sad for theists that their invisible hiding god can only be demonstrated indirectly and with fallacious arguments. There is no god.
Meyer's views seem nonsensical to my, now, atheistic, evolution-driven worldview. I realize my response may have more than a tinge of grasping for rationalizations for my side than being truly objective, but I would ask him that if his view is right, why have all the big, still existing religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and Buddhism doctrines as spelled out in their scriptures (Totah, Bible Old and New Testament, Quran, Eastern scriptures) become so riddled with proven errors and absurdities that are often interpreted as literally true by their followers? In other words, if he's right, we can't see a reasonable way to put it into practice, i.e., a well-working scripture or doctrine that is internally consistent with intelligent design and what we see every day around us. If some invisible monster is designing and controlling the show and hoping we find good ethics with (mostly obscure) clues that he or she or it has sprinkled about, it's not apparent enough to spend more than a few minutes thinking about it in comparison to naturalism, which has yet to show a flaw, other than it doesn't believe in the Christians' cruel and unethical god.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
This is a great discussion. I've always liked Meyer but now I have a new appreciation and respect for Shermer as well.
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...
what a great discussion instead of debating, arguing and getting nowhere. Stephen Meyer is a new found scholar worth learning from for me
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
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
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
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 🤣
Stephen Meyer is not only a brilliant intellectual...but also a gentleman. Thank you Dr. Shermer for hosting Dr. Meyer.
A really great discussion between two fair-minded intellectuals. We don’t see this very often.
Do you really need to imagine a creator (not that I’m aware of any proof for his existence) when it’s a proven fact that 50% of children in human history didn’t make it past the age of 5 (meaning that god intentionally condemned them to dying prematurely)
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’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.
Fascinating discussion with two men who clearly respect each other. Worth watching the whole two hours.
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? :-)
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
God smugglers
Great interview. That’s how discussions between two opposing views should be handled. With grace and respect. Kudos Michael.
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
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
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.
wow. one of the few non-vitriolic dialogues i've witnessed in this area. nice to see. thank you.
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 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.
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.
These guys know the secret of HOW TO END WORLD WARS, respectful dialogue
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.
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!
these kind of talks are very useful for staying calm in this times
So basically we need a creator to explain information and complexity because it just cant have "happened". So we need a creator who embodies information and complexity who seems to have just "happened" by always existing. But it's dressed up in scientific jargon so ok then!
The argument is that information has in our current experience always been found to have a root source of consciousness, so it’s reasonable to assume that information found in DNA was also sourced from consciousness. What would be novel is information from randomness.
Great discussion. Thank you, gentlemen
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.
_Skeptic_ believes that Stephen Meyer has enough scientific pedigree to bring him on for a rational dialogue. But guys _@Skeptic_, you have to catch on to the premise that Steve Meyer is a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute - a conservative Christian think tank that seeks to influence politics and public policy toward Christian theocracy. Meyer is in the business of 'teaching the controversy' in popular media, create hype, massage public opinion, and influence public policy makers to inflict a christian evangelistic aptitude on society. This is a concerted multi-year 'wedge' campaign against abortion, euthanasia, sexuality and other kinder, inclusive social movements that secular, scientific progress has brought about. The very fact that this agenda-driven shill is on your show, indicates that the strategy is working! In the entire talk, he postulates ownership of complexity and morality to a nebulous proposition shaped like Spinoza's god (deism) and then cloak-and-daggers the personal god (theism) into the listeners' peripheral vision. Hopefully, Skeptic's audience is mature enough to not let these pseudoscientific parasites shit all over the hard work of scientists that actually work in their fields without any 'theocratic' agendas!
Jeez, Michael Shermer just keeps churning them out. Fantastic work rate. Becoming my favourite podcast
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
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
It's good to see people who disagree in things not calling names.
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 🧠 😍
You know I don't doubt that there may be some kind of design to lie but 42b and a God that was invented by these man-made religions. I desperately dispute that because I just can't believe those old fable stories like that
I agree. The bible, to me, was just a way for the elite 2000 years ago to control the masses who were mostly illiterate....sort of how the elite of today use the smartphone to do the same thing.
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.
Great conversation! I love a good debate but this was very, very refreshing! In a world of violent division, dialogue is pleasant and welcome.
This was incredible. We need more open and honest conversation like this. I appreciate how both men were polite and honorable.
I guess it's not much of a secret that Michael and Stephen are friends.
