What do you think? Is Dr. Weinstein's take on religion and theism narrow and overly assured, or am I completely off base? Better yet, should I have titled this video: "Bret Weinstein DESTROYED!!!" ?
I was a little disappointed in Bret for taking such a dogmatic stance. I don't understand the overconfidence in the naturalistic explanations for the universe, they just explain existing physical processes.
Bret’s brain has gone to his head! So profoundly self-assured he actually comes across with a seeming irenic humility - and not only moderator but all-knowing judge of the Harris/Peterson debates; I think his assessments are really only his “superior” conclusions - not in actuality what happened or was achieved by the debates. Why do so many apparent geniuses lack epistemic humility? He could still learn a thing or two from Einstein in this regard.... Love your insightful videos!!
I can just imagine people signposting me to that interview as evidence that God doesn't exist for sure. Its an odd conviction to have. When you push atheists on why God is so firmly out of the equation they often default to claiming that to be agnostic instead. Its unscientific the to make claims you don't know is what I am getting at. Dozens of people pretending to be pure science claiming that although we have no idea how the universe began but we know it's not God somehow, never made much sense to me.
Anyway keep making vids dude you are clever and articulate and you have something to say. Hopefully your following will grow and make it more worth your while.
@@CMBradley Yes! Discuss religion from an evolutionary perspective while at the same explain how that does not deny the existence of God but rather works as a mechanism by which believers express their faith and their comprehension of the divine. That, I think, can bring a lot of the skeptics closer to understand the essence of religion and push them away from cynicism in discussing such topics.
I giggled when Weinstein was talking about the limitation in utility of the biblical story because because we live in circumstances that don't look anything like the situation of thousands of years ago". Does that come from someone that believes we have evolved for millions of years? The difference between now and "thousands of years ago" is a fraction of the whole story of the evolution of mankind. The situation we were in "thousands of years ago" is almost completely similar to what we have now (except for technology maybe) but we as a being still react almost the same way to things as we did back then. (Now I'm gonna listen to your argument :P) I would like to add that the utility of the biblical story is HUGE. I remember an african preacher visiting our home in the Netherlands. He was staying a couple of days and I had some discussion with him. Whenever I asked him a question about life or I was explaining a "problem" that I was thinking about. He could accurately answer my question with a biblical story. He could use all this biblical knowledge to help people (in the present). It was a great eye opener for me. It's so damn accurate. Or when a friend of mine betrayed me and I read about Judas.
Bret was one of the most objective thinkers I came across but for a long time he was leaning towards atheism and not giving (or not wanting to give) any credibility to the other abstraction, God. It seems that's the only topic where he never said his famous words 'I don't know' or 'we don't know'
Great video man, I've tried writing something substantial at least 3 times now but many of the same critiques I would lay out, you or many others that follow you already did so theres little point. just glad you are providing an interesting perspective on many of these topics, these debates and where gaps, or dogmatic elements in their thinking are. However, I will say that brets evolutionary perspective of religion while not all encompassing perhaps does have its utility in that, if individuals find religion to not be a mind virus(thanks dawkins) and that it has evolutionary utility or a tool granted from evolution for human survival, then from this new perspective they will perhaps be less inclined to be so persistent in its destruction. But I believe you mentioned something akin to this anyway during the last half of the video.
Thank you! At risk of sounding super cheesy, there's only one you, and people like variety, so don't let anyone else's work prevent you from doing your own. Yes, I don't think an evolutionary investigation into religious belief is meritless, but Weinstein and Dawkins seem to approach it as if it's the only (or at least the primary) way to understand such things, which appears to be grounded in their atheistic presupposition. There's a lot that can be said about this, but a couple other problems are that they don't define religion and they don't apply the same approach to their atheism. So, like you said, they could theoretically shift their attack on religion to a defense for the sake of its evolutionary utility if they embrace that it is indeed evolutionarily advantageous--although talking about religion generally here is virtually meaningless, due to the vast range of religious beliefs and expressions. However, what if atheism is an evolutionary liability? The atheistic regimes of the 20th century that sought to eradicate religion certainly aren't a good look. Would these biologists have to switch targets from eliminating "religion" to eliminating atheism? I'm rambling and need to drink some coffee, so I'll cut it there. But good comment, @Cyborg588!
