Steven Pinker vs Nick Spencer • Have science, reason and humanism replaced faith?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- For the full video, further episodes, updates & bonus content sign up www.thebigconve...
Harvard atheist Steven Pinker debates the future of humanity with Nick Spencer of Christian think-tank Theos.
This is the second episode of The Big Conversation, a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast:
www.premierchr...
For more video debates, updates & exclusive content sign up www.thebigconversation.show
Irrelevant discussion/debate for the theme proposed.
Unbelievable? Pinker is a full blown idiot how is this the best time ?? We are killing the only planet that we can live on !!
Wow the person in the talk whose beliefs aligned with my presuppositions sure walked away with this one
Hahahah comment section summarized
Hahahahahaha. This is utterly true of all significant intellectual debates. Both sides have too many strong arguments where both parties will be satisfied no matter what.
I wish I was 1% as bright and word clever as either of these people...but the one who argued for my own inclinations was so clearly the winner!
Nicely played :)
If this isn't top comment, I'm quitting youtube
Really enjoying these conversations. I especially enjoy the format and historical discussion as presented by both sides. Keep up the good work.
I knew who I agreed with before I watched--and I didn't change--but seeing how these two gentlemen were civil and respectful with each other was the amazing refreshing drink of water I got from this.
@Armenias Thunk Why am I a putz? Are you just a bored young person who just found the word putz? And take your respect, fold it eleven times, and stick it where the moon don't shine. Shmuck.
Wish it was twice as long! Big credit to Christian Radio for hosting these, showing they are open and civil to opposing viewpoints on the greatest matters.
Steven pinker vs Jordan Peterson -please ❤️
They already talked to eachother. It's on youtube somewhere.
oz karmi . Peterson is a coma in Russia rn
I would also do my hair like Pinker..if I was a Harvard professor. It demands respect
Steven is absolutely killing it with that suit and tie combination, by the way. Awesome combination.
Give me a break... Christianity set back science by 2000 years
This was one of my favourite conversations I've seen on here. Fair, civilised, and interesting. This is how I wish most conversations between people were like.
This was a good conversation. Both of the guests are well spoken and educated. I hope more of these conversations are like this.
I tend to favor Steven Pinkers worldview-I'd love to have him as a professor-but Nick Spencer certainly lent his knowledge towards creating an interesting discussion
How nice to have these guys offer differing views in such a respectful way. The discussion was thoughtfully mediated. I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
I am so impressed with Spencer's breadth of historical knowledge. He seems to have a developed and nuanced understanding of so many historical periods and developments. And the complexity and "messiness" of history really comes across in his analysis, so that he avoids overstating his case or diminishing countering perspectives that do shed some light on the truth of the matter. This is how historical analysis is done well. Bravo!
It was cool to witness
Excellent discussion. Steven pinker is a sharp fellow. I haven't been disappointed yet in any of his appearances.
Can’t believe I’m just seeing this now.. pinker is one of the most kind and reasonable people on earth
Finally! People that can, know-how, and actually want to talk to the other side. I only watched 2 episodes of this show, and whoever is picking the people to represent specific sides, is doing a great job. Debate moderator or interviewer is asking the spot-on question, not aggressive but he pokes just enough to enable speakers to have a meaningful conversation.
I hadn't heard of Nick Spencer before... but wow, is he good!
Every time someone tries to give credit to religion for some progress that has occurred, they usually do so by confusing “culture” with religion. If you cannot trace the progress back to one of the tenets of the belief system, then there’s nothing to your argument. But, from the very beginning (literally…in the beginning) the Bible not only starts itself off by condemning the pursuit of knowledge, it actively promotes inaccurate information about reality. Progress has been made DESPITE the world’s various religious belief systems.
Hats of to Pinker. Cool, calm, collected and respectful. An intelligent and informed man.
But cannot prove his stand
Please read David Berlinski's review of Stephen Pinker's book. Its a brilliant indictment of scientific groupthink
@@isaacambi1914
I would never part with money for something that might be nonsense.
Can you please summarise the most powerful bit of evidence Blinksky offered? 7;30 4 Sep'24-G.M.T.
Very civilized discussion. This way of going through things is what made the west great!
What a great debate. Both debaters deserve high praise and the moderator was excellent as well. It was nice to see people debate in such a civilized non-confrontational manner.
Ahh they needed another hour or so. It was to surface for how smart these guys are
"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
"The first step toward wisdom is the realization that the laws of the universe don’t care about you. "
The fear of God leads to a submissive and weak society
Tsarist Russia or the Ottoman Empire, for exsample
"Wonder is the beginning of wisdom"
Socrates
"I know only one thing, that I know nothing"
Socrates
@Nim Boo except when you have wonder and don't give a damn about somebody's so called 'lord'.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 The ottoman empire which is the longest empire to ever exist in human history also before hand you do know that Joseph Stalin was a Atheist right
“The first step to wisdom is to realize this universe isn’t a coincident”
As a Christian this was just stimulating, I appreciate Pinker, I have had no clue who he really was before this... much food for thought
That's a snazzy tie.
Steven Pinker owned. He dismissed Christianity which is the cradle of the values he now espouses - democracy, science (then called or known as natural theology), and human flourishing (today called humanism). Sad.
How did he get owned? Pinker didn't deny the role of Christianity in history. But come on, faith wasn't exactly the cradle of his values. How does the Bible support democracy? Have you read it? Democracy actually challenged the divine right of kings to rule on their own. Science? You must know the history of the Catholic Church and science ... it wasn't a happy marriage. The Scientific Revolution
was based upon reason, not faith. Not to mention that democracy is also much older than Christianity, as is humanism.
@@srrlIdl Christianity is the cradle of ALL Western values and institutions. Deny it at your own peril. And I am not even a Christian. See historians like Tom Holland.
@@danieljones2048 I can simply point to Greek and Roman influence to prove you wrong.
@@srrlIdl, it's not a competition. It's discourse. Rome and Greece did not have the same influence Christianity had on Western values and ethos. Those who would like to discredit Christianity would of course say otherwise. Christianity gave the pillars that hold the Western society today.
@@danieljones2048You went from "Christianity is the cradle of ALL Western values and institutions" to "Rome and Greece did not have the same influence Christianity had on Western values and ethos." At least you're admitting Christianity wasn't the only influence.
Very impressed with Nick Spencer!
See comment above by @UCD09rzXUngonYKvXl328ecQ...
I'm way more impressed with Steven Pinker I think he makes far more logical sense.
@@Build_the_Future
I'm going with Spencer this time
@@forpetesake1647 Why is that?
Yes, he's very eloquent, I never heard from him before I'm glad I subscribe to this channel.
A fine mind dealing respectfully with quasi intelligent woo woo. Hitch would not have been so nice.
Pinker sure goes into bullet time dodging a few questions just over half way through... Great debate as always. Shame Nick didn't pull up claims Pinker made as 'truth' as it would have been great to the overall debate. Keep up the great work. Respect to all parties. You could do this question again with different people in future!
5:17 “Overall do you think that less religion, more progress is what we looking at, essentially?”
“I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say more humanism, more progress”
This is why Pinker’s style is so effective and why he’ll get far by not stepping on toes unnecessarily. He avoids the negative phrasing in favour of the positive.
tobo86 I’ll say combining both pinker and the other is more precise watching it till it finished I saw how pinker is fine but idealistic in humanism. Humanism is a good one but it would be so unrealistic if it would be just on atheism. The other guy stressing the importance of religion in the present otherwise it will cause catastrophic global shift if you would to implement just humanism in today’s society while pinker already wants the ideal future the other guy knows that this won’t happen anytime soon so we should slow it down a little until it is okay to do so.
tobo86 I think his wording was more than merely avoiding stepping on toes. I think it was a critical difference.
I’m an atheist. For a while I considered myself an anti-theist, but I certainly wasn’t against all religious people or even all religions so I had to figure out why. It didn’t take long to realise I was anti other things like dogmatism, superstition etc and I was only anti-religion if the religion did these things.
