If you haven't seen my interviews with "the Michaels," catch up here: Michael Shellenberger: th-cam.com/video/fB7fpitQzzM/w-d-xo.html Michael Shermer: th-cam.com/video/9oEG6T7dmps/w-d-xo.html
what I earned about humanism, 150 million murdered by their own government last 101 yrs. When man becomes his own god, never ends well, and history has proven it. In the end we are evil hairless monkeys.
Big Shellenberger fan, I'm not actually a Pragmatist though, more of a Realist. I also don't agree with Shellenberger's indictment of Sam Harris, it's complicated dawg.
One thing I wonder about the claims in this video is, Where is the evidence? I keep hearing that the absence of religion is to blame for “woke” ideology but what data is there on this? Many of the biggest authors on woke are Christian background and almost all the arguments against wokism are political not religious. I wonder why Christian’s don’t use Jesus words to defeat wokism? Probably because Jesus narrative is almost impossible to use as an attack on anyone. Imagine trying to use this, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, to attack your political opponents. I’d love for you to give us evidence that irreligion has caused wokeness. Edit: I search “woke politicians” and there’s no real definitive list of I extend this to Reddit then biden and AOC are the big two and they’re both Catholic. It’s seems a bit of a fallacy. Even amongst republican voters there’s not that much support of antiwoke until you narrow it to conservatives. So really it seems to be a conservative issue.
He’s not a hysterical climate change nutjob either which having a realistic or half ways sensible opinion on the subject is rare enough to deserve recognition.
The more I listen to Schellenberger, the more I like him. It's nice to actually "see" a journalist. I've heard they still exist in small spots and herds, but I rarely see them.
I grew up having discussions like this with friends. If only everyone had the inner strength to hear something different from their own opinion we'd be in a much better world
Fantastic SE episode. Great questions. Especially the first one. I’d love to hear it teased out and unpacked a little further with both Michaels. Would be a great podcast.
The weird thing is that the two big political woke figures from the conservative perspective are Biden and AOC and they’re both Catholic. Even Christian colleges are embracing policy that conservatives call woke. It doesn’t seem logical or factual to call woke a symptom of waning religion. There almost no Christian argument against wokeness because Jesus teaching goes against attack your enemy no matter what they do.
Toward the end, Boghossian said that all three of them have different beliefs but they are friends to each other. The problem is that none of them are actually woke, meaning that their beliefs are so close to each other that an actual woke person would call them all evil bigots, transphobes, and racists.
@@erikmeissner6492 Yes and no. There are clearly still Left, (these 3) Centrist and Right. But there is a new category. Woke. And Woke are essentially the antithesis of everyone, they despise Liberals, they despise Conservatives and they hate Centrists the most.
As an Atheist I agree that Christianity is better bulwark. Christianity is practiced while I do not know one practicing humanist. Christians are encouraged at least every Sunday to review their morals, their world view, etc. What does a practicing humanist look like? Most humanists do not really know what they believe. I am not talking about experts but the normal guy and gal working a normal job.
Yea. Humanism seems to propagate runaway empathy to a point of being a detriment in some aspects. Kind of reminds me of the old adage “be openminded, but not so openminded your brain falls out.”
@@NomDeGuerre96 what are you even saying lmao. The empathy for christians marrying children and butchering natives and other christians with differing views clearly wasnt cutting it.
Mr. Shellenberger's comment "Only a few people can handle atheism" has had me in deep thought for two days now. It is so distinct from "religion". Perhaps the idea is that the ultimate good people pursue gets corrupted when groups form to manipulate that instinct? Still thinking.. Thank you for doing these.
How beautiful! Grown men who don't necessarily agree with each other having a civil conversation without emotion. I dream of living in a society of grown-ups like this on a waaaaaaay larger scale. Thanks Peter I am very inspired by what you do.
Doing this game with knowledgeable, intellectually capable individuals is far more fruitful than random people on university campuses lmao. It's a truly terrifying thing to hear what these college students think today. I'm only 34! Something happened to the kids a few grades below me. There is a stark difference within only a few years of age difference. Intersectional social justice is not some organic political movement. It's entirely contrived by big time political powers. The particular institutions they targeted demonstrates careful premeditation.
Even if you leave these distinguished guests aside, this is such a welcome improvement over the regular format. Yet of course, guests of this caliber are required for this modified version to work. Anyhow, the way you conduct epistemology is so much fun as always.