@@CMBradley Hey just wanted to thank you for the kind words and encouragement. But to your point I do not think the argument has been made for the evolutionary utility of atheism. I think that from brets point if view the environment is shifting to the point where the need for a higher moral arbiter is becoming less relevant (although to me that's interesting because I will presume his value system is also based on the west judeo/ christian and enlightenment value structure so as such you really have a moral foundation set upon by at the very least religious ideas) and of course I could be misinterpreting his argument as well. I will doubt highly that atheism would work to destroy itself for the sake of the evolutionary utility of religious ideas. Mostly because it's a competing ideology and those who believe in it have a motivated reason for keeping it functioning. I find his timeless argument to be a bit... well strange. For one it seems and I could be wrong here that human beings develop a higher moral arbiter whether or not "God" is involved. the current postmodernist movement (SJW) seems to be puritanical and religious in itself so it may be that religion its self is timeless but religions are not (also as an anecdot I understand that this is not conclusive proof of anything). I'm talking about of course religion in the sense of like christianity, buddhism, Hinduism etc, and what stays around is the hirearchal value structures of ideas making them be religious. But I'm not well read enough on the subject to be completely sure of that either. If I was being charitable in his interpretation of God and how he says we know that he doesn't exist. I would be inclined to say that he was being critical of the notion of the man in sky type of argument, and that he follows a more conceptualized view a bit like Petersons, but I might be giving him too much the benefit of the doubt. But anyway interesting views I do have to admit you got my noggin jogging and I thank you for that.
@@Cyborg588 > atheism is a competing ideology ... it may be that religion itself is timeless but religions as not Well, that's just the thing. Atheists typically regard religion as superstition, rather than something in the same philosophical and psychological category as religion. This is the point Jonathan Haidt makes: human beings are fundamentally religious, using the durkheimian model of religion. And that's another thing: what does "religion" even mean? Western scholars don't have a consensus on this, and some of the most respected scholars of religion think the Western concept of religion itself is entirely wrong-headed, sometimes pointing to the lack of translation for the word in other languages. However, these popular atheists throw the word around without ever specifying the way they're using the word, but as if all religions are fundamentally the same. Buddhism is extraordinarily different than Mormonism, and the Quran is very different than the Vedas. > If I was being charitable in his interpretation of God and how he says we know that he doesn't exist. I would be inclined to say that he was being critical of the notion of the man in sky type of argument, and that he follows a more conceptualized view a bit like Petersons, but I might be giving him too much the benefit of the doubt. As much as I love seeing intellectual charity, I think that would indeed be overly charitable. It wouldn't make as much sense given his other statements in that interview. Plus, he's ethnically Jewish and in a social circle with Peterson and Shapiro, the latter of whom often talks about Maimonides. It's pretty ironic, though, that the concept of God as a man in the sky is something almost exclusive to atheists. > But anyway interesting views I do have to admit you got my noggin jogging and I thank you for that. The feeling is mutual.
I'm quite a fan of the Doctors Weinstein. Bret in particular, as his manner is mild, and as he is willing to cross any dividing line between groups to find agreement on anything we can agree on. Also, he is not the determinist sort of evolution theorist - anyone who knows better than I do, is Dawkins one of these? By that I mean he recognizes tribalism as naturally selected _and unfortunate_ , and as something we must and can (he hopes) overcome. Greg Graffin is another such evolution theorist (he's worth looking up, if you don't know who he is). Bret's conversation with Alister McGrath was much better than the Sam Harris / Jordan Peterson debate. In the beginning of it, he talks about his sense of something missing, his request to try Hebrew school, and disappointment in the rejection of honest questioning he found there. Later he forged a path for himself by considering religion through an evolution theoretic lens. (I'm inclined to view that path as provisionally a path toward God. I'm also inclined to view his rejection of religion as a rejection of dogmatic religion, which I think we should all reject.) Dr. Graffin (seriously, Google him) says even more about naturalism and evolution theory, how it provided him a metanarrative he could embrace in the absence of religion in his own upbringing. I hear in their honesty, men who love God's creation, thrilled to contribute to the representative landscape painting of reality. Would it be better if we had these genius minds contributing to the representative _portrait_ of reality, namely our understanding of the person of Jesus Christ? Probably, maybe not. Their landscape may be helpful in ways we don't understand - not false, just incomplete. (TH-cam "bad religion incomplete". Greg Graffin is the singer.)