So there’s a real distinction there; caring about the well-being of other humans is what drives progress forward, and it’s something both atheists and theists can do (and they can both fail to do). So religion is actually nothing to do with it.
That's what "class" is!
Good chat. Really enjoyed this one!
Big Pinker fan but all the people touting his victory here are just spewing predetermined bias lol
Great points on both sides
logic (n.)
mid-14c., logike, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking; the science of distinction of true from false reasoning," from Old French logique (13c.), from Latin (ars) logica "logic," from Greek (he) logike (techne) "(the) reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning" (also "of or pertaining to speech"), from logos "reason, idea, word" (see Logos).
Logos (n.)
1580s, "the divine Word, second person of the Christian Trinity," from Greek logos "word, speech, statement, discourse," also "computation, account," also "reason," from PIE *log-o-, suffixed form of root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words." The Greek word was used by Neo-Platonists in metaphysical and theological senses involving notions of both "reason" and "word" and subsequently picked up by New Testament writers.
Whenever I hear atheists espouse the use of Logic/Reason, or the search for Truth, I just have to laugh... They obviously don't know the correlation between Reason and Christ. The belief in the "divinity" of Christ is essentially predicated on the belief that Christ was the embodiment of the Logos of the Cosmos existing on Earth in human form.
John 1 is a central text that illustrates that belief. When it says, "the Word of God," or addresses the Logos with the pronouns "he/him," it can be replaced with the word "Logos" or "Logic" (in the cosmic sense of the word).
"In the beginning was [Logic], and [Logic] was with God, and [Logic] was God. [Logic] was in the beginning with God. All things were made through [Logic], and without [Logic] was not any thing made that was made. In [Logic] was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
It's not unreasonable to say or even suggest that everything which exists came into existence by and through the laws which govern materialization. It's ridiculous to suggest, however, that there was a human being named Yeshua at the beginning of time.
Essentially, getting to the root of the identities within the Trinity, the "Father" is the Source Mind - the immaterial space from which the Logos emanated; the "only begotten Son" is that essence of "divine reason and creative order" that was emanant. The "Holy Spirit" pertains to Movement, Expression, and Love. Basically, there is the Knower (Father), the Known (Son), and the Movements and Expressions related to the Love of the Known within the Knower.
Awareness Loves Truth.
One of the keys to my understanding is within the relationship between Awareness and Truth; they are existentially bound to one another, as each is pointless without the other. What good would it be to have Awareness without any Truth of which to be Aware? What good would it be to have Truth without any Awareness of it? Awareness without Truth is lost in darkness; Truth without Awareness is useless and pointless. It's in this existential bond between the two - between the Knower and the Known - that the Holy Spirit exists.
In my view, Truth the Son emanated from Source Mind the Father because Awareness needs Truth at the deepest existential level; without Truth, there is no foundation for the Mind. In my view, Reality was brought into existence to be the physical representation of that nonphysical (metaphysical), internal foundation. We use scientific observation of the physical in order to get to the laws within which are not physical (the Logos).
Some might believe that the idea of Eternity is illogical, but Logic actually demands the existence of the Eternal/Self-Existent, because Causation can't have an external Causation - it would only be more Causation.
They'll ask the rhetorical question, "If God created the Universe, then who or what created God?" They don't seem to realize that they're arguing the case for Eternity. The Logical problem of infinite regress occurs immediately upon attempting to place Causation outside of itself: "What was the Cause of the Cause of the Cause of the Cause of the Cause...?" This will go on forever unless you accept Eternity/Self-Existence as a Logical foundation; if you don't, then you will always be traveling down the line of dominoes without end.
Truth is Self-Evident; it's readily apparent that there is something rather than nothing that exists, but that doesn't answer the question, "Why?" Science will never be able to answer that question because answering that question involves personhood within the Universe, and that's something that science can't suggest, because science has no place for that; "science" is defined as the systematic study and observation of the physical and natural world...," so the physical and natural is all it can have until it begins to accept nonphysical evidence. Science can't even support the idea of omni-science, even though science directly contributes to omniscience; there is no part of science which doesn't contribute to omniscience. You can't have any portion of "knowing" which isn't a part of "all-knowing."
You can't say that there isn't a Mind within the Universe even while you yourself are a mind within matter. It's far more illogical to suggest that there isn't a Mind within the Universe than to suggest that there is. Atheists like to talk about how dumb or dangerous it is to believe in the existence of invisible things, but Reason is invisible; dreams are invisible; thoughts/feelings are invisible. If an atheist asks a friend what they're thinking about, and their friend tells them what's on their mind, then they'll just have to accept whatever their friend tells them based on Faith, because there's no physical evidence that can be given as proof of the occurring thought. There can be no physical evidence given for nonphysical things; atheists can't prove to me that they've ever experienced a thought or a dream.
If they try, then I'll just be every bit as annoying as they are when I say, "Show me the evidence... Show me the evidence... Show me the evidence..."
They can't.
It doesn't exist.
I think Aristotle is the link most people miss when discussing the Enlightenment and Renaissance. I think the mixing of Judeo/Christian and Aristotle's philosophies were key to the explosion of understanding reality.
Islam took in Aristotle's writing around 800 but did little with it, in the 1200s the Mongolians sacked Bagdad forcing a westward push, especially by those wise enough to see this coming. China didn't get into his works untill the 1600s even though they were quite inventive.
So it seems to me that while Judeo/Christian and Aristotelian ideas are not a necessity for progress, they seem to be good for progress.
Good point, but one minor correction. Islam did take in Aristotle's writings around 800, and then persecuted the thinkers who took those writings in. I am totally blanking on this one, but there is a specific sect of Islamic philosophy centered in Baghdad that drank deeply from Aristotle and got ruthlessly persecuted for it
Christianity was more interested in Platonic ideals than Aristotelian methods. It took the decline of faith and the rise of literacy and education in abstract thought back to the Greek philosophical approach for rationalism to re-emerge and spark the scientific revolution.
Eric, This I am not aware of. I have something to look into. :) It sounds quite likely. Tribes. lol
@@unicyclist97 Paul used Aristotle methods to explain sin in Rome.
Pinker rightfully conceded that some of the original purveyors of enlightenment concepts were Christians, but his meta-argument is far more important here. He did his best to imply that it’s somewhat unimportant to focus on the religious affiliations of the actors involved given that the concepts themselves are capable of standing alone.
[...some of the original purveyors of enlightenment concepts were Christians]
I wonder which ones. Christian concepts come from the ancient Middle Eat via Judaism, from Greek, from Zoroastrianism, from Celtic and pagan culture and religion, and others. Christianity helped consolidate these ideas in one place so to speak, and developed them, but the enlightenment was at its core was a philosophical movement away from Christianity. That the movement would adopt tried and true ancient ideas that existed before Christianity, such as those from the Greeks, is not surprising
@hatter00
I was thinking how they were consolidated under the early Catholic church, but thinking about, although the Catholic church was dominant, there were still dissenters right through the reformation, but they were relatively insignificant. Still, it was the Catholic church that was the only formal educator for centuries
Judaism at least, acted as the secular humanity and knowledge for a Hebrews. The faith gave them a purpose and direction. It has been positive for them at least. I suppose despite their shortcomings, Abrahamic religions brought a peace to particular groups of people. the problem comes because Judaism, and Christianity more so, is divisive and inherently contradictory. Islam has also inherited these values
@hatter00
[I don't see Judaism as being secular...]
Some are today anyway.
[ i don't see the Torah (especially Leviticus) as containing any secular teachings]
Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” is a form of the "golden rule". The rule has varying strengths depending on how it is stated.
Leviticus 19:11"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. OK, overgeneralized, and certainly one can make arguments for when one should steal, deal falsely and lie, but still, secular laws, just take out the word "god".
[they still fellowship due to cultural inheritability rather than anything.]
Fellowship is inherently part of the social human condition. Gangs are formed because of it. Clubs are formed because of it.