It’s interesting how much different these street interviews go when interviewing people with a higher IQ who put more thought into their thoughts. Keep up the good work
This is great Peter, love your regular SE episodes but with two of my intellectual hero’s? Come on! You knocked this one out of the park. Please keep doing these
Why does no one conversing in the arena of Alien life ever imagine that entire civilizations of Alien life may have existed and ceased to exist in the vastness of time in the universe before the very small window of awareness we are now in? To think that it must only be happening now, as the human race has a relatively primal viewpoint on the very closest regions of the space around us, just seems so earth centric 🌎!
Well I don’t think that because I see no evidence of that. I think the idea of alien life usually assumes a random origins to the universe and human beings and i reject that premise.
That is actually one of the explanation of why we cant encounter other aliens (the fact that we are not "sincronized" in time with them)...a lot of ppl talked about that...and is also a very reasonable explanation with plenty of merit... :)
@@jordandthornburg Oh yeah...we are the "chosen ones"...litterally trillions of planets and an infinite space (also impossible for us to reach and experience) all created just for US...the "elected" by god...the center of the universe... :DDDDD
Yes, women in Saudi Arabia can vote and stand as candidates in municipal elections. This right was granted for the first time in 2015, allowing women to participate in the country's political process.
@@JimCastleberry PPPPFFFF...I am glad that you live in your imaginary world and feel conforted by that... Keep telling yourself that you "won", somewhat, just because I finally decided to abandon a useless thread flooded with your 3X1 nonsense replies (while you actually got destroyed every step of the way before that)...see how much I care... My only regret is not being able to see your face when in the end you will finally realize that your beliefs were all a giant fairytale...simply because in the end you will have no face at all, being just rotten flesh and worms slowly disappearing into oblivion...
Why didn't Dr. Shermer use his knock-out argument? To paraphrase Dr. Shermer, atheism is not a belief system or a world view. It is merely an indicator that someone does not believe in unsubstantiated supernatural claims. A lack of belief can never be the basis of a belief system. A lack of belief in mysticism does not contain a positive assertion of principles.
Because the topic was secular humanism which does have affirmative assertions beyond 'I don't believe' or 'I don't know'. Atheism cannot be a bulwark against because the lack of theism alone doesn't inform any moral beliefs or behavioral norms.
I’ve been saying this for a while now. Only a few people can thrive with an atheistic mindset. Those who got “convinced” into it because it looked cool and edgy, mostly just end up having religious tendencies towards their atheism while not realizing it because the belief is that they’re already beyond religiosity and faith.
I've been learning from Michael Shermer for many years, and more recently from Peter Boghossian and Michael Shellenberger but ... Michael S. stated that in 1919 there was only one country where women could vote. I suspect he was referring to the US. However, women were given the vote in Canada in 1918. Even earlier in 1917, Canadian women who had a husband, father, or brother serving in the war were given the vote, as were the 'Bluebirds', nurses serving in the war.
This is awesome, guys! This may be one of the ways we can all work out how to reasonably move past the madness and divisiveness of comtemporary deadlocks.
@@zaknefain100 *"Really? That's the one stuck in your craw eh?"* Let me go out on a limb and guess you're an atheist and therefore any piffle, even among the priest class gets a pass from you.
I'm with Michael here. O wait, let me clarify that, I mean Michael S. Nope, that's not gonna work. Let let me be very specific, I'm with Michael Shellenberger.
As long as they all agree woke is a problem, and for the most part wrong, then it don't matter if it's coming from a faith background or a more human based reality. Lets come together and and bring truth back to the world.
There were not many challenging questions for this to be considered a type Street Epistemology. There were finally a couple challeging questions towards the end regareding aliens. Overall, this seemed much more like a guided debate, which is fine. It's just something that is not SE.
During the lightning round about aliens I would have skipped from strongly agree all the way to strongly disagree. The bigger you picture the universe being, the higher the odds of aliens being out there and the lower the odds that we ever meet them.
I will admit that I was happier when I grew up having faith. But I was also happier when I believed in Santa. Should I just believe in something if it makes me feel good, despite not really believing it to be the truth? I'm sorta Agnostic now. I believe there could be a god, but the bible has just too many errors in it for me to believe it is the truth.
When it became obvious the Right was not clearly defined to Michael, why didn't Peter take a shot at it? He suggested MAGA to Shermer, he could have tried a more specific example with Shellenberger.
