Hate is probably an overstatement. Nuance takes effort. I think of it as exercise. Most people should do more of it, and the more you do the easier it gets.
@@nik07nik I read a study a while back that suggested that level of education was poorly correlated with believing things that were more likely to be true. Not the same thing as IQ, I know, but there is an idea that intelligence gives people greater ability to come up for justification for false beliefs.
To be consistent, skeptics ought to apply the same skepticism, or socratic questioning, to atheism, scientism, darwinian evolution, climate-change apocalypticism, or abortion. For example, the same arguments used about the stalemate on abortion were once used on slavery, but not anymore.
The problem with NOMA (other than it being condescending to the religious) is that the religious just can't seem to help themselves making false empirical claims that they take on faith to be true.
If one wants religion to be taught as if it were scientifically proven, then they defy the principal of Non-Overlapping Magisteria. In example, that the world is flat, that life was created by an Intelligence, that black holes don't exist, that there are only two genders in the animal kingdom, that humans are not animals, that evolution is implausible.
Really enjoyed this one. I'm glad these ideas are starting to get out there. Good job Michael and great ideas Andy. I think I'm about to go from a fan to a supporter of your podcast and Andy's book.
On holding your beliefs lightly, as John Michael Greer said: Knowing many stories is wisdom. Knowing no stories is ignorance. Knowing one story is death.
Did you listen to the interview or only read the title? These ideas can be derived from Dawkins's Viruses of the Mind (1991). Which Andy gives credit to. I find "The Gadfather's" ego a little tiresome and I think that he is slow to give credit where due. He has some good ideas, but I think he lacks nuance, and nuance is kind of the point. www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Dawkins-MindViruses.pdf
@@zafirivanov1230 Hey Zafir, thanks for the reply. I'll read the link. So credit for the input. Btw, I posted halfway through the conversation and will finish up today. :o) PS: GS is way more entertaining than AN and I take issue with "nuanced" part of your argument. Cheers.
@@padraigadhastair4783 Thanks for your civil tone. I'm glad you take issue; communicating with people that agree across the board is pretty dull. Cheers
This guy is one of my favorite guests I have yet seen on this podcast! I'm not sure if religious people acknowledge to themselves, except maybe in their deepest hearts of hearts, that choosing to believe things because they want to is indeed what they are doing. There is a strong element of denial at work...
No, you cant inquire a child under the age of 6. They dont know their own or the cause of others feelings/actions. That is why we parents give them answers. We say : «Tom didnt mean to hurt you», or we say: « Fight back, be strong». We inherit a culture, a belief system, from our parents or our environment, and we pass it on to our children. We create a culture in which children grow up.
I understood him to mean that we should teach the next generation to question things and think for themselves, not inculcate them with unchangeable beliefs about reality and morality. We want independent, creative thinkers, and the way to produce such people is not by indoctrinating kids during their formative years to cling unquestioningly to any particular set of beliefs. We should be capable of augmenting the way of thinking we pass on to our kids; holding fast to tradition for its own sake can actually be harmful.
@@billscannell93 I totally agree. In a "perfect" world, we should be able to teach our children independent thinking. However, from my experience as a mother and grandmother, the world might be perfect, but we individuals all have flaws which makes us dependent on others. Every time you teach a child (tells a child : this is how it works), you might give his/hers neurons/mind a connection....your connection. Every time you say : find it out by yourself or there is no answers, you might impose stress/uncertainty on your child. It's a difficult balance between certainty and a world with endless options. A child really needs some certainty, he/she depends on you giving some of the answers.
I agree w most of his ideas but he goes binary on the ground concerning moral values. Michael posed the right question, using WEIRD as a background. He was on very shaky grounds after that and almost seemed to go against a former stated principle..
I think that is true for much of the Muslim world...not all of it. I have known women from the western culture who have opted for life in a Burka. For your reference, I am a white Anglo Saxon Protestant who was raised in the south in the United States. I saved in the US Army in Saudi Arabia, where I met the first Muslim people I had ever seen. I learned a little Arabic and when I returned to the States I met more Muslim people. For some women, there is only one option, and no freedom to say that she has only one option. But that is not true for all Muslim women.