Thanks, krileayn! I should mention that not terribly acquainted with his worldview, but I saw enough room for correction in this interview to warrant a response video.
@@CMBradley My criticism was that he was part of creating this SJW cancer and then when it turned on him he profited by getting a big payout. Yet he seems to not have admitted his mistake instead just saying "That wasn't real Social justice"
The problem is that it did make its way out of a sunday school class, and now those toddlers are adults who don't understand reality. "Does this God or man in the sky meme sound anything like [insert philosophical terminology]?" Yes, it sounds exactly like that.
Then you must not be acquainted with what those terms convey, and I invite you to learn them, as they carry the very crux of the matter. The two concepts of God mentioned in this video divide at the absolute most fundamental level of ontology. The (Straw)Man in the Sky has more in common than anything you can name than God.
Lmao I didn't want to type the whole thing because I was replying on my phone, and I would have to pause the video every time if I wanted to transcribe what you were saying. I am largely familiar with the words you used; my point is that you are dressing up a simple concept with language that does not make the concept more true or justify the immorality of Christianity. That part of the video is amateur because you were and still are trying to "flex" rather than support the basic ideas themselves. And I would disagree that you were using philosophical language; it was theological, and theology is generally hostile to philosophy.
Technically, it was philosophical theology. What brings you to think that those two are at odds with each other? In any case, the point being made there was not that theism is true, but that Bret doesn't even seem to slightly understand it.
Thanks dude great video. I found Weinsteins comments jarring when I saw the interview as I didn't know he stood so strongly in the atheist camp. The evolutionary biologist assumption of religion as something necessary for the masses but they are above is odd to me. Like you say it's better then the anti theism and more scientific but still oddly arrogant. Its alright everyone Weinstein knows there is no God for sure so we can put that to bed.
3:13 you completely worded what I was pausing to comment on, technology hasn’t changed the way our senses perceive the world or how we function naturally, I would also add that his idea of utility in regards to the Bible and Peterson’s seem different. He seems to think of the utility it gives as some sort of advice for the times that’s no longer relevant , where as Peterson seems to see the utility as being grounded to the the very fabric of phenomenology. The brain is said to be the product of some 3.4 billion years of evolution but the mind, the mind is always new when a child is born. So if Peterson’s view is correct than yes the utility that the biblical narratives gives is timeless and relevant. I think it’s quite opposite when he says nothing looks the same as it did then, in-fact everything we do is much the same we just do it in more efficient ways.
"There is no God in the sky who cares about human affairs & is meddling in them." Hardly an unfair or inaccurate characterization when billions of ppl literally look up & talk to "Him" every night, requesting that "He" personally intervene & deliver them earthly favors.
The overwhelming majority of those that refer to God in gendered terms or that look up to the sky would tell you those are symbolic utterances and gestures. Classical theism, as generally understood by both scholars and commoners, maintains that God is omnipresent and incorporeal.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think? Is Dr. Weinstein's take on religion and theism narrow and overly assured, or am I completely off base? Better yet, should I have titled this video: "Bret Weinstein DESTROYED!!!" ?
I was a little disappointed in Bret for taking such a dogmatic stance. I don't understand the overconfidence in the naturalistic explanations for the universe, they just explain existing physical processes.
Bret’s brain has gone to his head!