Without God, moral values and duties collapse into incoherence and illusion, with no objective grounding in reality. The person who rejects 'secular humanist' subjective opinions on morality, but would rather eliminate you for political advantage, or steal your wife and belongings, has done nothing wrong in any real sense. He is entitled to his own subjective moral opinions. All moral preferences/opinions are nothing more than subjective illusions with no foundation in reality. No good, no evil. Without God, all things are permissible. --Dostoevsky
"Without God, moral values and duties collapse into incoherence and illusion, with no objective grounding in reality." Can you possibly affirm something that is LESS TRUE and totally disproven by infinite facts and history (and the actual existance of millions of perfectly "moral" and decent atheists all over the world, that dont suddenly become murderers or tyrants, or evil creatures in general just because they dont believe in the sky wizard)?! :DDDD
@@dimercamparini You failed to demonstrate any possible foundation for a realm of objective moral values and duties (to be right or wrong about) without God. You can't - and you won't. Unless and until you can do this, you are lying to claim I am wrong.
@@dimercamparini Not only is your statement a naked lie, you are also lying to claim atheists are not immoral. Over 100 MILLION people have been mass-murdered and BILLIONS brutally repressed by various atheist regimes all across the world - in this past century alone. Facts matter. Liar.
@@JimCastleberry 1) those regimes are/were not based on true atheism and are/were not lead by actual atheists...but by tyrants that use the cult of personality exacly like ANOTHER RELIGION and their followers follows them exactly like religious ppl follow their ideology... 2) for MILLENNIA religions mass murdered and tortured millions of ppl...so? Nice "morality" was in the inquisition...or in the crusades...or in the whitch hunts... :DDDD The basic principle of actual atheists is "live and let live"...the basic priciples of ANY religion is "if you dont follow me, you are an infidel and I will kill you!" No atheist ever made a "holy war" against religious ppl... (oppressed religious minorities in tyrannical regimes are ALWAYS oppressed by other religions that are the majority...OR for political and economical reasons...NEVER because an atheist wants to spread their philosophy of life to other that dont want to follow that...) The only factor that prevent today's christianity to do other holy wars against other religions, in the west, was the separation between church and state that happened during the age of enlightment (and the spread of atheism in places of power, which counterbalance religious ppl and keeps them in check)...if christian ppl still had absolute government powers today in the western part of the world (like in the middle ages), they will wage wars against muslims and other religions in an INSTANT! (same as muslims states do, even today...cause they never passed through the cultural revolution that was enlightment...and their religious leaders still call the shot on anything...)
I don't have a problem calling myself MAGA, even if I agree and appreciate all the guys in this vid. I wonder if Shermer could steelman someone like me...
@@Doutsoldome And Whee does The Imprint come from? Does this apply to someone else's offspring? Nature is replete with cases of males killing the offspring's of another male.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 _"Nature is replete with cases of males killing the offspring's of another male."_ Yes, indeed. And the success of this strategy seems to have shaped what you could call the "morality" of lions. _"And Whee does The Imprint come from?"_ Whatever change in DNA that favored a behaviour that resulted in more thriving lives for the individuals would have an increased chance of spreading across the gene pool, taking the place of less successful DNA variants. This, in turn, would result in subsequent generations having a greater tendency to display the behaviour in question. A complete explanation for a biological origin of morality is surely not an easy thing to prove and I don't have all the answers. What I'm trying to describe here, in general terms, is along the lines of what is studied in evolutionary psychology.
The notion that "morality comes from religion" and does not exist outside of that is pure GARBAGE... Are all atheists that are currently living across the world "amoral" and "evil"? All murderers, reeepists, tyrants, etc.? What about some version of morality existing even BEFORE religions were invented and codified into books? there were no morality concepts whatsoever in human civilizations before those events? I dont think so... Is just an absurd point debunkable in 0.1 seconds...
@@Doutsoldome "A complete explanation for a biological origin of morality is surely not an easy thing to prove" Understatement of the week! Heck A partial is not easy! I think a lot of it comes down to presuppositions. People like Dennis and I presuppose there is more than just the material. This leads to different conclusions.
People would not rather be free than enslaved. We saw that with covid. People would rather be healthy than deseased yet over 40% of the US is obese. Which is it? The truth is that people are like water, they move towards the path of least resistance, not towards what's good. This is why religion is very important ina society, a homogenous society at that.
At 11:35-Does anyone really choose to believe in something? Isn’t it true that you either believe a claim or you don’t? And if you don’t believe it, but you say you do, isn’t that a lie? Or more charitably, just hope? The question, “Is it reasonable to PRACTICE Christianity…” makes much more sense to me.