43:20 Actually a fetus is not a legal person. The California law says: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Those kind of laws are relatively new, post Roe. Their intention on pro-lifers is to create precedent. Liberals often also support them in order not to be "soft in crime". The law puts no specific age limit on the fetus so it counts from 8 weeks on.
i love the analogy that the mind, the culture,[ and in fact any 'system' that is self sustaining for some period of time, with information exchange within and without], has to have an immune system. i think the question in my mind is, who gets to decide which are the invaders and who gets to be the pope.
It's incredibly difficult to take this guy seriously at all as a philosopher and proponent of rigorous thinking when *EVERY* *SINGLE* example he gives is about Republicans. Nothing about the covington kid, nothing about the "mostly peaceful" protests as buildings burn in the background, nothing about defunding the police, nothing about lab leaks being censored disinformation last year and publicly discussed this year, etc. Everyone is entitled to have a side, but this guy is *SO* one sided that he ends up undermining his own arguments. You can talk about qanon all day, but what about the years and millions of dollars spent pursuing imaginary Russian collusion from 2016 to 2018? My guess is the only people who watched this video and were able to get anything out of it are Democrats, and that fact defeats what he was supposedly trying to promote - open minded consideration all ideas. If you're going to try to do that, then logic says you need to take a critical look at both sides, not just one side. Even if you personally heavily lean left or right, if you want to make a believable argument about unbiased critical thinking, then then you have to look at both sides regardless of your own leanings. I'm pretty disappointed in all the positive comments on this episode - I think anybody who liked it completely misses the point of being objective. This guest completely bungled his own central argument by being so completely partisan.
There’s two ways to do an amygdala hijack. One is using fear, the other is using compassion. Both turn off the neocortex in light up the amygdala. Far right uses one the far left uses the other.
Bit of an overstatement. Activity in the amygdala does not "turn off the neocortex" , it may impede the ability to slow down and consider, it may stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, but I don't think anything is getting turned off. There is some evidence to suggest that conservatives are more attuned to threat detection, but the main point I took from this episode was the need for nuance and to reduce the use of absolute terms.
I don't understand how so many people come to the conclusion that because concepts are imaginary that they somehow immediately become less valuable. Value is subjective but that does not make it arbitrary as long as there is sufficient reason to pretend that it should be applied. Nothing that is imaginary is real even ideas. The closest to objective any concept can be is to be based in objective reality according to how the effects of applying a concept in interactions. The idea that thoughts and ideas are real and "alive" as he put it, is absurd, but that does not necessarily mean that applying imaginary entities to how we interact with one another is absurd. We have no choice because that is how the human brain works. We imagine a goal then we imagine concepts to apply to our interactions in order to accomplish that goal. Acknowledging that concepts are imaginary and do not exist, does not mean that it is not useful and or unproductive to apply them in our actions. All concepts are imaginary representations of physical processes in the brain we use to process other physical processes in our own brains, those of others and the interactions we observe in objective reality. People pretend that they are real out of utility but it is not necessary to believe they are real to do so. An actor does not need to truly believe that they are the character they are pretending to be to play that character for example. It is still possible to apply imaginary concepts to interactions in reality while acknowledging that they are imaginary. Pretending something is real will never make it real.
It all goes back to choice. Life, good or bad? Just because life exists does not make it good. The value we place upon it is either genetic programming or choice. If its programming, how did that happen? Some people do think life is bad, so the programming is not homogeneous. Better, worse, in relation to what? The very question posits a belief as to the goodness or evil of a certain thing. We want certainty; that's why some people choose to believe in a god, not because that entity might or might not exist, which it may or it may not. We can't have certainty. We don't know, but we behave as if we do know. Is it really any "worse" to say "I will behave as if I do believe in a God that is Love, a God that is Truth, a God that personifies what I consider good, a God that cares about me, a God that, if we believe the age of the Universe, has been around a while and so probably knows a wee bit more than i, at not much over a half-century, know?" Irresponsible, selfish? Value judgments based on a long chain of value judgments we take for granted, which we probably haven't examined thoroughly, and yet we have the gall to judge others, to wish to impose upon others what we believe by force, be it a majority in a legislature, cancelling, stonewalling, etc. I think that in order to persuade someone, you need to establish common value judgments about things like life, society, coercion, deceit, etc. I think trying to intellectually browbeat people about something that there is no evidence for or against, is disingenuous. There are things that require evidence, that require proof. Justifying the use of force is one of those things, if we want to maintain civilized discourse and not step into the jungle and let the judgment be by ordeal. And yet, to have civilized discourse, we need to begin with establishing this common ground about the highest values and their rank order, such as life, society, truth, peace, freedom, etc. If we value this, then this follows, as night follows day follows night. Logic exists, if we define our terms as precisely and truthfully as we can. Yet because we are fallible, the logic does not necessarily result in truth. Garbage in, garbage out The truth of our premises matters, but good or bad are not truth statements. They are value judgments, which leave us eternally in a state of uncertainty. Yet they form an implicit part of all our premises. This irremediable state of uncertainty requires us to make value judgments on faith; we are left with a choice about what we are going to believe to be good or bad, without any proof whatsoever that does not rest on previous value judgments.