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😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
After watching this I have to admit that Stephen Meyer is a very clever man. However, elevating pseudoscience to the level of "real" science is a false equivalence and can therefore be dismissed out of hand. Nothing new to see here. "Return of the God hypothesis" is just a fancy PhD's way of reframing Intelligent Design and Creationism using cleverly constructed "sciency" sounding word salad.
Its not word salad dude. He is very clear. The information is not even really disputable. ou can disagree with the conclusions. Probably sounds like word salad if you don't understand things.
@@gregkirk1842 He is not very clear at all. The information he gives is highly disputable. His arguments are based on a fundamentally flawed premise: A God exists. Therefore, his conclusions do not logically follow. Would you be happier if I replaced "word sald" with; _carefully crafted pseudo-scientific jargon_ ? I understood him just fine... and don't call me "dude".
@@bat2293 he doesn't mention God in this interview. He is looking at the laws of the physics, mathematical probabilities, and the complexity of living organisms to make a case that information was likely inserted into the Universe at It's creation. They are good arguments.
@@gregkirk1842 so wherever science goes, god goes with it?....
@@gregkirk1842 They are circular arguments. Therefore Null arguments. ie: Event A could only happen if A God exists. Event A happened, therefore God exists. Oh, and did you not see "God" in the title of his book? This interview was a discussion of the arguments _in his book_ . Who do you think "likely inserted" this information you are referring to? The tooth fairy? Come on man. I'm done here.
So many hopeful that the possibilities of deism equals the probability of their particular theist beliefs.
Like the pigeons ," Mine! MINE, MINE !
that seems to go both ways … you also suffer from confirmation bias
@@grassCrow
No doubt, I am quite capable of confirmation bias.
However that's not what I'm referring to here. This is concerning those people who are (desperately) hopeful , that out of all the thousands of recorded religious fantasies theirs is the real and right one.
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
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!
Meyer is a hopeless charlatan. Mike should've had an actual biologist on to dispell his myriad fallacies.
Shermer is a hopeless charlatan. Stephen should have gone to an actual intelligent person's podcasts to obliterate atheistic fallacies.
>> See? I can make baseless assertions too.
@@juilianbautista4067 ID is a fraudulent pseudoscientific movement with no credibility in any serious scientific discussion. That is a factual statement. You can reserve your false equivalences for yourself.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.
Exactly, put out the word-salad bar and ensnare those who want only to confirm their original position.
So there you have it folks. Universe appears fine tuned therefore Jesus died for your sins. The conclusion is inescapable.
*"The conclusion is inescapable."*
Amazing. I have no clue what you mean.
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 😂
I have several issues with Meyer's critique: regarding RNA World he seems to forget that time plays an enormous role. We know that after the last major asteroidal bombardment there was a period of 300-400 million years wherein the billions if not many trillions of replicators could have formed. These in turn could have easily become protobionts and later cellular culminating over this period into a plethora of "LUCA LIKE" ancestors competing for nutrients and energy. Nearly 1/2 a billion years is a long, long time. The interesting comparative molecular similarities between rhodopsin, hemoglobin, chlorophyll a,b,c,d, and the tetrapyrole (bile pigment) phycobilin found in bluegreen algal phycobilisomes shows pretty clearly the antiquity of these various pigments, their importance to life, and the conservative nature of evolution. Regarding the appearance of a profusion of Cambrian life, again we know that there existed a variety of organisms, albeit very poorly fossilized as Edicaran fauna, that are at least 100 million yrs older than early Cambrian fauna. So his reluctance to mention time is an obvious bias. There was no "Cambrian Explosion."
I’m a Christian here but I admire Michael Shermer ♥️
You lie
Meyer is a believer in search of a Designer, not a believer because he finds a Designer.
That was extraordinary... Thank you for sharing the conversation.
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.
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! Looking forward to go dig thru this. Thanks Michael!
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?
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 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.
The universe consists of "blind, pitiless indifference"? That statement assumes that MANKIND isn't part of that universe, because many men DO have pity, and man CAN either show care or indifference about things. A car would have all the qualities we would expect it to have also, WHY? because it was DESIGNED by the manufacturer for the purpose of transportation. Thus, Dawkins' statement about the universe being pitiless and indifferent is seriously lacking in reason.
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.
Meyer starts with his solution. And never says how God caused anything.
Ive been watching these two for more than a decade now. seeing them grow old and lose their hairs make me emotional. time flies
The fact is . We do not know. The danger is . Those who claim to know and their followers.
