I fucking despise how literally _20_ years after Sam Harris first published his New Atheist manifesto on _The End of Faith,_ the entire discourse on the Science vs. Religion debate remains _exactly_ the same with absolutely no further progress in philosophical insight at the mainstream. This whole revival is just _begging_ for a repeat of the Alt-Right pipeline.
Your commentary at the end was exactly right. When Shapiro wants to prove God exists, God's really vague and unknowable; but when he wants to ban gay people from existing, suddenly God's will is clear as day. It's funny how God only makes himself known in situations that affirm Shapiro's desire for power and control. Personally, my path away from Christianity started not when I began to doubt whether Thomas Aquinas' first mover argument was valid. My path out of Christianity began when I realized that Aquinas' first mover wasn't the Christian God.
@@othmanrassi8430i dont think he said he thinks the argument is false. Its more referring to the gap betseen typical arguments for any kind of vague supernaturalism (first mover, etc) and the precise religious beliefs people hold, that dont follow from said arguments.
@@patrickthomasiusWell yes, because those arguments don't exist to prove Christianity or any other religion. They're meant to prove God as we understand Him exists. To conclude that God has revealed Himself in any religion is an entirely different thing.
I would assert that genetics don't precisely determine your behavior, but they determine a range of outcomes of both the shape of your physiology and how that physiology may act in the environment. A simple example: an adult whale has a range of physiologies that it could possibly grow to have, based on a range of survivable caloric intake it may have access to in its environment. But if it only had access to the same rate of caloric intake as, say, the average mouse, it won't simply grow up to be the size of a mouse: it will just starve to death immediately. Regarding a more complex, human example: I think that people are genetically on a spectrum of default tendencies of self sacrifice between absolute eusocial altruism and absolute greed towards a personal hedonism that experiences nearly euphoric pleasure when acting sadistically upon others, and everything in between. You can still be effectively caused to behave within a range of behaviors that extend from the default tendency, but only within those ranges. If the purely eusocial person were to be commanded by their guardian to kill someone or have their arm cut off, they would lose an arm rather than kill the person. The natural psychopath would happily jump at the opportunity. The typical normie between the two would kill the person out of self preservation, but feel very guilty about it. The normie and the psychopath exist within a range of potential to behave so as to kill someone, but one exists well within the range, and the other exists just enough inside the range that only this contrivedly extraordinary circumstance would cause them to act in that manner. The eusocial altruist has a will that exists outside of the range of possibility to kill someone: even when the external environment is putting massive, novel pressures to kill someone on them, they can't succumb to that pressure because the act of succumbing to that pressure exists outside of their range of potential of will to cause others harm: which is too little to even save their arm. On the other end, a guardian who never demands you kill someone will allow the eusocial and normie individuals to grow up in pleasant happiness, and it will allow the normie to grow up with an intact conscience from never being given the chance to sacrifice their arm for the life of another, and failing to do so. But the natural psychopath is probably going to naturally find pleasure in torturing animals and have a naturally dark personality, regardless of the pressures for a positive personality that is placed on them. They aren't guaranteed to go on to kill people in their environment a la becoming a serial killer, because the jump from sadism that doesn't kill people to one that does is still a pretty big leap, because the risk to their free survival is so great. But the jump is certainly much more probable for them to make than the normie or the altruist.
@@pure_the0ryToday? Not much, he's wrong but honest and smart. But back then he was extremely annoying and clearly just a resentful apostate, constantly seething about the Church and God. I mean he did the "The unmoved mover doesn't prove Christianity!!!" meme, it was that bad. But as I said he improved a great deal.
@@PresidentSunday in fact all of it's true (making assertions is fun!) There is no way for a cognitive being to function in the world without belief in the self. It's what drives us to do any and everything
I fucking despise how literally _20_ years after Sam Harris first published his New Atheist manifesto on _The End of Faith,_ the entire discourse on the Science vs. Religion debate remains _exactly_ the same with absolutely no further progress in philosophical insight at the mainstream. This whole revival is just _begging_ for a repeat of the Alt-Right pipeline.
In the the mid-2000s I wrote up a list of the dumbest I arguments I frequently hear, and immediately Ben comes out of the gate with the top five
what was that list?