I was thinking the exact same thing....) Seems like mind parasites are 'ok' if those parasitic ideas you happen to believe in. I don't think he even realizes what he is saying.
Andy kind of looks like the Tech Ingredients guy who's here on YT. Anyways, great discussion. Can't wait to hear your talk with Stephen Meyer. He and others like him have some interesting points but it's frustrating to me because it seems clear that naturalism is sufficient and it's fine that we don't have solid origin answers, just hypotheses. But people like him take to hammering out their sheets of gold around the framework of nature to make their god. It's weird, it's unnecessary, it's clever, but ultimately it has been taking far too much oxygen and human resources away from more pressing issues.
what evidence do you have that these underground communities do not exist? (re. 24-25 minutes) especially when so many are finding it does. give evidence it doesn't exist perhaps?
I’m a strong proponent of cognitive liberty. A radical skeptic Would probably take an instrumentalist approach to truth; Should we place a higher value on flourishing or truth? Who is going to write the algorithm to a calculate out the chaos math Of the long term affects of contagious ideas? Let’s take scientific knowledge and technological advancement, plug it into the algorithm to calculate if the possible long term Effects of “scientific truths” Outweigh “religious truths”. Is this something that should be enforced with Some kind of thought police? I think I could make a strong case that scientific truth and technological advancement have put us on the brink of extinction Whereas had we stayed more primitive, we might not be at the cross roads.. I personally don’t believe in eliminating Teaching the Method of science because of what could happen with these ideas. As for your abortion question, most pro-life advocates don’t believe in prosecuting the woman after tit criminalized, but the one who actually perform the Killing, and I think most would say they should just lose their license to practice. In the case of rape, most states require a Plan B pill with the rape kit which contains no abortifacients.
Science, knowledge about the universe in which we live, was once our religion. Later, we built cities and our religion was no longer about the forces in nature and the universe, but about humans and their relationship to some god/ruler.
@@ellengran6814 I am pretty sure that science used to fall under philosophy, and recently became separated out as a method. Historically, most natural philosophy was done by theists because everyone was a theist.... except maybe the Buddhists in the east.
In my country, Norway, we once understood the world as «the tree of life». We believed there were forces in nature creating balance, forces of decay and forces of growth. No force of good or bad - its all about balance and opportunities/nutrition. The belief-system told by the Bible is in many ways unable to connect with the science of today. In my view, many of our old belief-systems is easily connected with the science we now know.
@@ellengran6814 I think that there has been overlap between religions historically. I’m betting the earliest religion We’re different forms of shamanism. Probably paganism and Animism emerged from that Way of thinking. Many of the practices and codes we’re probably shapes for the type of terrain and social conditions under which Communities lived. Small nomadic tribes wandering around a harsh desert developed different Customs than those in lush jungles. I’m pretty convinced that psychedelics of one kind or another we’re involved in the shaping of many early religions. I do agree with you, however, that all most of today’s stories that connect us to ‘ mother nature’ are relatively technical and dry rather than intuitive and spiritual. Industrialized farming, far away supply chains.And big box stores.
@@johnbuckner2828 I agree. All the «scientific» words we use today have no connection with our feelings or our daily life. The consept of dreamtime vs realtimes gives a totally different feeling and understanding then quantum physics vs quantum mechanics.