[I don't see the Abrahamic religions as merely having shortcomings, they have taken the world backward regardless of whether it did good for certain individuals, whose only positive assertion comes from feeling solace & comfort..there simply is no truth in their teachings.]
Overall, I would generally agree with you, but when looking at religion from a historical perspective, the ideology has contributed to progress as well as to regress. Today it seems it is more into promoting regress
@hatter00
[ If Judaism, Christianity & Islam are so secular...]
They aren't.
I was aware of secular or cultural Jews, but it appears there are secular Christians and Muslims as well.
The Bible contains the Torah (it is the Pentateuch or books of Moses).
The Quran does not plagiarize any more than any writing of the day did, but does borrow some thoughts and beliefs, just as the Hebrew Bible borrows from Middle Eastern myths (the flood being a good example). Muslim beliefs are so different it may as well be another god.
[Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any free society...]
One of the pillars perhaps, but I can get behind that.
[It just amazes me how 21st century people base their values & assert cosmic truths derived from our primitive & barbaric ancestors who didn't know the earth was spherical, didn't know about evolution & didn't know germ theory of disease.]
And what would it take to understand why they do?
Interesting to note that the Jewish people have been long noted for their money wisdom, and as lawyers, doctors, etc and whether they were portrayed as shylocks or benefactors with strings, throughout centuries of persecution, central to keeping their identity and fortitude against aggressive attacks, the one thing that remains constant is their faith in what their Bible says. And for many other religions their scripture empowers them to carry on though travesty and trial.
[It's convenient for you (like many other religious apologists)...]
Just to clarify, I am a skeptic first, especially against anything supernatural, pseudoscience and woo, and an atheist specifically for religious matters.
[The ideology didn't contribute to progress, give me one example of such! ]
I am not sure what you are asking for. I can give examples that much of modern geology was founded by Muslim scholars such as Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni and Al-Biruni, which Wikipedia says "His religion contributed to his research of astronomy, as in Islam, worship and prayer require knowing the precise directions of sacred locations, which can only be accurately found using astronomical data."
The Earth was also initially explored by creationists or Christians looking to understand god's wonderful world such as William Smith, James Hutton, Nicolas Steno among others. And of course there is Georges Lemaître, who already had the notion of a beginning of the universe in his religion.
The concept of zero: considered as arising out of the Indian religious beliefs.
[There's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" as much as a scientists who's Christian.]
There are scientists that do profess to be Christian. You must know of Kenneth Miller and Mary Schweitzer as examples. The two have stated they keep their beliefs separate from their work.
[Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical deed performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.]
The Hitch challenge.
"Apostasy." -- Rizuken on reddit
@hatter00
[oh come on now..so if he was born in the same circumstances BUT the only difference is that his parents were Hindu & he was, would we credit Hinduism to it? It's just silly!]
The book that dealt with the mathematics, astronomy, and astrology by Al Biruni was written about 1097 ACE, in other words, before the open sea navigation that would allow European countries to colonize large parts of the world.
In Islam you are required to face Mecca to pray. With vast Muslim Empires and the need for increased sea trading, it was necessary to find which direction to face when far away or while at sea (thus they improved sea navigation as a consequence). This is not a requirement in Hinduism.
Most other ancient religions require you to go to a sacred place, the religion in a sense was tied to that place. The Hebrews being nomadic, and constantly having their sacred places destroyed, developed the idea of a more portable religion. So in Abrahamic religions, you could either build representatives of that sacred place where you found yourself, or in the case of Islam, face in that direction.
[Earth being explored by creationists or christians is still being explored by humans...]
The motivation for the early creationists was to study god's work. The freedom to study the work in this way and not seem sacrilegious may be due to the Reformation, and the idea that it was possible due to the Enlightenment, but it did release them to think they could understand their own religion better by studying Nature. The difference in comparrison to modern creationists (the "new" creationists if you like) is that they actually did the exploring and experiments, and gave an honest assessment of their findings and results. This laid the basis for showing and providing evidence for a Earth older than 6000 years, which would later come into place when C. Darwin formed his ideas on natural selection as a way to explaining animal variations
Would it be totally ironic to say Pinker is having godly patience in this debate?
How can Reason ever surpass Faith when we put so much Faith in Reason? Reason is not a physical thing, regardless of what the materialists/reductionists will likely tell you about brain activity; Reason is metaphysical, not physical. To put Faith in Reason is to put Faith in an invisible thing.
If I think about a math equation, let's say, "2+2=4," do you think that you could find any physical evidence to support the existence of a "2" or "+" in my brain? To my knowledge, there isn't a single number or word written on the physical structure of Reality; you can check through the lenses of any number of microscopes or telescopes, but you will never find even a single character or symbol written anywhere that didn't originate from the internal realm.
Materialists/reductionists tend to overlook the obvious Truth. You can't show me graphs of brain waves or computer screens depicting a brain's neurological activity and expect me to believe that they represent what a dream is like internally.
Whenever I hear these atheists/materialists/reductionists try to say things like, "The mind is just the brain," I just have to laugh at them, because ridicule is the appropriate response for the ridiculous ideas that people sometimes have.
This is why Consciousness remains the thorn in their side, and I'm more than happy to give that thorn the occasional nudge.
What a beautiful and sadly rare, thing it is to watch these people genuinely engage, especially the way they directly respond to each other's points. In so many of this sort of debate/discussion the speakers simply talk across each other, rather than actually engaging. Full credit to the host in establishing an environment where this can happen. Many thanks.
superb debate--great to see Stephen come up against a worthy opponent
my two cents. Among other things, religions are value systems; they say faith is good, charity is good, alcohol is bad, sloth is bad, etc. Humanism is also a value system; suffering is bad, happiness is good, murder is bad, incremental progress is better than no progress at all. There are two important differences though. (1) humanism arrived at its values by analysis, evaluation, and debate. People thought & talked and came up with a system of values that reliably produces progress & which is flexible enough so when it turns out something doesn't work, using it's core values of enquiry and free debate, it can (granted, with some effort) correct its mistake, and (2) it doesn't require belief of any kind and isn't dogmatic. Belief & dogma require upkeep, to be passed on, and if somehow all texts and memory of Christ were erased today, it would be gone forever; whereas if we similarly lost & forgot all about humanist values, we could arrive at the same core principles over time.
I don’t understand, when we right things in this book of secular humanism does that immediately update our CPU?
Haven’t we been telling people not to do terrible shit through out the ages ? What will make this book any different?
KayJay2017
If your open minded and intelectually honest yes
That this one approached the conclusion trough analisis, reason and evidence, is open to change and be debated, plus requieres the least dogmatism possible
Pothead from the Future
So you think by sheer virtue of reading this manifesto, somehow this will solve the problem of evil?
Or is this strictly to base legal legislation off of, kinda like a kelly blue book but for morality?
If so that’s terrifying, I don’t want people forcing onto me what I must accept as right or wrong I am my own person and can discern for myself would you agree?
Yeah I disagree on both counts. 1) Religion has been in constant debate, flux, and change for millennia all through debate, analysis, and _progress._ Just because they weren't doing it based on atoms, neurons, and statistics doesn't invalidate that.
2) Humanism as Pinker promotes it does require belief, it axiomatically assumes the truth of intrinsic human value, dignity, etc. These values cannot be rationally proven, full stop. The current humanist manifesto recognizes this as well in its opening, saying explicitly "[The humanist manifesto] evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, *however carefully wrought*, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance."
However carefully wrought. And yet, Pinker and any humanist will stand completely resolute on these notions of the universality of human value. I guarantee that there is exactly no argument you could ever pose to Pinker to change his mind on that from now until death. Yet, "however carefully wrought"... Do you see the same problem I do?
If you don't describe that as dogmatism, then I don't know what you'd call it but it functions the same way. It's just that the authority being appealed to is switched from a book from a god to some disembodied idea of reason, which when practically applied means _his_ reason. Rationalists idolize their own reason. His dogma is that there are certain values he holds that his reason has deemed correct, and they are incontrovertible.