Pragmatic epistemology: If the theory doesn't work that proves that it's wrong, and the theory that creates the best results is the most correct. This is true in hard science, if your theory about gravity didn't give you the result you expected, you couldn't get rockets to laundry properly, than it proves to be false. We need to apply the same thing to social beliefs. If your social beliefs seem iron-proof logically, but the people who believe that don't get the results (a good life) that they want, it must be false. And so Christianity, the teaching of Jesus when applied, lead to the best lives and the best societies we've ever seen, so it must be the most correct. I did a street epistemology talk about this, you can see it on my channel, in the playlist for appearing on other people's channels.
Shouldn't it be spelled lightning round? This is great you should make it a series, my tip for the future is to additionally mike up the contestants for want of a better word.
With more time, I think Shellenberger could have moved towards Shermer. In the case of Christianity, his thinking was a little shallow: like Shermer said, we don't need to go very far to see how much religion has misled people throughout history, so I tend to agree with Shermer: that secular humanism is the antidote to wokeism more than religion, which is just exchanging one theology for another.
Well, the question doesn't entail that any of them are true. It merely asks which philosophical position, if taken as true or even just accepted as true for the pragmatic outcome of 'acting as though it is true', would be a better bulwark against wokeism. So that raises the question, what propositions from secular humanism counter the woke narrative?
@@shawn4110nobody mentioned my take: that religions caused a lot of wokeism in the first place (effeminate gay man transes bc his sexist Baptist family told him homosexuality is a sin and he’s not a real man).
@@dimercamparini ""The crusades, a series of religious wars was sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, had various economic motivations. One of the key economic factors was the desire to gain control of the lucrative trade routes to the East, particularly those that led to the Holy Land." In other words these things go on in the name of religion. But they are actually about money. And the people who participate believe the propaganda of the governments who send them to war. But those who are against God, are happy to find a reason for not allowing spiritual guidance to run the governments. A person who really wants to come closer to God will immediately want the governments to be run by saintly persons. The whole purpose of societal life is to make social arrangements so that we all come closer to God. Those who object are actually driven by demonic motives. It is true that we do not want corruption and exploitation to go on in the name of religion. But if it does, this is not because religion is a bad thing. It is because most religious organizations are run by demonic people."
@@robb6059 Sure, SOME things were made in the name of religions, but with other actual purposes and goals in mind...BUT It's litterally ingrained in the concept of any religion the idea that you are right, the others are wrong, and in the end you must dominate them and spread your doctrine (eliminating all the others in the process)... This is the basic nature of a religion in itself and cant be dismissed simply by saying "men bad, religion good"...too easy and clearly an excuse...
@@dimercamparini "The people in different religions have almost always ended up fighting against each other. The fact is that Jesus didn't give instructions to launch the crusades against the Muslims. Jesus didn't instruct the pope of Rome to begin the Spanish Inquisition. Mohammed didn't give instructions to the Muslims to go to India and tear down the Vaishnava temples. Jesus didn't give instructions to the Ku Klux Klan (who consider themselves to be Christians) to hate the black man. Etc. If there are bad policemen, does that mean that the concept of a benign police force that protects the public is a useless concept? Therefore we can't blame these atrocities on Jesus or Mahammed, and their teachings. These are not the activities and teachings of Jesus or Mhammed. These activities reflect the madness of the people of this world who do these things in the name of Jesus and Mohammed. These atrocities are part of the material world. The problem is not with religion. The problem is with the human race that refuses to allow their hearts to be touched by real spiritual teachings. If a person refuses to accept the process for leaving the material world because there are mad people here, nothing can be done to help him. He can only be helped when he is ready to receive help. If we point out that the atrocities of religious groups don't represent actual spiritual teachings, and they refuse to acknowledge this, then we have to understand that they want to avoid reconciliation with God. Krishna understands their hearts and it is Krishna who provides them with these arguments because they want to remain antagonistic towards the process of spiritual culture."
@@robb6059 Nice wall of txt...the actual reality is that, as I said, is INTRINSIC in all religions (sometimes more sometimes less, but always present) to have a dictate to spread and delete all oppositions, with the ultimate purpose of becoming the dominant ideology of the world... So yes...ultimately RELIGION said to ppl to do all the bad things we know (crusades etc.)...ppl didnt thought those things in a vacuum, all by themselves. This is proven by the historical fact that ppl without religion NEVER waged wars against religious ppl, just for the goal of spreading their ideology...that happens ONLY in one direction: religion--->infidels and not the other way around. (because yes...ppl are evil and have agendas and desires of power...BUT religion ENHANCES and add FUEL to THAT!)