For many are called, but few are chosen" comes in the conclusion of Jesus' parable of the wedding feast. In order to understand the conclusion, we need to read the parable in its entirety: (1) Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, (2) "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. (3) "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. (4) "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' (5) "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, (6) and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. (7) "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. (8) "Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (9) 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' (10) "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. (11) "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, (12) and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. (13) "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (14) "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:1-14)
Cant say this make much sense to me. If people dont want to come, you ask why ?. Nobody has the right to enslave others. Revenge has proven to be a bad solution. The world is filled with people suffering/dead due to socalled good people/intensions. 60 million (some say 100 million) native americans died in the name of God and freedom.
Assume I am both ignorant and not very smart. What am I supposed to understand from this passage? Is it that the king overreacts by not just punishing murders, but also the entire city that the murder lives in? Is it that the punishment for not abiding to a dress code is a little over the top?
No human will ever be without flaws exactly the reason we hold Jesus as our mediator only through believe in him you are saved both from your own trespasses as well as other trespassers
Most people hate that the answer to most questions is “It depends”. Absolute answers are comforting, nuance requires you to be ok with discomfort.
definitely
Hate is probably an overstatement. Nuance takes effort. I think of it as exercise. Most people should do more of it, and the more you do the easier it gets.
@@zafirivanov1230 To be fair most aren't capable if the IQ research is to be believed.
@@nik07nik I read a study a while back that suggested that level of education was poorly correlated with believing things that were more likely to be true.
Not the same thing as IQ, I know, but there is an idea that intelligence gives people greater ability to come up for justification for false beliefs.
These conversations are so vital. If only these principles were taught in schools in this country, we might still have some hope!
Michael Shermer should host a panel discussion on Skeptic....he could call the "The Skeptic Tank"
To be consistent, skeptics ought to apply the same skepticism, or socratic questioning, to atheism, scientism, darwinian evolution, climate-change apocalypticism, or abortion. For example, the same arguments used about the stalemate on abortion were once used on slavery, but not anymore.
The problem with NOMA (other than it being condescending to the religious) is that the religious just can't seem to help themselves making false empirical claims that they take on faith to be true.
If one wants religion to be taught as if it were scientifically proven, then they defy the principal of Non-Overlapping Magisteria. In example, that the world is flat, that life was created by an Intelligence, that black holes don't exist, that there are only two genders in the animal kingdom, that humans are not animals, that evolution is implausible.
Really enjoyed this one. I'm glad these ideas are starting to get out there. Good job Michael and great ideas Andy. I think I'm about to go from a fan to a supporter of your podcast and Andy's book.
On holding your beliefs lightly, as John Michael Greer said:
Knowing many stories is wisdom.
Knowing no stories is ignorance.
Knowing one story is death.
I'm certain that the Ven diagram of Dr.Norman[Mental Immunity] and Dr.Saad[Parasitic Mind] has a significant overlap.
Did you listen to the interview or only read the title?
These ideas can be derived from Dawkins's Viruses of the Mind (1991).
Which Andy gives credit to.
I find "The Gadfather's" ego a little tiresome and I think that he is slow to give credit where due. He has some good ideas, but I think he lacks nuance, and nuance is kind of the point.
www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Dawkins-MindViruses.pdf
@@zafirivanov1230 Hey Zafir, thanks for the reply. I'll read the link. So credit for the input. Btw, I posted halfway through the conversation and will finish up today. :o)
PS: GS is way more entertaining than AN and I take issue with "nuanced" part of your argument. Cheers.
@@padraigadhastair4783 Thanks for your civil tone. I'm glad you take issue; communicating with people that agree across the board is pretty dull.
Cheers
58:56 "It's hard to create information bubbles (...)" is the dumbest thing I've heard today.
This guy slants way left unfortunately. If he would have used examples from both sides of the argument he would draw more ears closer.
Yup. It just shows that his epistemology is shit, and have not learned a thing from him idolizing ML King.
22:O8....the crave for purity, got me thinking of Mary Douglas "Purity and Danger" (1966)
Now do Biden and the MSM Q known as CNN.
"But Orange Man said mean things on Twitter!"
This guy is one of my favorite guests I have yet seen on this podcast! I'm not sure if religious people acknowledge to themselves, except maybe in their deepest hearts of hearts, that choosing to believe things because they want to is indeed what they are doing. There is a strong element of denial at work...