And this is where dogmatism creeps back into humanism in my opinion, and it shows how Pinker plays a funny game with his definition of Enlightenment values, that is to say "everything I disagree with is counter-enlightenment." He just throws social Darwinism, Communism ("scientific socialism" as Marx called it on occasion), and the French revolution that birthed the literal Cult of Reason, out of the pantheon of enlightenment products, let alone allowing them to be labeled humanist. Now his specific arguments for doing this I don't know, I can't find him ever taking about it maybe you know some, but I assume he does as all other humanists do. Claiming they either weren't philosophically/rationally valid (again basing the truth on their personal reason) or saying they don't follow the _true_ tenets of humanism (which is a dogmatic, non-provable assumption similar to what I mentioned earlier).
The reason I believe those types of movements are excluded is because they show that rationalism like Pinker promotes can easily fall into dogmatic catastrophes, despite the opposite being the expressed goal. I also don't think this kind of emergent dogmatism is really avoidable, it's impossible for everyone to be perfectly rational, people have to live and make decisions with some axiomatic assumptions (you can't live day to day constantly reevaluating the foundation of your morality), and people also can't group well with people who have different axiomatic assumptions, so they group with people who agree with them, then form political movements for the changes they all want. Then bang, you have a social movement working toward an ideal goal based on unprovable, dogmatic assumptions about the world, complete with their own right/wrong value structure, i.e. an emergent religion, for all intents and purposes.
I'm sorry this was so long winded but I don't know how else to make my point. Essentially what I want to say is that dogma is something intrinsic to human behavior, doesn't matter the framework you use.
Dīvīna Simulācra
Indeed a cero dogma point is impossible, the fact that certain axioms are taken in consideration simply because of 'self evident' and no because of reasonally fundamented is present on every idea, the thing is that secular humanism admits this and is open to permanently challenge this kinda axioms and question them
I can't believe I only found out about this channel now! This is incredible, thank you for that!
Spencer has clearly studied the history of philosophical thought, and Pinker has not. When Pinker realizes he's outgunned, he claims that by "Enlightenment," he doesn't mean a time period and pretends like Enlightenment ideals developed independently of and irrespective of the theological thinkers that first articulated them.
Fantastic Conversation. I tend to agree with Pinker but I would love listening to more of Spencer he seems to have a vast knowledge of history which I enjoy learning from as well. I wish more Christians were like him. I simply have to think that if morality is not grounded in reason that it by definition is grounded in unreason. I have a preference.
I would say that the morality of religion *is* grounded in reason. Religious morality didn't come out of a vacuum, of course, it was carefully articulated over centuries.
Fair enough but if it is based on reason why not cut out the middle man? Why not simply admit that even if god doesn't exist reason is still valid.
Morality isn't based in reason. I say that as an atheist. If you want a great atheistic non-rationalistic explanation of the origin of morality look up Jonathan Haidt's critique of hyper-rationalists. His argument is that morality is largely based in our temperament and intution, so caused by evolution, but not arrived at through reason. We then go and rationalize whatever we instinctively believe to be "good" or "bad" anyway.
For example, what about homosexual incest? Or heterosexual incest between infertile siblings? We all feel instinctive disgust and claim those to be immoral. The reason is some innate disgust of incest that evolution probably outfited us with, as incestuous groups produced defect offspring. Our disgust sensitivity doesn't distinguish between those and cases where reproduction isn't an issue, though.
Now, you could say: "Why not rationally deem it moral in the above cases?" Because that goes completely counter to human nature, and is thus rather anti-humanistic. From a Pinkerian humanism perspective, one would really *have* to support gay twins' ability to have sex and marry, and their dignity, the same way one defends unfamiliar gay relationships. But is any humanist out there campaigning for that? Does anyone *really* feel the same level of outrage over anti-gay-incest sentiments? I really doubt it. But it's completely hypocritical.
We'll just have to deal with the fact that, at the end of the day, all our first principles *can't* be based in reason. You can't create a complete ethical system without priors you take for granted, any more than you can do the same with mathematics. It's necessarily incomplete. We know since Mill that *what is* can't tell us *what ought to be,* objectively. No observation can, and no introspection can.
I actually respect Jonathan Haidt a great deal. But moral philosophy is a different subject than how people in general approach morality. For example many theistic moral arguments such as a divine command theory are non-intuitive. So how humans generally approach morality doesn't essentially undermine the process of justifying a process of morality. I know that Jonathan Haidt would not in any way want us to not use reason to justify moral precepts; on the contrary he would hope we could do better than our biases.
Reason is simply a catalyst, a layer, that connects the primal and allows society building activities, culture - language etc.
Thus reason is sort of a translator of the innate, primal, evolutionary.
No translator IS the original author.
Thus things get lost and reshaped.
The debate isn’t one or the other. It’s how deep the fundamentals are and their origins
Two very interesting and intelligent people. What a great conversation. I'm a but torn on this issue. Going to have to think on it.
Taz LDN, who did the tearing, if I may ask.
HI Taz, even though I disagree with Pinker, I enjoyed listening to him, whereas it's painful to listen to certain other atheists such as Peter Atkins.
I have found that thinking about the supernatural in the natural world can be quite maddening Like the damn Warner Bros frog who only sings when nobody is around... the elusiveness of the supernatural is not just a cosmic joke on the living, it has to be there.
Great discussion. I’m a dirty atheist and I enjoyed both speakers.
“There can be no justice so long as law is absolute. Even life itself is an excercise in exceptions.”
Jean-Luc Picard
Crap.
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi Wan Kenobi.... George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry are far from solid figures of moral truth and behavior. Lucas will sue you for a nickel and Roddenberry wrote about a fictional future where crime exists everywhere but home.
Therefore there must be exceptions even to the laws of physics.
I am officially a pinker fanboi from this day till my last, it took me a while to jump aboard the train unfortunately but I'm there now, the poodle cut was a real turn off and the fact that I didn't give a fuck enough about the point he set of to make, but now I feel like he can make dull subjects interestingly audible
Even though Steven Pinker spoke half the time of the other guy, his arguments were twice as effective.
Hey that's what you get when you debate a Linguist. His speech skills are really effective. He is an expert at being concise and to the point.
Yes no need for long caveats.
You only think that because you agree with Pinker. Spencer used a rich historical context to support his arguments that humanism and scientific progress sprung from the basis of Christianity---interestingly, Jordan Peterson makes the same case in his discussions. Spencer made a lot of good points, and I say this as an atheist.
Rija Nah.
M. Woofington
What about sanctioning slavery, commanding infanticide and genocide or the subjegation of women is in accordance with humanism? What about magical incantations and witches is scientific?
Neither science nor humanism have anything to do christianity. The fact that humanism and science arose in christian countries doesn't mean they're christian concepts. Thinking otherwise is committing the genetic fallacy.
SP is so ignorant about basic science. Abiogenesis has never happened. Science has never been farther away to finding the origin of life.
Been waiting for this!
Pinker, still pretending only 7% of humanity lives in poverty. What a laugh.
Very informative from both sides. At a point I feel I was having a history lesson rather than a debate. Pinker's last quote was very powerful, Christians still have to address why the most benevolent and educated places in the world are secular and house a large number of atheists.
Bible says that anyone can live or try to live a moral life (Matthew 7:7-14) , it has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. Pinker has very little knowledge about theology and for an atheist writer that is like suicide as much as theologians who don't address the secular morality that is inside anybody's hearts and not taught by the Bible (Romans 2:15).
At the beginning, Pinker says "nothing comes out of the blue" but at the same time he believes in evolution which is contradictory with that statement. Thus, theologians should always address Bible verses not only books concerning to morality but I fell he didn't want to sound like a preacher but because of that he gave more foundations to Pinkers' arguments which are just his opinions once he doesn't believe in objective morality.
Who is it that is running the world's refugee camps, orphanages, homeless shelters, shut in programs, and bread pantries? I'll give you a hint, it's not largely the atheists, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
John 3:16-18
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."-Jesus
Our moral progress is more darwinistic than either of these two gentlemen would suggest. We're moral because that's the type of people that survive. Immoral people cause pain and suffering to others and do not reciprocate favors, so they naturally get culled by the moral people who work together. To work together, you have to be moral. Cooperation is an enormous survival advantage.