I wonder what the purpose of an ought is without human free will in a naturalistic universe. In other words, what good is saying someone ought to do something to promote human flourishing if they lack the free will to do so? Also I don't think we should believe in something unless it's true. I don't think we should believe false things because it benefits us.
Pew research, but the question that was asked was 'Do you support the government taking steps to restrict false information on the internet.' The secondary question which had 30% agree was "Do you believe that freedom of information should be protected even if it means some false claims will be published".
"It is reasonable to believe in Christianity soley because of the benefits". Yes, but the reason is that the benefits attest to its truth. The notion that things can be beneficial without being true in some way is I think incorrect. So it is beneficial because it is true. As St Paul sais faith would be in vain if Christ did not rise
Basically Wokism is like the Islam of the secular movement. This means, that when someone comes along believing they are a butterfly angel, maybe also because of the repercussions, They will not want to call them out, the way they call out christians.
To overcome any ism in a moral way is to simply remove supremacists, including Jesus and supremacist governments, and replace them with education starting at the youngest ages in four complete areas which are relationships between people, emotions and energy, physical things including our human body, and money. Teach this to children starting as young as 5 years old throughout high school and into college for use in their life and do not disrupt. Then only make laws that stop people from hurting others in their pursuit of these goals
@@jordandthornburg "If your brain is randomly created though how would you be able to trust that to tell you anything reliable?" LOL...what kind of uber-stupid argument is this?! :DDDDDD (maybe I have a "randomly created" brain...whatever that even means...but you certainly have NO brain at all...) :DDDD
Yes, women in Iran have the right to vote and run for parliament. They acquired the right to vote in 1963 and to be elected to parliament, and in the subsequent election, women were voted into parliament and the senate
At the moment women in Iran parliament are still less than 6%...what a progress in 60 years... :DDDD (one thing is saying that a thing is technically allowed, in theory...another thing is experiencing actual consequences and results of that thing, in reality...I guess in Iranian parliament women are basically the "mascotte" of the team, with their presence made and tolerated just to avoid breaking some "human rights" international laws)
Yep...I am still amazed by how many ppl deny this simple fact...is litterally a FICTION created by the human brain to have confort that we are not alone and will not disappear into oblivion after death, and an explanation to our existance (while is completely possible that there is NO explanation at all...it just is...)
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GgeGQOP10RQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If you haven't seen my interviews with "the Michaels," catch up here:
Michael Shellenberger: th-cam.com/video/fB7fpitQzzM/w-d-xo.html
Michael Shermer: th-cam.com/video/9oEG6T7dmps/w-d-xo.html
Looking forward to this video
what I earned about humanism, 150 million murdered by their own government last 101 yrs. When man becomes his own god, never ends well, and history has proven it. In the end we are evil hairless monkeys.
Big Shellenberger fan, I'm not actually a Pragmatist though, more of a Realist. I also don't agree with Shellenberger's indictment of Sam Harris, it's complicated dawg.
One thing I wonder about the claims in this video is, Where is the evidence? I keep hearing that the absence of religion is to blame for “woke” ideology but what data is there on this? Many of the biggest authors on woke are Christian background and almost all the arguments against wokism are political not religious.
I wonder why Christian’s don’t use Jesus words to defeat wokism? Probably because Jesus narrative is almost impossible to use as an attack on anyone. Imagine trying to use this, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, to attack your political opponents.
I’d love for you to give us evidence that irreligion has caused wokeness.
Edit: I search “woke politicians” and there’s no real definitive list of I extend this to Reddit then biden and AOC are the big two and they’re both Catholic. It’s seems a bit of a fallacy. Even amongst republican voters there’s not that much support of antiwoke until you narrow it to conservatives. So really it seems to be a conservative issue.
Shellenberger is low-key a hero of mine. He spoke out against the anti-nuclear-power position when it was very disadvantageous to do so.
He’s not a hysterical climate change nutjob either which having a realistic or half ways sensible opinion on the subject is rare enough to deserve recognition.
I only just found him. Bit disappointed that he's a God botherer. Leftugees often seem to jump ship from the woke infested left to Christianity ???I
Agreed. Great human
I'm anti nuclear.
@@4850937 Neato.
One of your best Street Epistemology episodes, having two friends discuss such topics was brilliant!
Thank you!
Really awesome Peter. Would love to see more street epistemology with guests of this level.
@@drpeterboghossian Your 'Street Epistemology' did not work very well against a real epistemologist - Timothy Mcgrew.
The more I listen to Schellenberger, the more I like him. It's nice to actually "see" a journalist. I've heard they still exist in small spots and herds, but I rarely see them.