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.
stephen meyer = very intelligent...
...sounding fallacies.
How does positing a "mind' behind the origin of the universe answer the question of origins? It's all well and good to talk about an "intelligent source," but what is it? And if the said "mind" exists, aren't we still stuck with the problem of infinite regress. Did a mind create the mind that created us? And did a mind create a mind that created the mind that created us?
We're not stuck with infinite regress. An uncaused first mover is the logical answer, but by definition is incomprehensible to us. An infinite regress is comprehensible to us, but completely illogical.
Good show. Two things: conflating "religion" isn't helpful, the various religions posit much different realities; each religion is a description of reality with (ideally) predictive power.
I would say that at minimum the thing just about all religions do agree on is that there is some form of transcendent being/power that exists. And that this power is responsible for all of existance. And the functional part of that that would minimally have to do with us is the fact such a being/power exists, and is responsible for our existance, that naturally lends itself to meaning there is some form of objective right, and wrong that exists. We may not know it innately, but that it is there.
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.
While I appreciate the high functioning intellectual dissemination of wildly debunked and easily disputed concepts Meyer purveys, his frantic leaps of logic and assumptions about ethical/value systems "embedded" is a dead giveaway of a kind of willful denial to see the simplicity of evolutionary ethics and values. He seems nice. Not impressed.
Can you provide some examples of the wildly debunked and easily disputed concepts Meyer purveys?
@@dougmattis9293 There is no such thing as "evolutionary values". If there is no God there is obviously no reason why the Nazis weren't justified. It's just another opinion. Oh you disagree with them? Too bad, they disagreed with you. Also they evolved that way and have no real free will so the only reason we would object to their genocide could possibly be our own subjective personal opinions and instincts which are again just what the laws of nature dictate us.
You get rid of God you get also rid of objective moral truth and even truth in general.
I do not agree with every "intelligent design" point as much of it at least to me seems unscientific (and empiricism seems to lead us to real facts about objective reality) but the metaphysical and philosophical points about morality and truth Meyer makes are sound and indisputable if you don't also cast out common sense.
@@dougmattis9293 Without even engaging on the ethics-based argument, Meyer said it isn’t even in his book; it was a very short side discussion with Shermer. What are the wildly debunked and easily disputed concepts that Meyer purveys in his published works?
@@chasevergari3669 you are incorrect and should watch the video again.
@@affel6559 how have morals not evolved? Do our societies still have the exact same moral standards they did from back centuries ago? Is that why most countries are secular?
To say, "you cant...without God" is an assumption, you must have disregarded all other arguments like, determinism, natural law.
The God hypothesis is an argument from ignorance fallacy all the way through. Arguing for it is also an exercise in cherry picking and fabricating the interpretation as one pleases.
His interpretation of what information is subjective. Lots of things wrong with his argument, to get in here.
Mark, i have good and bad news for you. 'Soon' you will find that God is not a hypothesis. It's a reality!
@@ilidiomcbarros give him and me real proofs or please do not insist on trying to convince others of your beliefs in your kind of divinity
@@ilidiomcbarros Why can't I find out now?
@@ilidiomcbarros How worried are you about going to the Hell of Islam?
@@ilidiomcbarros It’s not even an hypothesis. My evidence is this: creationists and apologists rely on intentional misrepresentation of facts to build their cases. Intentional misrepresentations are known colloquially as lies, which, depending on your subjective interpretation of scripture, is either a fatal sin, or no big deal (assuming you are lying for Jesus and/or are forgiven to sin all you want because you have been saved).
So either no objective morality exists, in which case there is no reason for the biblical God, or it does and Christians don’t believe in it any more than atheists do.
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
not all slaves want to be free, just ask those who have been in prison for 40 years, once you become institutionalized its very hard to survive outside of that context, so just asking a "slave" is not enough to make something good or not, the answer rests outside a mere opinion or emotion in any given context.