No, you cant inquire a child under the age of 6. They dont know their own or the cause of others feelings/actions. That is why we parents give them answers. We say : «Tom didnt mean to hurt you», or we say: « Fight back, be strong». We inherit a culture, a belief system, from our parents or our environment, and we pass it on to our children. We create a culture in which children grow up.
I understood him to mean that we should teach the next generation to question things and think for themselves, not inculcate them with unchangeable beliefs about reality and morality. We want independent, creative thinkers, and the way to produce such people is not by indoctrinating kids during their formative years to cling unquestioningly to any particular set of beliefs. We should be capable of augmenting the way of thinking we pass on to our kids; holding fast to tradition for its own sake can actually be harmful.
@@billscannell93 I totally agree. In a "perfect" world, we should be able to teach our children independent thinking. However, from my experience as a mother and grandmother, the world might be perfect, but we individuals all have flaws which makes us dependent on others. Every time you teach a child (tells a child : this is how it works), you might give his/hers neurons/mind a connection....your connection. Every time you say : find it out by yourself or there is no answers, you might impose stress/uncertainty on your child. It's a difficult balance between certainty and a world with endless options. A child really needs some certainty, he/she depends on you giving some of the answers.
I agree w most of his ideas but he goes binary on the ground concerning moral values. Michael posed the right question, using WEIRD as a background. He was on very shaky grounds after that and almost seemed to go against a former stated principle..
Just came across this channel. Skepticism is healthy. Cynicism is not. Looking forward to the dialogues..
Good point about women "choosing" to wear burkas. It is not a choice. It is a Hobson's Choice.
I think that is true for much of the Muslim world...not all of it. I have known women from the western culture who have opted for life in a Burka.
For your reference, I am a white Anglo Saxon Protestant who was raised in the south in the United States. I saved in the US Army in Saudi Arabia, where I met the first Muslim people I had ever seen. I learned a little Arabic and when I returned to the States I met more Muslim people. For some women, there is only one option, and no freedom to say that she has only one option. But that is not true for all Muslim women.
Euro women and cultural self-hatred as well.
Not like all of us enlightened folks making completely free choices here in the West, hey?
@@DejanOfRadic haha good answer
43:20 Actually a fetus is not a legal person. The California law says: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Those kind of laws are relatively new, post Roe. Their intention on pro-lifers is to create precedent. Liberals often also support them in order not to be "soft in crime".
The law puts no specific age limit on the fetus so it counts from 8 weeks on.
Thank you.
Such a fascinating interview I ordered Andy's book on audible.!
Me too, from my local library 😀
i love the analogy that the mind, the culture,[ and in fact any 'system' that is self sustaining for some period of time, with information exchange within and without], has to have an immune system. i think the question in my mind is, who gets to decide which are the invaders and who gets to be the pope.
It's incredibly difficult to take this guy seriously at all as a philosopher and proponent of rigorous thinking when *EVERY* *SINGLE* example he gives is about Republicans. Nothing about the covington kid, nothing about the "mostly peaceful" protests as buildings burn in the background, nothing about defunding the police, nothing about lab leaks being censored disinformation last year and publicly discussed this year, etc. Everyone is entitled to have a side, but this guy is *SO* one sided that he ends up undermining his own arguments. You can talk about qanon all day, but what about the years and millions of dollars spent pursuing imaginary Russian collusion from 2016 to 2018? My guess is the only people who watched this video and were able to get anything out of it are Democrats, and that fact defeats what he was supposedly trying to promote - open minded consideration all ideas. If you're going to try to do that, then logic says you need to take a critical look at both sides, not just one side. Even if you personally heavily lean left or right, if you want to make a believable argument about unbiased critical thinking, then then you have to look at both sides regardless of your own leanings. I'm pretty disappointed in all the positive comments on this episode - I think anybody who liked it completely misses the point of being objective. This guest completely bungled his own central argument by being so completely partisan.
There’s two ways to do an amygdala hijack. One is using fear, the other is using compassion. Both turn off the neocortex in light up the amygdala. Far right uses one the far left uses the other.
Bit of an overstatement. Activity in the amygdala does not "turn off the neocortex" , it may impede the ability to slow down and consider, it may stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, but I don't think anything is getting turned off.
There is some evidence to suggest that conservatives are more attuned to threat detection, but the main point I took from this episode was the need for nuance and to reduce the use of absolute terms.