Thanks for watching!
This is freaking awesomeness! Three of my favorite minds together, can it get any better than this?!
Love the Michaels. Great conversation. Thank you, Peter!
That was fun to watch. Loved hearing Peter laugh like that.
I grew up having discussions like this with friends. If only everyone had the inner strength to hear something different from their own opinion we'd be in a much better world
best episode yet! wish it was longer. I could see you three have a great Podcast together.
Thank you!!
I agree, i wish it had been much longer.
Loved this episode, I love how y'all are nerding around philosophy, science and ethics ❤
Fantastic SE episode. Great questions. Especially the first one. I’d love to hear it teased out and unpacked a little further with both Michaels. Would be a great podcast.
Great episode. It is quite amazing to see secular humanists be able to find common ground with Christians in the modern culture war.
The weird thing is that the two big political woke figures from the conservative perspective are Biden and AOC and they’re both Catholic. Even Christian colleges are embracing policy that conservatives call woke. It doesn’t seem logical or factual to call woke a symptom of waning religion.
There almost no Christian argument against wokeness because Jesus teaching goes against attack your enemy no matter what they do.
Michael Shellenberger ran for governor of California. I deeply wish he had the backing to be made known to the populace.
Wonderful! Best street epistemology yet!!!!!
Thank you!!
It certainly makes for a better conversation when you have intelligent participants.
I like your friends , they are kind to each other.
Big love to all three of you
pretty awesome show, interesting questions with interesting peope
Toward the end, Boghossian said that all three of them have different beliefs but they are friends to each other. The problem is that none of them are actually woke, meaning that their beliefs are so close to each other that an actual woke person would call them all evil bigots, transphobes, and racists.
I suppose you mean that their beliefs are so close to each other _from the woke person's perspective._
@@Doutsoldome
Yes, a woke person would see all three of them pretty much his/her enemy.
Interesting thought. So wokeness is the dividing line now.
@@erikmeissner6492 Yes and no. There are clearly still Left, (these 3) Centrist and Right. But there is a new category. Woke. And Woke are essentially the antithesis of everyone, they despise Liberals, they despise Conservatives and they hate Centrists the most.
As an Atheist I agree that Christianity is better bulwark. Christianity is practiced while I do not know one practicing humanist. Christians are encouraged at least every Sunday to review their morals, their world view, etc.
What does a practicing humanist look like? Most humanists do not really know what they believe.
I am not talking about experts but the normal guy and gal working a normal job.
I just want to say that as a Christian I am encouraged to look at myself every waking moment. We call it walking in faith.
Law abiding citizens that dont hate gay and brown ppl = humanists lol wtf are you talking about dude.
@@ashleynicole9423literally everyone does that, its called living as a human being in a society.
Yea. Humanism seems to propagate runaway empathy to a point of being a detriment in some aspects. Kind of reminds me of the old adage “be openminded, but not so openminded your brain falls out.”
@@NomDeGuerre96 what are you even saying lmao. The empathy for christians marrying children and butchering natives and other christians with differing views clearly wasnt cutting it.
Mr. Shellenberger's comment "Only a few people can handle atheism" has had me in deep thought for two days now. It is so distinct from "religion". Perhaps the idea is that the ultimate good people pursue gets corrupted when groups form to manipulate that instinct? Still thinking.. Thank you for doing these.
How beautiful! Grown men who don't necessarily agree with each other having a civil conversation without emotion. I dream of living in a society of grown-ups like this on a waaaaaaay larger scale.
Thanks Peter I am very inspired by what you do.
Refreshing! Shellenberger is deeper than I thought.
He is brilliant and obscenely underrated.
I like Michael Shellenberger. Here are 3 people I pay attention to when they speak: Michael Shellenberger and Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay.
Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist nutjob
Doing this game with knowledgeable, intellectually capable individuals is far more fruitful than random people on university campuses lmao. It's a truly terrifying thing to hear what these college students think today. I'm only 34! Something happened to the kids a few grades below me. There is a stark difference within only a few years of age difference. Intersectional social justice is not some organic political movement. It's entirely contrived by big time political powers. The particular institutions they targeted demonstrates careful premeditation.
Love all three of these guys!
"The sermon on the mount is...[glances away with a slight smirk]"
Finish your statement, Peter!
Even if you leave these distinguished guests aside, this is such a welcome improvement over the regular format. Yet of course, guests of this caliber are required for this modified version to work. Anyhow, the way you conduct epistemology is so much fun as always.