Ultimately beyond the word-salads Meyer spews...the ID education efforts in the US is generally focused on forced teaching "creation" from Christian (certainly not Eastern) aspect. I'm okay with that; it only takes about 5 second out of class to mention: "oh the other competing hypothesis is: god did it". Meyer and the ID crowd are not advocating the teaching of information theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and solutions to second-order, differential equations...the stuff Meyer invokes to support his hypothesis. Why not, if you need them to compete with current hypotheses for origin and evolution? After DeQ, QM, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, I'm quite sure the students would be convinced that Lord Jesus is the simpler explanation. I am surprised that Shermer didn't bring up the politics of the Discovery "Institute"...bet their labs are buzzing with new discoveries and publication in peer-review. Meyer was the force behind the "teach the controversy" angle...all the big fighting among Darwin's followers we're told about but can't find in the literature. Anyway, I suppose someone has to talk to him, and Shermer is an excellent choice.
I am om the side of 'evolution in school, creationism in church'. I think its the obvious choice - teaching ID as a competative theory is very misguided, because no matter how well reasoned, there is no falsifiable hypothesis in ID, therefore it is not scientific.
@@McAwesomeDelux Someone once said that churches should have warning signs placed, by law, conspicuously outside the entrances; to wit: IMPORTANT...IF TRUE.
You're are exactly right, and I think Shermer lets Meyer off without the noting that precise difference between the "competing" hypotheses". Complexity as evidence of the divine, is intriguing, but is also explained, at least to first-order, by non-equilibrium thermo without the necessity of godly information input.
You are an angry little girl
Thank goodness Meyer wasn't conversing with you. He'd never recover from your powerful takedown.
@@SCS912 whatever. you can argue a man with bread out of his butter.
Wow, this was really great. Invigorating actually.
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.
I liked the friendly tone but I wonder If it is really a honest attempt to search the truth or just another attempt to justify intelligent design.
Some examples:
- At the end Stephen rejects universe from math base on the argument that the rules of universe could change at any moment. And isn't it the old problem of Induction of Hume? We have this problem in Science anyway. And even with God he could change the rules if he wants! In fact, miracles are by definition a break of the rules. Given that a mathematical universe needs a mathematical definition it surely will have rules tp define it no matter how complex. And that is just what he can confirm by experience.
- Quantum fields are not invented by scientist to avoid introducing God. Instead, they had provided the most precise predictions confirmed by countless experiments. Parallel universe and other cosmologies are certainly more philosophy of science and truly a lot Scientist define them as unfalsifiable, But it also can be considered an extension of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics that was not invented to avoid God... it was proposed by Everett to explain the Schrödinger cat paradox. And those many worlds are already in Schrödinger's equation. It is just that we do not agree about how to explain that electron that uses both slides at the same time
- "You can base everything on matter & energy and a replicator (of life) or you can base everything on God". But we are 100% sure that matter and energy do exist. Life do reproduce. Basing everything on something that you do not know if it exists is not a good idea. Even if it existed, you do not understand God so it won't help science at all. But that does't seem to matter because God was the original goal. The alpha and the omega, that is, a circular argument.
- Most of the arguments in the video can be summarised into:
1 - Find hard or impossible to explain X
2 - ...???
3. - God
But forgets to demonstrate why it is impossible.
(Argument from ignorance. Ej. Viking says I cannot explain how a could thunder exist without Thor so the Thor, God of thunder, must be real.)
- If they really believe in intelligent design: are species created separated? If not, they be very interested in creating a taxonomy of life declaring what are those separated animals. Had lions and tigers a different origin? lions and cats? cats or rats? rats and reptiles? I they had a single origin from LUCA, what is really the difference from evolution with extra steps. Is not very different from the Pope accepting evolution but suggesting that the loving hand of God helped in the process but being indistinguible. The fact there is not much interest in defining how this work make me suspect that it not an attempt to create science but to justify God
Stephen finds comfort in his god belief despite the barbaric nature of the Hebrew god described in Genesis.
His “barbaric nature” was 100% justified if you actually read the text.
The people were barbaric. God was trying to teach them higher ways
Some smart fellows cannot handle the uncertainty of this Great Mystery, so default to creator Zeus who made us all.
Nah, it’s more akin to finding regular scrawls in stone and concluding an intelligence produced them vs random natural process. In fact it could be either but the debate itself is worth having.
I'm a creationist, however, I really enjoy listening to Michael Shermer.
Mind's purpose is - conscious & willingly connected life; therefore: Mind begets material. They beget life. Life begets consciousness - and eventually, (after exploring other options) willingly connects with Mind. Mind's purpose is then accomplished.
The cycle is: Mind, Material, Life, Consciousness & Mind. Science now clearly shows that Mind must come before Material.
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
Quote from the Host's own mouth Track: 56:56-58..."So the mind would be like something like our mind but smarter, bigger, more powerful."