The larger your cooperative group, the better you survive. Hence, why inclusive circles have been growing larger and larger with time. It's not cause we're smart and figured it out. It's cause it works without us having to figure it out.
Nick Spencer....my hat off to You :)
Steven Pinker is so eloquent.
Another pleasant and constructive conversation. I’d say that was a 50/50 draw between Pinker and Spencer. Pretty much everything both of them said was true. Positive-sum games between theists and secularists are possible yet! Our rational values are the same at bottom; it’s only our explicit explanations for these values that differ.
Ciaran Dudley I wouldn't score it but I agree with your conclusion
This speaks more about the ineffectualness of the mediator
Ciaran Dudley, you have a bizarre notion of truth.
Darryl White: Thanks for the response. My notion of truth is essentially Hegelian; i.e. I understand the truth to be “the whole of objective reality” which includes the negatively self-opposed subject(s) as the inward side of its own substantiality. IOW, you can’t have the universal sport of football without the particularly opposed clubs to play it.
I first read Pinker's writing when I came across his "Blank Slate" book and enjoyed and learned a lot from his research. However, his knowledge of slavery is minimal at best. Conflating the industrial slave trade to domestic servants of the Bible is ignorant. I am not saying that force labour slavery did not happen in Biblical time but it was not to the same degree as the slavery during colonial time mostly for development of the Americas.
In ancient time being a servant is often a livelihood. The Bible did not encouraging slavery but see that as a way of having employment instead of starving to death. As a Chinese I can understand the practice from Chinese historical perspective. In those days, you are either a government official, an educator, a merchant, a farmer or you serve them (some not by choice). A Biblical example is Joseph, not by choice but rise to be the head servant of his master before becoming the Prime Minister of Egypt.
Trying to interpret the Bible in 21st century glasses is wrong and ignorant, using it to attack the Judeo-Christian believe exposes one's lack of understanding of the facts and culture of the time. For that we have to thank the liberation of the industrial revolution (or not for some). Yes, the reformation and the understanding of the sanctity of live is the driving force for the abolition movement.
Edward Tsang Unfortunately Edward you are wrong on this, and what Pinker said was spot-on.
What you are describing is often called indentured servitude and it was spoken about in the bible. But so too was “proper” slavery of the type that happened in America in the 1800’s. The examples Pinker gave, like owning of other humans as slaves and being allowed to beat them are explicitly sanctioned in the bible. So too is passing slaves down as property to your children
I would love to see Steven Pinker speak with Jordan Peterson
Christian Cardona Done. Twice.
Christian Darwinist is oxymoronic. This talk is eloquent foolishness.
Life Aftertruth no it’s not, you’re just ignorant 🤦♂️
I feel that fantasy novels and other fiction are replacing the psychological fulfillment that people get from religion. Maybe they serve the same emotional need.
I agree with most of what Pinker says, but would argue that he does not give enough credit to the Christian origins of humanism (more broadly religious humanism in general) or what he called atheistic humanism. When we think of Hobbes “State of Nature” life was cold, brutish, and short. People existed in small tribes and fought against outsiders for preservation, in that sense they didn’t care about humanistic values, as long as they ensured their existence. That being said, it wasn’t until organized religions emerged as structures to help people transcend that animalistic mindset, which gave people that humanistic insight. Atheism is the continuation of the humanistic ideals found in the texts, with the abandonment of the superstitious. I think when you disregard religions as pure superstition without giving the institutions proper credit for unifying massive groups under a certain code or law to follow, with humanist intentions, you throw the baby out with the bath water.
This one was better than the Peterson one. Both guests are much more intellectually matched to one-another.
20:42 David Hume would have had an absolute whale of a time with dissecting Pinker on his reasoning for inherent goods. This is one of the most obvious cases of the 'is' 'ought' fallacy that Pinker cleverly attempts to mask. For example, 'being alive' is a FACT but the assumption that 'being alive' is 'good' and therefore we 'ought' to value life is an OPINION that does not logically flow from this stated fact. An interesting presupposition that Pinker seems to hold is that being alive is BETTER than being dead. Notice the moral wording that he uses. Who is to say that being dead isn't better than being alive? Can you quantify what is better? And if it is BETTER does that automatically mean that it is objectively something we should value? I believe Spencer allows Pinker to get off in this part of the debate too easily. Hume would be fuming at the inconsistencies.
This is absolutely true - If life rather than death is always better, and if that's one of Pinkers' moral cornerstones then what are we to say about those who suffer excruciating pain daily, what about issues such as abortion & euthanasia? I don't think that being alive rather than dead is inherently better or at least obvious. Pinkers moral reasoning would rule out pro-choice arguments which I believe he is in favour for.
Precisely. The trouble with constructing a moral framework that does not include a moral lawgiver or some form of externally prescribed objective morality, is that it is based on illogical assumptions. Secondly, if these illogical assumptions contend that all human life is sacred then you simply move towards Judeo-Christian ethics, as these rationally stem from this core metaphysical belief. The irony is that a 'moral atheist' is simply a person who follows Judeo-Christian ethics but bases their beliefs on illogical assumptions because they can't move past the 'is' 'ought' gap.
DJPeachOfficial - God enough with this silliness. Of course it would be nice if objective morality existed, but *that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist.*
Therefore, we have to make collective judgments about how to make a moral framework, not pretend that there's a sky daddy. This is so blindingly obvious.
@Emailjwr - If objective morale values do not exist then you writing a comment to this post is just as morally arbitrary as torture, mass genocide or concentration camps. If you have no grounding for your morale framework you have no right to say what anyone does is right or wrong, you can only say its relative - like an opinion or fashion. Where as I say we do seem to experience an objective morality in our day to day life.
>Therefore, we have to make collective judgments about how to make a moral framework, not pretend that there's a sky daddy. This is so blindingly obvious.
If the Nazis won the war and purified Europe, you would have no basis to say what they did was wrong, because it's just a collective judgement made as a result of a particular sociological evolution.
Ahhh I see the utilitarian perspective has always served us so well hasn't it. Let's make collective judgments about morality and see where that takes us. The problem with this is that the collective judgments can very easily change with time, I would hope that this is clearly evident to you. Unfortunately, with no ultimate standard to measure against there is always the issue that these collective judgments do change and perhaps change for the worse. Who is to say that the mass genocide of people with mental or physical illnesses is not an overall benefit to society? What if the collective judgment was to deem this as morally fitting and acceptable? Does that make it right? I would hope you would agree with me that this clearly can't be the case and that a genocide is abhorrent. You see there is very slippery slope with collective judgments dictating morality. Secondly, consider this, when we talk about progress it needs to be measurable against something right? The question being asked is, are we getting closer to our intended goals and aspirations? But if the standards we use are constantly changing (as with collective judgments) then we are constantly shifting the goalposts and therefore how can we really say if we have made progress?
Steven Pinkers books are very well written and readable. I abhor how for so many people but mainly smart young men,just saying ,"I'm an atheist" is shorthand for I'm super intelligent and you're a dummy. So patronising. If living your life by rational thoughts and actions is the way to go as I was brought up to think, how come it doesn't work. When I was a young woman and trying to live in a rational way I saw all around me my contemporaries getting everything I wanted by non rational means. They were going out drinking,they were having free-ish sex,it was OK in the 1970s and in lots of other ways living irrationally but they were getting what I wanted,mainly a house. And one of my relations was a single mother on benefits till nearly40,then she met a man she married,now she is worth several millions by virtue of land value,so much for working hard its not the right way for females,quicker to marry a bloke with money.
Oh, Steve. Give the guy a chance. LOL.
Steven dodges so much when it comes to giving religion any credit (and this isn't just based of this convo, i saw it in his talk with Jordan Peterson too)
What about the abolition movement?- "I don't know the history of abolition"
"the first COMPREHENSIVE argument for abolition was secular "-what about Gregory of Nyssa?