So profoundly self-assured he actually comes across with a seeming irenic humility - and not only moderator but all-knowing judge of the Harris/Peterson debates; I think his assessments are really only his “superior” conclusions - not in actuality what happened or was achieved by the debates. Why do so many apparent geniuses lack epistemic humility? He could still learn a thing or two from Einstein in this regard....
Love your insightful videos!!
@@MrHwaynefair Woah
I can just imagine people signposting me to that interview as evidence that God doesn't exist for sure. Its an odd conviction to have. When you push atheists on why God is so firmly out of the equation they often default to claiming that to be agnostic instead. Its unscientific the to make claims you don't know is what I am getting at. Dozens of people pretending to be pure science claiming that although we have no idea how the universe began but we know it's not God somehow, never made much sense to me.
Anyway keep making vids dude you are clever and articulate and you have something to say. Hopefully your following will grow and make it more worth your while.
Great video man! Please keep posting more of them. I would love to listen to your thoughts on other topics too.
Thanks, Rami! Any ideas?
@@CMBradley Yes! Discuss religion from an evolutionary perspective while at the same explain how that does not deny the existence of God but rather works as a mechanism by which believers express their faith and their comprehension of the divine. That, I think, can bring a lot of the skeptics closer to understand the essence of religion and push them away from cynicism in discussing such topics.
I giggled when Weinstein was talking about the limitation in utility of the biblical story because because we live in circumstances that don't look anything like the situation of thousands of years ago". Does that come from someone that believes we have evolved for millions of years? The difference between now and "thousands of years ago" is a fraction of the whole story of the evolution of mankind. The situation we were in "thousands of years ago" is almost completely similar to what we have now (except for technology maybe) but we as a being still react almost the same way to things as we did back then. (Now I'm gonna listen to your argument :P)
I would like to add that the utility of the biblical story is HUGE. I remember an african preacher visiting our home in the Netherlands. He was staying a couple of days and I had some discussion with him. Whenever I asked him a question about life or I was explaining a "problem" that I was thinking about. He could accurately answer my question with a biblical story. He could use all this biblical knowledge to help people (in the present). It was a great eye opener for me. It's so damn accurate. Or when a friend of mine betrayed me and I read about Judas.
Bret was one of the most objective thinkers I came across but for a long time he was leaning towards atheism and not giving (or not wanting to give) any credibility to the other abstraction, God. It seems that's the only topic where he never said his famous words 'I don't know' or 'we don't know'
Great video man, I've tried writing something substantial at least 3 times now but many of the same critiques I would lay out, you or many others that follow you already did so theres little point. just glad you are providing an interesting perspective on many of these topics, these debates and where gaps, or dogmatic elements in their thinking are. However, I will say that brets evolutionary perspective of religion while not all encompassing perhaps does have its utility in that, if individuals find religion to not be a mind virus(thanks dawkins) and that it has evolutionary utility or a tool granted from evolution for human survival, then from this new perspective they will perhaps be less inclined to be so persistent in its destruction. But I believe you mentioned something akin to this anyway during the last half of the video.
Thank you! At risk of sounding super cheesy, there's only one you, and people like variety, so don't let anyone else's work prevent you from doing your own. Yes, I don't think an evolutionary investigation into religious belief is meritless, but Weinstein and Dawkins seem to approach it as if it's the only (or at least the primary) way to understand such things, which appears to be grounded in their atheistic presupposition. There's a lot that can be said about this, but a couple other problems are that they don't define religion and they don't apply the same approach to their atheism.
So, like you said, they could theoretically shift their attack on religion to a defense for the sake of its evolutionary utility if they embrace that it is indeed evolutionarily advantageous--although talking about religion generally here is virtually meaningless, due to the vast range of religious beliefs and expressions. However, what if atheism is an evolutionary liability? The atheistic regimes of the 20th century that sought to eradicate religion certainly aren't a good look. Would these biologists have to switch targets from eliminating "religion" to eliminating atheism?
I'm rambling and need to drink some coffee, so I'll cut it there. But good comment, @Cyborg588!