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..(Genesis 1:26)
...For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9
So is my word that goes out from my mouth
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire-- Isaiah 55:10.
Which “god”?
The triune God of the Bible
@@D-meist the triune god of the Bible is obvious nonsense.
@@markallenbialik Mere assertion is not an argument. If you're asking which "god" just to be a troll and you don't actually care about the answer, then that's fine. But it's unfortunate, because the message of the gospel offers forgiveness and peace with your creator.
@@D-meist it’s not a mere assertion: not only does the Bible contradict itself, but the supposed “god” from the stories in it doesn’t manifest in reality even by it’s own supposed criteria, as per Jesus. And, no, I’m not interested in fake “salvation” . I was a Christian for 36 years, and have read the Bible cover-to-cover 4 times in my lifetime; you aren’t offering any new nonsense I haven’t already heard.
@@markallenbialik Given what you've just said, sounds like this conversation would be better had over a beer. Hard to do this over TH-cam comments.
Morals, good, bad, right, wrong, evil, divine, correct and incorrect all resolve to opinion. There is no objective way to sort that out. Us humans do the best we can with a consensus of opinion. Most of the arguments by theists and atheists alike would be answered if they only learned the object/concept distinction. Knowing the difference between concepts and objects and learning to define concepts objectively that are used in scientific sentences having to do with rational explanations of phenomena. The concept MORALS for one is a hallmark of religion. Religion being defined as irrational explanations for reality, which is really no explanation. MORALS can not be defined objectively, non synonymously or unambiguously.
With all due respect to Mr. Meyer I find his view of math, biology, and cosmology insultingly arrogant. There is always the chance that our understanding is wrong and is certainly incomplete. Science is the pursuit of ever decreasing our uncertainty and finding all the ways we are incorrect. His God only lives in these margins but I respectfully ask that he not disingenuously attempt to keep those gaps wide against the interest of further scientific understanding.
Sensitive much
How at all is it arrogant? If there are holes in formulating an entirely materialistic conception of the universe why should those not be brought forward? This comment is just a finely dressed up ad hominem
You are not qualified to even comment here . You sound like a child
He keeps saying it’s fine tuned for life.Obviously the laws of physics have produced life but talking about fine-tuning implies that someone or something was aiming to create life. It’s only after life has occurred that we, vaingloriously look at the fact that we are the result and declare it to be amazing.
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?
This is an argument on theism verse atheism. Meyer does not seem to be making a case for Allah, budha, Jesus, etc. Just that a creative force outside the material world is at work.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste (on vacuous ID """theories"")
Vacuous? Haha intelligent design is based on solid evidence
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Lmao!
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Please present a piece of evidence for ID that establishes a causal relationship between the supernatural and the natural.
Let me make a prediction: you will not. You will either evade or not respond at all. You aren't even able to demonstrate mere plausibility.
You claim you're winning a marathon but you haven't even managed to take a step out of your bed.
Steve seems like a smart guy but correct me if I'm wrong all his arguments are based on fallacies. God of the gaps, arguments from ignorance being his top go-to solutions to unknowns. We can not insert a god to explain anything until we can first demonstrate a god is an option in reality. I find it so telling and so sad for theists that their invisible hiding god can only be demonstrated indirectly and with fallacious arguments. There is no god.
Emotionally driven toddler-level arguments dressed up w jargon.
😆😆😆😆
You give me hope.
Says the 7th grade girl
Meyer's views seem nonsensical to my, now, atheistic, evolution-driven worldview. I realize my response may have more than a tinge of grasping for rationalizations for my side than being truly objective, but I would ask him that if his view is right, why have all the big, still existing religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and Buddhism doctrines as spelled out in their scriptures (Totah, Bible Old and New Testament, Quran, Eastern scriptures) become so riddled with proven errors and absurdities that are often interpreted as literally true by their followers? In other words, if he's right, we can't see a reasonable way to put it into practice, i.e., a well-working scripture or doctrine that is internally consistent with intelligent design and what we see every day around us. If some invisible monster is designing and controlling the show and hoping we find good ethics with (mostly obscure) clues that he or she or it has sprinkled about, it's not apparent enough to spend more than a few minutes thinking about it in comparison to naturalism, which has yet to show a flaw, other than it doesn't believe in the Christians' cruel and unethical god.
Good discussion. I learned a lot from both parties. This was the most interesting book I've read in a long time.