"we can't lay out that experiment with other civilisations/cultures" -but looking at history, we kind of can...
"they lived in Christian society, so all their arguments were made using a Christian basis" -so there were no secular bases to make any of these arguments? no aristotelian ethics? no stoics? why is it that when arguments from a secular basis finally came about (again, by people living in societies that were still Christian) they had often been preceded by arguments made on Christian grounds by centuries?
14:00 Even if the scientific revolution succeeded because of Christianity or because Christianity was a more conducive culture to such a development that doesn't make Christianity true. We can be grateful that that was the particular culture it thrived in and move on.
I never heard anyone make the argument that Christianity is true because it gave us science. The reasonable evidence for Christianity is a different argument altogether.
Brilliant series, subbed. Im a muslim btw and I am taking great value from the discussions
Wonderfull this ..😎
If you're interested might I recomend some reading material?
Plato: The Last Days of Socrates
Volataire: Letters from England
Nietzche: Thus spoke Zarathustra
Are you still one ?
@@Jhonnycomelate yes, i am stll a Muslim and my faith only increases with the wonderful insights i gain from studing different philosophies and meaningful debates
@@baseera6532 Just like people of every other faith.
I like when he argued that equality and morals came from the bible, and Pinker just casually reminding him about the history of slavery.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this but I think that an important takeaway from this conversation is that the underpinning of human morality should not come from Darwinism.
Such a shame to see a smart and brilliant person like Steven Pinker be on atheistic side. Great debate though. Thank you for posting!
It's pretty clear that the Enlightenment made progress to advance human progress,
In the face of religios retardation
That's why Pinker, bieng a free and rational thinker, is an Athiest
Pinky is confused. there is no REASON, no WHY I should do X in the first place.
humanism has no foundation for its principles, and if one should admit there is a tendency to do good, that tendency is more probable than not grounded in a teleological substrate.
if Pinky thinks it can be grounded on atheism, then that's a religious position.
sorry Pinky.
@hatter00
I will be the judge of whether the actions, tendencies and beliefs of atheists are religious.
Hi @hatter00, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheists are entitled to the same protection under the First Amendment as are Baptists, Catholics or anyone else, so in that sense, atheism is a religious stance. As for behavior, why should a man not spread his seed far and wide as that will help the species survive, especially if he is wealthy and can support all those children.
@@AP-bo1if
"Judge not, lest the be judged"
Now who said that again?
🤔
@@GustAdlph incorrect
I've seen Constitutional Experts discuss this.
See, Athiests enjoy the same protection and right under the law as religios people,
But Athiesm itself was not defined as a religion.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676
a religion is a religion whether it's official or unofficial
Steven pinker simple a genius the other guy is like the weak part of science
Nick's argument was religion existed while this happens, so religion deserves the credit, that's like saying the moon deserves all the credit because it was around the whole time as well. Silly, and no not an atheist, just that I don't need my religion to justify everything. Steven did a great job, arguing against someone who really liked the book, 2 funny.
That's actually a misrepresentation of what Nick said. In the video, he specifically disambiguated between historians determining whether or not progress just happened to be made in a Christian culture, and progress actually occuring *due* to this culture. He then proceeded to show that it was the latter that was happening.
That was clearly not Nick's argument. Let's be a little more careful.
No Nick quite clearly said many times that it's tricky. This is because Pinker makes a great point. Nick gives it away when he states that Christianity created the problem for which it also created the cure. This is a sad attempt to have it both ways. Christianity was perfectly happy challenging science when it disturbed it's theological ideas.
William J McCartan, to be fair, that wasn't his argument.
poor analogy. you may as well just say that nothing deserves credit.
I really find impossible for naturalism to be a appropriate foundation for human dignity and therefore human progress overall.
I think Pinker wicked smart!
I am so glad Nick Spencer didn't let Pinker's statement regarding slavery in Christendom go unchecked. It is critical to acknowledge that slavery was basically nonexistent in the latter half of Europe's Medieval Period, but it is too often ignored.
The bible still justifies it. We could still be burning "witches" too.
@@Hirnlego999 Lightweight thinkers are those who equate the slavery in the Bible with more modern versions of slavery. Actually, lazy reader.
@@TesterBoy LOL no, slavery in the Christian world is not a coincidence. And the religious themselves wish for a master and slave relationship with their god, if they disobey they are perfectly fine with being tormented forever as even Jesus was when he visited heaven for 3 days. Thinking is not for sheep, it's downright discouraged in their own scripture. Period.
The Magna Carta was not a product of "love thy neighbor" kind of thinking but pure power politics of the nobility against the king.
And it was actually the Charter of The Forests signed a year later that gave "the common people" the rights and freedoms they enjoyed until Enclosure and Industrial Revolution and always wrong attributed to Magna Carta.
I have to give the torch to Mr. Spencer on this one. I respect Pinker and his work but I think he's acting out a theological paradigm and then not acknowledging it it. Spencer is just more aware on this topic......Our ability to reason comes from spiritual faculties.(i.e. consciousness itself)
MrRyanmcmahon How is the claim of consciousness being a ‘spiritual faculty’ anything but a baseless assertion?
I really don't get why it is said that "Reason in and of itself" cannot get us the foundations for a better human being, a better "morality"...???
That seems to me a HUGE assumption.
Is it NOT reasonable to treat each other well or as well as can be for the GOOD of the community and more extensively the world?? I think the ideas were there in essence or WORDS and religion did help to disseminate the ideas, though as we see didn't apply them to ALL human beings, a distinction of rank that always has existed implicitly in societies based on meritocratic hierarchies; AND religions, like evolution are created or evolve and HAVE TO work with what's already THERE, so religions started (rites or myths and advice, etc) with the social or worldly conditions that were the case or existed at THE TIME, thus the admonitions FOR slavery and its continuation justified by the distinctions of Rank among peoples, as different peoples and even the genders had different VALUE.... but it was reason itself with the help of reason in science that created the conditions to be able to NOT need slavery for example to feed all humans?? So machines are invented and suddenly keeping and feeding so many hands and mouths becomes economically undesirable and THEN the ideas of "we the people are all created equal" become viable to IMPLEMENT and thus make more tax payers?? If the economic progress made possible by inventions and scientific progress in ALL areas had not been there WE STILL WOULD HAVE SLAVERY as can be seen in places where those things have not been adopted or implemented.
Comments... ?? Please, i love to be disproved, that again is the way of progress. I will not stubbornly hold on to the ideas I exposed here if someone makes better ones.
Good luck.
David Hume argued that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." This means that reason alone, which deals with facts and what "is," cannot determine moral values or what "ought" to be. Moral judgments require a value-based component that reason alone cannot supply.
also no disrespect at all, but i see Stephen Merchant in place of Nick Spencer.... lol
😂
"Nothing comes out of the blue - out of nothing" says an atheist
God came out of nothing says every theist.
@Miguel Cisneros You are clearly very ignorant of the meaning of 'nothing'. Nothing means 'not something'. If God never came into existence, it means he didn't come from something. In other words: God came out of nothing.
@Miguel Cisneros You are hilarious ...
You simply don't know what 'nothing' means! Let me help you: nothing = not something. That's what that word means. You can't picture 'nothing'. Nothing is not something. It doesn't mean empty space. It's just a word and it literally means: no thing. Get it?
Example: "Miguel did not do anything yesterday" = "Miguel did nothing yesterday". Example: "Miguel does not know a thing about logic" = "Miguel knows nothing about logic".
Example: "Miguel did not say one thing that makes sense" = "Miguel said nothing that makes sense".
Example: "God did not come out of something" = "God came out of nothing".
@Miguel Cisneros Really, that's your response? You should consider responding to what I actually said. I'm not trying to insult you (you are the one who uses words like 'dummy' anyway). I'm merely pointing out that if you say God came from no thing, that's the same as saying God came from nothing. If that's insulting to you, I feel bad for you.