Best street epistemology I’ve heard. You need to do it with Robert Malone and the best doctor on the other side.
It’s interesting how much different these street interviews go when interviewing people with a higher IQ who put more thought into their thoughts. Keep up the good work
This is great Peter, love your regular SE episodes but with two of my intellectual hero’s? Come on! You knocked this one out of the park. Please keep doing these
Why does no one conversing in the arena of Alien life ever imagine that entire civilizations of Alien life may have existed and ceased to exist in the vastness of time in the universe before the very small window of awareness we are now in? To think that it must only be happening now, as the human race has a relatively primal viewpoint on the very closest regions of the space around us, just seems so earth centric 🌎!
Well I don’t think that because I see no evidence of that. I think the idea of alien life usually assumes a random origins to the universe and human beings and i reject that premise.
That is actually one of the explanation of why we cant encounter other aliens (the fact that we are not "sincronized" in time with them)...a lot of ppl talked about that...and is also a very reasonable explanation with plenty of merit... :)
@@jordandthornburg Oh yeah...we are the "chosen ones"...litterally trillions of planets and an infinite space (also impossible for us to reach and experience) all created just for US...the "elected" by god...the center of the universe... :DDDDD
Thank you for your work!
Really enjoyed that one. Thanks again!
Yes, women in Saudi Arabia can vote and stand as candidates in municipal elections. This right was granted for the first time in 2015, allowing women to participate in the country's political process.
Another great conversation.
Please please please more Secular Humanism versus Christianity!
Bravo, all!
Really enjoyed this one Peter! Thanks
The issue is what grounds humanism and its assumptions/claims philosophically and is it internally coherent?
Bingo! It's a meaningless game on atheism - no grounding in reality.
@@JimCastleberry Look...dumb and dumber in the same thread! :DDDD
@@dimercamparini Yet, you have no argument. You got spanked and ran away last time. Feeling lucky little atheist boy?
@@JimCastleberry PPPPFFFF...I am glad that you live in your imaginary world and feel conforted by that...
Keep telling yourself that you "won", somewhat, just because I finally decided to abandon a useless thread flooded with your 3X1 nonsense replies (while you actually got destroyed every step of the way before that)...see how much I care...
My only regret is not being able to see your face when in the end you will finally realize that your beliefs were all a giant fairytale...simply because in the end you will have no face at all, being just rotten flesh and worms slowly disappearing into oblivion...
But how is Christianity internally coherent either?
Why didn't Dr. Shermer use his knock-out argument? To paraphrase Dr. Shermer, atheism is not a belief system or a world view. It is merely an indicator that someone does not believe in unsubstantiated supernatural claims. A lack of belief can never be the basis of a belief system. A lack of belief in mysticism does not contain a positive assertion of principles.
Because the topic was secular humanism which does have affirmative assertions beyond 'I don't believe' or 'I don't know'.
Atheism cannot be a bulwark against because the lack of theism alone doesn't inform any moral beliefs or behavioral norms.
I’ve been saying this for a while now. Only a few people can thrive with an atheistic mindset. Those who got “convinced” into it because it looked cool and edgy, mostly just end up having religious tendencies towards their atheism while not realizing it because the belief is that they’re already beyond religiosity and faith.
Shellenberger is so sharp.
Fantastic episode
Thank you!
The cards are a great addition
Oh boy this looks interesting!
I've been learning from Michael Shermer for many years, and more recently from Peter Boghossian and Michael Shellenberger but ... Michael S. stated that in 1919 there was only one country where women could vote. I suspect he was referring to the US. However, women were given the vote in Canada in 1918. Even earlier in 1917, Canadian women who had a husband, father, or brother serving in the war were given the vote, as were the 'Bluebirds', nurses serving in the war.
This is awesome, guys! This may be one of the ways we can all work out how to reasonably move past the madness and divisiveness of comtemporary deadlocks.
Brilliant conversation!
Peter - have read several of your books, love this. I feel I am not wrong to recommend you get you sideburns evened out. With love.
😂
😂😂
@@AndyJarman😂😂😂
I like being around people who disagree. 1. All I ask is to not Name Call. 2. Reason being 5 words I keep in mind. "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong"
Would that many more people thought like you…😊
Wow, extremely interesting and intelligent episode. Also loved the energy between the 3 of you ❤.
Michael Shermer is great. I first took notice of him in the show Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
@@samdg1234 Really? That's the one stuck in your craw eh? Let me go out on a limb here in guessing you're a theist?