Which one is using which?
As the bumper stickers say "Don't believe everything you think."
who else wishes to do a doubble thumbs up
I don't understand how so many people come to the conclusion that because concepts are imaginary that they somehow immediately become less valuable. Value is subjective but that does not make it arbitrary as long as there is sufficient reason to pretend that it should be applied. Nothing that is imaginary is real even ideas. The closest to objective any concept can be is to be based in objective reality according to how the effects of applying a concept in interactions. The idea that thoughts and ideas are real and "alive" as he put it, is absurd, but that does not necessarily mean that applying imaginary entities to how we interact with one another is absurd. We have no choice because that is how the human brain works. We imagine a goal then we imagine concepts to apply to our interactions in order to accomplish that goal. Acknowledging that concepts are imaginary and do not exist, does not mean that it is not useful and or unproductive to apply them in our actions. All concepts are imaginary representations of physical processes in the brain we use to process other physical processes in our own brains, those of others and the interactions we observe in objective reality. People pretend that they are real out of utility but it is not necessary to believe they are real to do so. An actor does not need to truly believe that they are the character they are pretending to be to play that character for example. It is still possible to apply imaginary concepts to interactions in reality while acknowledging that they are imaginary. Pretending something is real will never make it real.
The best talk in ages! Thank you both, loving "Skeptic" Michael Shermer.
We should refrain from considering and valuing faithfulness or the agencies as is represented by Christians and the Christian Bible!
Great. I rate this amongst the best I’ve ever heard 👍👍
It all goes back to choice. Life, good or bad? Just because life exists does not make it good. The value we place upon it is either genetic programming or choice. If its programming, how did that happen? Some people do think life is bad, so the programming is not homogeneous.
Better, worse, in relation to what? The very question posits a belief as to the goodness or evil of a certain thing.
We want certainty; that's why some people choose to believe in a god, not because that entity might or might not exist, which it may or it may not. We can't have certainty. We don't know, but we behave as if we do know.
Is it really any "worse" to say "I will behave as if I do believe in a God that is Love, a God that is Truth, a God that personifies what I consider good, a God that cares about me, a God that, if we believe the age of the Universe, has been around a while and so probably knows a wee bit more than i, at not much over a half-century, know?"
Irresponsible, selfish? Value judgments based on a long chain of value judgments we take for granted, which we probably haven't examined thoroughly, and yet we have the gall to judge others, to wish to impose upon others what we believe by force, be it a majority in a legislature, cancelling, stonewalling, etc.
I think that in order to persuade someone, you need to establish common value judgments about things like life, society, coercion, deceit, etc. I think trying to intellectually browbeat people about something that there is no evidence for or against, is disingenuous. There are things that require evidence, that require proof. Justifying the use of force is one of those things, if we want to maintain civilized discourse and not step into the jungle and let the judgment be by ordeal.
And yet, to have civilized discourse, we need to begin with establishing this common ground about the highest values and their rank order, such as life, society, truth, peace, freedom, etc. If we value this, then this follows, as night follows day follows night. Logic exists, if we define our terms as precisely and truthfully as we can. Yet because we are fallible, the logic does not necessarily result in truth. Garbage in, garbage out The truth of our premises matters, but good or bad are not truth statements. They are value judgments, which leave us eternally in a state of uncertainty. Yet they form an implicit part of all our premises. This irremediable state of uncertainty requires us to make value judgments on faith; we are left with a choice about what we are going to believe to be good or bad, without any proof whatsoever that does not rest on previous value judgments.
I wonder. What IS impacting your mind, Andy. Politics, a bit too much?
I was thinking the exact same thing....) Seems like mind parasites are 'ok' if those parasitic ideas you happen to believe in. I don't think he even realizes what he is saying.
Keep it coming!!!
Andy kind of looks like the Tech Ingredients guy who's here on YT. Anyways, great discussion. Can't wait to hear your talk with Stephen Meyer. He and others like him have some interesting points but it's frustrating to me because it seems clear that naturalism is sufficient and it's fine that we don't have solid origin answers, just hypotheses. But people like him take to hammering out their sheets of gold around the framework of nature to make their god. It's weird, it's unnecessary, it's clever, but ultimately it has been taking far too much oxygen and human resources away from more pressing issues.