For the record: I took a philosophy class in college. I suggest you take a class in semantics. Or just take a dictionary and look up the word 'nothing'.
@Miguel CisnerosYou're still not listening to what I'm saying. We are talking semantics.
I understand you believe God is not created and didn't have a beginning. That's not the point here. The point is: you are saying God didn't come from anything but also saying God didn't come from nothing. That's a contradiction.
Clearly you believe God didn't come from anything, but you keep refusing to say God came from nothing because you wrongly interpret that as if it means God began to exist. It doesn't, because nothing is just a words meaning ... not (some)thing.
This is really interesting, I'm an atheist but I still fail to see how humanism could possibly be born without a metaphysical interpretation of the human nature. Nothing Pinker said changed my mind and I wanted him to do so. The interesting part is that I am actually scared to write this, I'm afraid some faceless guy will reply a couple of atheistic strawmans and "dogmas" seasoned with insults and a condescending or hyper agressive attitude. Anyway, go ahead, prove me right.
Viviana Lara
You are correct. That's why it'd be stupid if people came on this thread to tell you that you're wrong.
Christian reason... yeah, there's only reason.
For some reason those ideas never occurred to the pagan Greeks and Romans tho.
@@denverbritto5606
Really?
"Be kind to evryone, for evryone you meet his fighting a hard battle"
- Socrates understands humanism
"Wonder is the beginning of wisdom"
- Socrates understood how learning starts off
@@denverbritto5606
The idea that Christians didnt learn all the basics of philosophy from the Greeks is laughable
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 philosophy Yea, they learned plenty of that from the Greeks. But the Greeks didnt hold charity and compassion for the weak, the downtrodden as virtues. Greeks and Romans were big on citizens rights, but the concept of human rights would have been entirely alien. It was a Christian nation thar held the first public conversation on what rights a conquered people had in Valladolid, 1550. The Roman and Greeks couldn't have cared less about what rights conquered Gauls, Spaniards and Britons had.
Denver Britto Muslim conquests in India, Middle East and Africa carried with them discussions on the topics of conquered people’s rights many hundred of years before. Look at the Mughal Empire (and compare with how the British behaved) and the Ottoman Empire for examples of this and compare to European conquests in the Americas and Africa. What did the European Christians learn from their talks if they didn’t apply it?
The Greek settlements in Africa was much more accepting of other cultures because in their view those cultures didn’t compete with them on religion. They were by definition open to many gods and didn’t chop people’s heads off if they didn’t succumb to their faith. All those areas became distinct in the way that they kept their distinct culture but adopted a Hellenistic administration.
Compassion for the less fortunate is not exclusive to Christians since it’s at the very core of Buddhism.
Very good and Pimker is my man
Hey, Steven Pinker is utterly deluded! He talks about moral progress and lists many liberal and humanistic values, eulogising how 'good' and civilised 'we' are and he also says we are not at risk of someone stabbing us or blowing us up. What world is he living in? Is he completely unaware about how western liberal democracies treat the rest of the world? The West's current good fortune exists on the shoulders of huge past and present oppression, suppression and destruction of other unfortunate peoples. Ghandi said when asked what he thought of western civilisation replied "I think it would be a good thing". Western liberal humanistic democracies are not moral, good or progressive - they are violent, discriminatory and oppressive, and Pinker turns a horrible blind eye to that truth. Listening to his self-satisfied, nicey-nicey nonsense made me feel sick. Your mileage may differ.
Around the 3:40 mark differentiates between "beliefs and institution". As an Atheist I just can't agree with him on this. I'm not saying Christianity does not have some beliefs I deem bad, I just think Christianity has some good beliefs as well. The Mustard Seed, prayer, how about the Old Testament being the basis for Capitalist thought and the New Testament being the basis for Socialist thought. Christian or not, we are all living within its constructs.
Randy Lee Thanks. Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this conception of the OT being a Capitalist oriented document and the NT being a socialist one. I can understand with the Parable of Mustard Seed that there is a socialist element but can't tease apart the OT example.
Old T is more about law and order while Jesus hung with thieves, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Jesus was the man who could provide for the sick and the needy without asking for a fee, Job knew the cost of life no matter the power a mere mortal could obtain. Old T is a bit more anticulturalist while the New is much more multicultural. This is why you see so many Berniebot Atheists quoting Jesus verses at Republicans. The Berniebots are following the constructs of the Bible, even if they do not wish to follow the Bible. I wish I could go on further, but I’m in need of sleep. I hope this was enough to paint a picture.
I believe the Mustard Seed analogy may also be a metaphor for mental growth, seeds meaning schools of thought.
Bullsfan, Salman may find more answers about the beliefs structure of socialism especially toward the bottom.
I never said that Socialism was word for word from the New T, only that it was inspired by its verses. Much like Jesus inspired Individualism, he inspired Socialism as well. The idea of a loving all powerful god inspired Socialism, where do you think they got the idea of utopia? They think to themselves that a perfect god would heal the sick for free, where did this idea originate? What construct in the Western World might have given them that idea? I’m pretty sure they were not influenced by that Greek or Roman guy who gets his eyes pecked out, then they grow back, then they get pecked out again, and so on and so forth. This is a very specific principle. Let us not forget that the Catholics did this as a State on tax payer dollars for well over a thousand years before the Protestants reinforced the idea of Individual giving as well as Individualism.
And you have to admit that Socialism has a very strange streak of Individualism, it’s just not the kind you and I care to share in. You won’t catch me in no pink hair unless it’s Halloween. Their individuality is that they’ll join a collective that you and I will not subscribe to. Their faith in this is so strong that they even doubt the Swedish government website stating that Sweden has a 22% corporate tax rate. They tell me with the upmost faith that they “tax the rich over in Sweden.” Like the Swedish government is releasing Fake News on itself. ☹
The level of faith needed to be like this is astronomical.
One failure you may be making in understanding modern socialist atheists, they view Jesus and God as the State. They are oppressors. They could have made a “better” world. One with less wars and more healthcare, video games, sweet rides, etc. They think God taught us violence and justified rape yadayadayadayada… Most “atheists” truly do believe in God in many ways, they are just mad at him for not being a genie granting unlimited wishes. Trust me on this, I was once one and still know many of them.
Atheists like myself may not believe in god, but we love him. Like any good book the Bible describes the world and inspires the mind. I wish I could say more, but I’m compiling a lot of original ideas for my own channel which I hope to launch soon so I don’t really want someone getting a jump on my tech stupid ass. I wish this place would host me!!! Lol I love their atmosphere.
Salman, I hope I was able to illuminate this enough. I'm unplugging from the internet today. I'm gonna spend some time learning to make furniture out of wood and hopefully figure out how to edit video to launch my own Chanel one day.
You're an atheist who believes in prayer? Did I miss something? To what do you pray?
If you are trying to argue with Steven Pinker, you have already lost. The man is a treasure.
Needs more Pinker v. Petereson
When I look at pinker I always crave porridge..
Another ever-so-polite wrecking by Pinker.
Dang that was a great debate by both sides and what a great host
I really like Steven but his performance here is a perfect example of main stream atheistic thought today. Every argument he leveled against Christianity was a straw man argument. That’s all they got. Plus to make the claims he did shows he is way out of date on the literature
All true. Hopefully next generation of atheists will produce more complex and sophisticated thinkers. Listening to refutations of "The bearded man in the sky" gets tiring after a while ;)
TheUnapologeticApologists Yea especially with the dark ages stuff.
In every non-believer's defense: we have been waiting for 2000 or so years for the religious to provide proof for their metaphysical claims. Maybe if believers would bring forth anything tangible, we could answer with something else then: where is your proof?
Also, it is very hard not to straw-man believers, when there are so many variations within each religion.