Your commentary at the end was exactly right. When Shapiro wants to prove God exists, God's really vague and unknowable; but when he wants to ban gay people from existing, suddenly God's will is clear as day. It's funny how God only makes himself known in situations that affirm Shapiro's desire for power and control.
Personally, my path away from Christianity started not when I began to doubt whether Thomas Aquinas' first mover argument was valid. My path out of Christianity began when I realized that Aquinas' first mover wasn't the Christian God.
Im curious about the main objections you have to Aquinas’s argument.
@@othmanrassi8430i dont think he said he thinks the argument is false. Its more referring to the gap betseen typical arguments for any kind of vague supernaturalism (first mover, etc) and the precise religious beliefs people hold, that dont follow from said arguments.
@@patrickthomasiusWell yes, because those arguments don't exist to prove Christianity or any other religion. They're meant to prove God as we understand Him exists. To conclude that God has revealed Himself in any religion is an entirely different thing.
What do you mean with your last statement? Do you mean the unmoved mover can't be reconciled with the Biblical God?
I love how the video segment starts out with "Shoooo" transition sound xD. Thank you editor.
I would assert that genetics don't precisely determine your behavior, but they determine a range of outcomes of both the shape of your physiology and how that physiology may act in the environment. A simple example: an adult whale has a range of physiologies that it could possibly grow to have, based on a range of survivable caloric intake it may have access to in its environment. But if it only had access to the same rate of caloric intake as, say, the average mouse, it won't simply grow up to be the size of a mouse: it will just starve to death immediately.
Regarding a more complex, human example: I think that people are genetically on a spectrum of default tendencies of self sacrifice between absolute eusocial altruism and absolute greed towards a personal hedonism that experiences nearly euphoric pleasure when acting sadistically upon others, and everything in between. You can still be effectively caused to behave within a range of behaviors that extend from the default tendency, but only within those ranges.
If the purely eusocial person were to be commanded by their guardian to kill someone or have their arm cut off, they would lose an arm rather than kill the person. The natural psychopath would happily jump at the opportunity. The typical normie between the two would kill the person out of self preservation, but feel very guilty about it. The normie and the psychopath exist within a range of potential to behave so as to kill someone, but one exists well within the range, and the other exists just enough inside the range that only this contrivedly extraordinary circumstance would cause them to act in that manner. The eusocial altruist has a will that exists outside of the range of possibility to kill someone: even when the external environment is putting massive, novel pressures to kill someone on them, they can't succumb to that pressure because the act of succumbing to that pressure exists outside of their range of potential of will to cause others harm: which is too little to even save their arm.
On the other end, a guardian who never demands you kill someone will allow the eusocial and normie individuals to grow up in pleasant happiness, and it will allow the normie to grow up with an intact conscience from never being given the chance to sacrifice their arm for the life of another, and failing to do so. But the natural psychopath is probably going to naturally find pleasure in torturing animals and have a naturally dark personality, regardless of the pressures for a positive personality that is placed on them. They aren't guaranteed to go on to kill people in their environment a la becoming a serial killer, because the jump from sadism that doesn't kill people to one that does is still a pretty big leap, because the risk to their free survival is so great. But the jump is certainly much more probable for them to make than the normie or the altruist.
Oh. I see Shapiro is talking about Non-People again.
You seem so weirdly bitter.
The most important questions to our species are being dominated by absolute hacks. Of course I'm bitter.
Ironic
@@PresidentSundaywhat’s wrong with Alex again? Apart from being more successful than you of course
@@pure_the0ryToday? Not much, he's wrong but honest and smart. But back then he was extremely annoying and clearly just a resentful apostate, constantly seething about the Church and God.
I mean he did the "The unmoved mover doesn't prove Christianity!!!" meme, it was that bad.
But as I said he improved a great deal.
I was going to watch this myself but gave up after watching a minute from a clip from this. They’re both so bad & it’s a stupid discussion.
Off to a bad start bud. Everyone believes in the self. It's the only way to orient oneself in relation to the rest of the world
Yeah none of that's true.
@@PresidentSunday in fact all of it's true (making assertions is fun!) There is no way for a cognitive being to function in the world without belief in the self. It's what drives us to do any and everything