@@CMBradley Hey just wanted to thank you for the kind words and encouragement. But to your point I do not think the argument has been made for the evolutionary utility of atheism. I think that from brets point if view the environment is shifting to the point where the need for a higher moral arbiter is becoming less relevant (although to me that's interesting because I will presume his value system is also based on the west judeo/ christian and enlightenment value structure so as such you really have a moral foundation set upon by at the very least religious ideas) and of course I could be misinterpreting his argument as well. I will doubt highly that atheism would work to destroy itself for the sake of the evolutionary utility of religious ideas. Mostly because it's a competing ideology and those who believe in it have a motivated reason for keeping it functioning.
I find his timeless argument to be a bit... well strange. For one it seems and I could be wrong here that human beings develop a higher moral arbiter whether or not "God" is involved. the current postmodernist movement (SJW) seems to be puritanical and religious in itself so it may be that religion its self is timeless but religions are not (also as an anecdot I understand that this is not conclusive proof of anything). I'm talking about of course religion in the sense of like christianity, buddhism, Hinduism etc, and what stays around is the hirearchal value structures of ideas making them be religious. But I'm not well read enough on the subject to be completely sure of that either.
If I was being charitable in his interpretation of God and how he says we know that he doesn't exist. I would be inclined to say that he was being critical of the notion of the man in sky type of argument, and that he follows a more conceptualized view a bit like Petersons, but I might be giving him too much the benefit of the doubt. But anyway interesting views I do have to admit you got my noggin jogging and I thank you for that.
@@Cyborg588
> atheism is a competing ideology ... it may be that religion itself is timeless but religions as not
Well, that's just the thing. Atheists typically regard religion as superstition, rather than something in the same philosophical and psychological category as religion. This is the point Jonathan Haidt makes: human beings are fundamentally religious, using the durkheimian model of religion. And that's another thing: what does "religion" even mean? Western scholars don't have a consensus on this, and some of the most respected scholars of religion think the Western concept of religion itself is entirely wrong-headed, sometimes pointing to the lack of translation for the word in other languages.
However, these popular atheists throw the word around without ever specifying the way they're using the word, but as if all religions are fundamentally the same. Buddhism is extraordinarily different than Mormonism, and the Quran is very different than the Vedas.
> If I was being charitable in his interpretation of God and how he says we know that he doesn't exist. I would be inclined to say that he was being critical of the notion of the man in sky type of argument, and that he follows a more conceptualized view a bit like Petersons, but I might be giving him too much the benefit of the doubt.
As much as I love seeing intellectual charity, I think that would indeed be overly charitable. It wouldn't make as much sense given his other statements in that interview. Plus, he's ethnically Jewish and in a social circle with Peterson and Shapiro, the latter of whom often talks about Maimonides. It's pretty ironic, though, that the concept of God as a man in the sky is something almost exclusive to atheists.
> But anyway interesting views I do have to admit you got my noggin jogging and I thank you for that.
The feeling is mutual.
I love how atheistic argument went from "I dont think there is a god" to "we all know that there is no god".
Oh, but Kalaanidhi, we all know there are no atheists ;)
@@CMBradley damn straight.....I know my jordentics inside out. 😁
@@CMBradley you should do a video on vox day. That guy is irritating as hell.
@@Kalaanidhi I've heard he's critical of Peterson, but I haven't seen any of his work. What video or written piece would you recommend I look at?
@@CMBradley I tried watching several of his videos...I couldn't pass the 5 min mark. I know he has a book called Jordentics.
I'm quite a fan of the Doctors Weinstein. Bret in particular, as his manner is mild, and as he is willing to cross any dividing line between groups to find agreement on anything we can agree on. Also, he is not the determinist sort of evolution theorist - anyone who knows better than I do, is Dawkins one of these? By that I mean he recognizes tribalism as naturally selected _and unfortunate_ , and as something we must and can (he hopes) overcome. Greg Graffin is another such evolution theorist (he's worth looking up, if you don't know who he is).