Came here right after the JRE clip today😄
Tryna look for a comment stating what his solution is to these antibodies
what evidence do you have that these underground communities do not exist? (re. 24-25 minutes)
especially when so many are finding it does. give evidence it doesn't exist perhaps?
Norman's Ratchet. Cool metaphor for understanding the value of presumptions.
Gad Saad looks different.
🕊
Philosophers and their hookum! What is immature belief?!
great discussion
I really like the title
Mr. Norman's mind immunity system only attacks ideas that he doesn't agree with. Well...I guess he's spewing garbage.
Because all the conspiracies are on the 'right'. Nothing on the left aye?
I’m a strong proponent of cognitive liberty. A radical skeptic Would probably take an instrumentalist approach to truth;
Should we place a higher value on flourishing or truth? Who is going to write the algorithm to a calculate out the chaos math Of the long term affects of contagious ideas? Let’s take scientific knowledge and technological advancement, plug it into the algorithm to calculate if the possible long term Effects of “scientific truths” Outweigh “religious truths”. Is this something that should be enforced with Some kind of thought police?
I think I could make a strong case that scientific truth and technological advancement have put us on the brink of extinction Whereas had we stayed more primitive, we might not be at the cross roads.. I personally don’t believe in eliminating Teaching the Method of science because of what could happen with these ideas.
As for your abortion question, most pro-life advocates don’t believe in prosecuting the woman after tit criminalized, but the one who actually perform the Killing, and I think most would say they should just lose their license to practice. In the case of rape, most states require a Plan B pill with the rape kit which contains no abortifacients.
Science, knowledge about the universe in which we live, was once our religion. Later, we built cities and our religion was no longer about the forces in nature and the universe, but about humans and their relationship to some god/ruler.
@@ellengran6814 I am pretty sure that science used to fall under philosophy, and recently became separated out as a method. Historically, most natural philosophy was done by theists because everyone was a theist.... except maybe the Buddhists in the east.
In my country, Norway, we once understood the world as «the tree of life». We believed there were forces in nature creating balance, forces of decay and forces of growth. No force of good or bad - its all about balance and opportunities/nutrition. The belief-system told by the Bible is in many ways unable to connect with the science of today. In my view, many of our old belief-systems is easily connected with the science we now know.
@@ellengran6814 I think that there has been overlap between religions historically. I’m betting the earliest religion We’re different forms of shamanism. Probably paganism and Animism emerged from that Way of thinking. Many of the practices and codes we’re probably shapes for the type of terrain and social conditions under which Communities lived. Small nomadic tribes wandering around a harsh desert developed different Customs than those in lush jungles. I’m pretty convinced that psychedelics of one kind or another we’re involved in the shaping of many early religions. I do agree with you, however, that all most of today’s stories that connect us to ‘ mother nature’ are relatively technical and dry rather than intuitive and spiritual. Industrialized farming, far away supply chains.And big box stores.
@@johnbuckner2828 I agree. All the «scientific» words we use today have no connection with our feelings or our daily life. The consept of dreamtime vs realtimes gives a totally different feeling and understanding then quantum physics vs quantum mechanics.
For many are called, but few are chosen" comes in the conclusion of Jesus' parable of the wedding feast. In order to understand the conclusion, we need to read the parable in its entirety:
(1) Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, (2) "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. (3) "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. (4) "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' (5) "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, (6) and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. (7) "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. (8) "Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. (9) 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' (10) "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. (11) "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, (12) and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. (13) "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (14) "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:1-14)
Cant say this make much sense to me. If people dont want to come, you ask why ?. Nobody has the right to enslave others. Revenge has proven to be a bad solution. The world is filled with people suffering/dead due to socalled good people/intensions. 60 million (some say 100 million) native americans died in the name of God and freedom.
Assume I am both ignorant and not very smart. What am I supposed to understand from this passage?
Is it that the king overreacts by not just punishing murders, but also the entire city that the murder lives in?
Is it that the punishment for not abiding to a dress code is a little over the top?
No human will ever be without flaws exactly the reason we hold Jesus as our mediator only through believe in him you are saved both from your own trespasses as well as other trespassers
Mr. Potato Head is the true Savior and can kick jesus's ass around the block 24 / 7 !