There are many watertight arguments based on experiencing, reason, logic and modern science. The problem is that I have yet to encounter an atheist who understand the arguments. Like this argument:
Argument 1A: Only Consciousness exist
P1. Only one ontologically real substance can exist --- Due to the interaction problem
P2. Consciousness exist --- Gross perceptual appearances (aka matter) and subtle perceptual appearances (aka mind ) exist in Consciousness and hence can not be ontologically different substances
C. Only Consciousness exist
Argument 1B: Consciousness is another name for God
God --- Definition
1. That-which-does-not-appear-or-disappear (non-space)
2. That-which-does-not-change (non-time)
3. That-which-is-known-by-itself (Being and conscious of Being)
C. God is non-dimensionless conscious Being (aka Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent)
P1. Consciousness does not appear or disappear
P2. Consciousness does not change
P3. Consciousness is known by itself
C1: Consciousness has the same properties as God
C2: Consciousness is another name for God
47Ronin This is highly subjective since even if one provides "proof" one can reject it. Christians have provided many arguments throughout 2000 years such as simple arguments for the resurrection to more complicated philosophical arguments from Aquinas, Augustine, Leibniz, etc such as arguments from reason, consciousness, morality, ontology, etc and scientific arguments for God from physics such as Big Bang cosmology, fine-tuning and quantum mechanics to show that philosophical materialism is false as a worldview. Just because you reject these for whatever reason doesn't mean that proof wasn't provided.
Steven gives an extremely uneasy definition of morality that is actually nothing more than the history of tolerance. Morality demands the existence of absolutes or is nothing more than tolerating with the hope that it works out.
David Price I’ve always found it curious that so many people talk about absolutes and object to its in regards to morality. Morality is explicitly about the well-being of humans. That means it’s not objective or absolute. Further, it’s a false dichotomy to say morality is either absolute or we just permit everything and hope for the best.
It’s really pathetic to see theists defend their favorite toy or idea. Feels like overgrown children defending Santa. I know it’s a bit more complex but really, it’s pathetic. Religions have grown with almost every society and they all contradict each other. Soooo silly. If you’re religious and can’t see the “if they’re all right makes them all wrong” makes perfect sense you’re open to nonsensical beliefs. Pretty simple
You've just agreed at the end of your statement that many truths cannot exist which is the first principle of Christianity, I recommend you watch Frank Turek's apologetics videos.
@@jesselevyvieira3588 seriously? Frank turek? I guess he’s a little better than Ken ham 😂😂. I suggest you study science and how things really happen and how facts work. Good luck finding reality
I'm surprised that the first humanists of the Renaissance didn't come up because, in spite of their criticisms of the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, the majority were Christians, including the "Prince of Humanists" himself, Erasmus of Rotterdam.
Awesome conversation. Spencer had the upper hand almost the entire time -- I enjoyed how when Pinker questioned that Christianity was the primary cause of the scientific revolution since it's been there for a thousand years despite the evidence, Spencer pointed out the particular circumstances in the 17th century that lead to Christianity, at that moment, executing it. I also enjoyed Spencer's refutation of Pinker on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What I don't like is the presuppositional secularists in the comment claiming Pinker was "twice as effective" or that he should have "given" Spencer a chance. Did they even watch the video? There wasn't one time where Pinker was able to refute a point Spencer made. I think Spencer clearly took the upper hand here, it's nice to see new intellectuals on these videos dismantling the classic secular thinkers (Jordan Peterson beating Susan Blackmore, and now Nick Spencer really showing Pinker on his understanding of history).
You took the words right out of my mouth. It's as if those commenting in the ways you've mentioned missed that this conversation is two-way, and that what Pinker said wasn't always an actual refutation of Spencer's words because of its clarity and briefness. Spencer unfailingly broadened the words of Pinker to bring clarity, and not obfuscation. This should, at least, bring the secularists into a wider understanding, and not into a cursory reaction of hollow words, like "Pinker was twice as effective with fewer words".
"17th century that lead to Christianity, at that moment, executing it."
You really couldn't be anything else at the time could you? Even today coming out as atheist can be a social suicide in places like USA. Because that's how the religious operate.
It's essentially the ideas of the enlightenment that opened the doors to get rid of religion as the sole source, if we still used Christianity as a source we would still make efforts in useless things such as faith healing or praying.
We can still see how religion poisons just about everything in Africa and the middle-east, where dogma is more important than actual knowledge. And in the west it is is the Christians who try to smuggle in fake science of creationism into school. The religious are still very much left behind.
Hirnlego999 I totally agree. Being a Christian in Western Europe and also having good ideas that are not specific to Christianity is not a point scored for Christianity!
It's not the fact that scientists that happened to be Christian that made the scientific revolution Christian in character. It's the fact that their motivations to study science were due to Christian values rather than secular values.
What Christian values would that be? Eat from the tree of knowledge and everyone shall be punished.
Try to build a tower of Babel too see how magic man has it up in the clouds? Punished.
The bible states that no evidence shall be provided so take it on faith.
Christianity is not exactly for enlightenment values. Heck, one man was even burned alive for translating the damn book into English in England, this is how much the priests wanted to keep the mystical mumbo jumbo to themselves and with it power.
The way Steven Pinker speaks and listens here makes me think he's an honest atheist.
Confirmation bias is always a problem when listening to these debates, but there is enough food for thought to keep you thinking. As an agnostic, I think I will lean more to the idea that we yearn for the transcendent,but certitude should be avoided
I'M A CHRISTIAN AND EVEN I ADMIT THAT PINKER SLAYED OUR SIDE!!! ZOMG I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE EMBARRASSED TO BE A CHRISTIAN. 2 in the pink, 1 in the stink. Amen.
MHM EEKK ...yeah...i think spencer did really well
NP “...a yearning for the transcendent “ is why belief in a god is needed - It would seem that with the greatest majority of those with Religious faith transcendence ( beyond the human experience) is almost entirely about fear of death & “yearning” for a so called ‘afterlife’ - However death is a big part of the human experience of being a biological animal - Similarly if there is a formless non physical existence of intelligent quantum level energy, involving the Psyche or ‘soul’ that is also part of the ‘human experience’ & there is no reason to think that gods or Religion must be involved
Secular Humanism > Religious Humanism
With all proper and due respect and gratitude to Jordan Peterson's many good arguments - Steven Pinker Check mates his entire premise with that one.
Where was the checkmate in the video, exactly? Nick Spencer clearly showed, without any successful rebuttal from Pinker, that humanism is better grounded on Christianity than atheistic thought. This entire video was checkmate on Pinker.
He did. Did you watch the video? Did the entire discussion on human liberty, God-given rights, and Darwinism/eugenics escape you?
Well you use the word grounded. So this can have two meanings. One is of origin, that humanism's origin is in Christianity. It is fairly easy to see that that is A) a very non exclusive claim, perhaps Christianity being one of the many factors in the process of the cultural evolution of humanism, but it has no exclusivity on it as a theology. and B) that even if it was its exclusive fore bearer that does not mean anything in regards of what is better just as primitive medicine could have stumbled onto antibiotics it is in no way better than modern medicine even though you could claim modern medicine is "grounded" in primitive medicine.
The second meaning is that religious humanism has a better coherency or philosophical foundation than secular humanism. Pinker plainly explains away the claim that secular humanism is merely an aesthetic preference but more a mindset that is comprised of game theoretic and secular rationalism trying to figure out what would be "good" for man. Yes it is true that secularism embrace of humanism is in no way guaranteed in foresight. It can also give rise to other ethics. Yet neither is Christianity as one can plainly see in its history. to claim that secular humanism ethical development came from a christian background is to claim the first meaning of the word "grounded" and back you go. The point is that because of humanism's better truth claims it is superior in its ability to deliver the moral "good"s in an ongoing, adaptive way.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Atheist tears are delicious. I'll just copy and past what I said, since you couldn't respond to it.
Did the entire discussion on human liberty, God-given rights, and Darwinism/eugenics escape you?
The moment the word 'magic' is brought up, it's clear the atheist baby has had to shrivel up, call for his mommy, and scream at the fact that Christianity provides a better basis for everything they consider good, including their very own humanism, then the irrelevant atheistic philosophy they ascribe to.
religous humanism has all the benefits of secularhumanism + religion