Bret's conversation with Alister McGrath was much better than the Sam Harris / Jordan Peterson debate. In the beginning of it, he talks about his sense of something missing, his request to try Hebrew school, and disappointment in the rejection of honest questioning he found there. Later he forged a path for himself by considering religion through an evolution theoretic lens. (I'm inclined to view that path as provisionally a path toward God. I'm also inclined to view his rejection of religion as a rejection of dogmatic religion, which I think we should all reject.)
Dr. Graffin (seriously, Google him) says even more about naturalism and evolution theory, how it provided him a metanarrative he could embrace in the absence of religion in his own upbringing. I hear in their honesty, men who love God's creation, thrilled to contribute to the representative landscape painting of reality.
Would it be better if we had these genius minds contributing to the representative _portrait_ of reality, namely our understanding of the person of Jesus Christ? Probably, maybe not. Their landscape may be helpful in ways we don't understand - not false, just incomplete.
(TH-cam "bad religion incomplete". Greg Graffin is the singer.)
Great video, was hoping someone would do a in depth critique of Bret Weinstein.
Thanks, krileayn! I should mention that not terribly acquainted with his worldview, but I saw enough room for correction in this interview to warrant a response video.
@@CMBradley My criticism was that he was part of creating this SJW cancer and then when it turned on him he profited by getting a big payout. Yet he seems to not have admitted his mistake instead just saying "That wasn't real Social justice"
@@krileayn Ah, yeah, I can see that =\
The problem is that it did make its way out of a sunday school class, and now those toddlers are adults who don't understand reality.
"Does this God or man in the sky meme sound anything like [insert philosophical terminology]?" Yes, it sounds exactly like that.
Then you must not be acquainted with what those terms convey, and I invite you to learn them, as they carry the very crux of the matter. The two concepts of God mentioned in this video divide at the absolute most fundamental level of ontology. The (Straw)Man in the Sky has more in common than anything you can name than God.
Lmao I didn't want to type the whole thing because I was replying on my phone, and I would have to pause the video every time if I wanted to transcribe what you were saying.
I am largely familiar with the words you used; my point is that you are dressing up a simple concept with language that does not make the concept more true or justify the immorality of Christianity.
That part of the video is amateur because you were and still are trying to "flex" rather than support the basic ideas themselves. And I would disagree that you were using philosophical language; it was theological, and theology is generally hostile to philosophy.
Technically, it was philosophical theology. What brings you to think that those two are at odds with each other? In any case, the point being made there was not that theism is true, but that Bret doesn't even seem to slightly understand it.
Oh come on.
Thanks dude great video. I found Weinsteins comments jarring when I saw the interview as I didn't know he stood so strongly in the atheist camp. The evolutionary biologist assumption of religion as something necessary for the masses but they are above is odd to me. Like you say it's better then the anti theism and more scientific but still oddly arrogant. Its alright everyone Weinstein knows there is no God for sure so we can put that to bed.
No, man, thank you. That was very insightful. I hadn't looked at it that way, but it makes complete sense.
3:13 you completely worded what I was pausing to comment on, technology hasn’t changed the way our senses perceive the world or how we function naturally, I would also add that his idea of utility in regards to the Bible and Peterson’s seem different. He seems to think of the utility it gives as some sort of advice for the times that’s no longer relevant , where as Peterson seems to see the utility as being grounded to the the very fabric of phenomenology.
The brain is said to be the product of some 3.4 billion years of evolution but the mind, the mind is always new when a child is born. So if Peterson’s view is correct than yes the utility that the biblical narratives gives is timeless and relevant.
I think it’s quite opposite when he says nothing looks the same as it did then, in-fact everything we do is much the same we just do it in more efficient ways.
That's a great contrast between their takes on the Bible! Very perceptive.
"There is no God in the sky who cares about human affairs & is meddling in them." Hardly an unfair or inaccurate characterization when billions of ppl literally look up & talk to "Him" every night, requesting that "He" personally intervene & deliver them earthly favors.
The overwhelming majority of those that refer to God in gendered terms or that look up to the sky would tell you those are symbolic utterances and gestures. Classical theism, as generally understood by both scholars and commoners, maintains that God is omnipresent and incorporeal.