@@zaknefain100
*"Really? That's the one stuck in your craw eh?"*
Let me go out on a limb and guess you're an atheist and therefore any piffle, even among the priest class gets a pass from you.
I'm with Michael here. O wait, let me clarify that, I mean Michael S. Nope, that's not gonna work. Let let me be very specific, I'm with Michael Shellenberger.
This is an excellent debate.
As long as they all agree woke is a problem, and for the most part wrong, then it don't matter if it's coming from a faith background or a more human based reality. Lets come together and and bring truth back to the world.
Oh, great. The two Michael She___'s in one place, to confuse me even more about who is who.
There were not many challenging questions for this to be considered a type Street Epistemology. There were finally a couple challeging questions towards the end regareding aliens. Overall, this seemed much more like a guided debate, which is fine. It's just something that is not SE.
I think there could exist a secular system which is a stronger bulwark against wokeness than christianity, but humanism isn't it.
During the lightning round about aliens I would have skipped from strongly agree all the way to strongly disagree. The bigger you picture the universe being, the higher the odds of aliens being out there and the lower the odds that we ever meet them.
Objectivism
I will admit that I was happier when I grew up having faith. But I was also happier when I believed in Santa. Should I just believe in something if it makes me feel good, despite not really believing it to be the truth? I'm sorta Agnostic now. I believe there could be a god, but the bible has just too many errors in it for me to believe it is the truth.
Being "conforted" is defferent than being "happy"...
@@dimercamparini - I'd have to disagree. For me, being comfortable is being happy.
@@Nick23at63 Mh...so I guess you should have staied in the conforting embrace of blind faith...why are you choosing deliberately to suffer?
@@dimercamparini - Believing in falsehoods would make me more miserable.
@@Nick23at63 So in the end the confort that falsehood bring to you actually dont make you happy...so confort is not equal to happyness...
When it became obvious the Right was not clearly defined to Michael, why didn't Peter take a shot at it? He suggested MAGA to Shermer, he could have tried a more specific example with Shellenberger.
Shermer has TDS.
Too short. Should have been two hours.
Christians are my favorite comedians.
For the sake of parsimony we should expend as few Michaels as possible in thinking about these pressing issues.
This is a fun exercise,’good people
Ok, this was an especially fun one to watch. ✨
Without God, moral values and duties collapse into incoherence and illusion, with no objective grounding in reality. The person who rejects 'secular humanist' subjective opinions on morality, but would rather eliminate you for political advantage, or steal your wife and belongings, has done nothing wrong in any real sense. He is entitled to his own subjective moral opinions. All moral preferences/opinions are nothing more than subjective illusions with no foundation in reality. No good, no evil. Without God, all things are permissible. --Dostoevsky
"Without God, moral values and duties collapse into incoherence and illusion, with no objective grounding in reality."
Can you possibly affirm something that is LESS TRUE and totally disproven by infinite facts and history (and the actual existance of millions of perfectly "moral" and decent atheists all over the world, that dont suddenly become murderers or tyrants, or evil creatures in general just because they dont believe in the sky wizard)?! :DDDD
@@dimercamparini You failed to demonstrate any possible foundation for a realm of objective moral values and duties (to be right or wrong about) without God. You can't - and you won't.
Unless and until you can do this, you are lying to claim I am wrong.
@@dimercamparini Not only is your statement a naked lie, you are also lying to claim atheists are not immoral. Over 100 MILLION people have been mass-murdered and BILLIONS brutally repressed by various atheist regimes all across the world - in this past century alone. Facts matter. Liar.
@@JimCastleberry 1) those regimes are/were not based on true atheism and are/were not lead by actual atheists...but by tyrants that use the cult of personality exacly like ANOTHER RELIGION and their followers follows them exactly like religious ppl follow their ideology...
2) for MILLENNIA religions mass murdered and tortured millions of ppl...so? Nice "morality" was in the inquisition...or in the crusades...or in the whitch hunts... :DDDD
The basic principle of actual atheists is "live and let live"...the basic priciples of ANY religion is "if you dont follow me, you are an infidel and I will kill you!"
No atheist ever made a "holy war" against religious ppl...
(oppressed religious minorities in tyrannical regimes are ALWAYS oppressed by other religions that are the majority...OR for political and economical reasons...NEVER because an atheist wants to spread their philosophy of life to other that dont want to follow that...)
The only factor that prevent today's christianity to do other holy wars against other religions, in the west, was the separation between church and state that happened during the age of enlightment (and the spread of atheism in places of power, which counterbalance religious ppl and keeps them in check)...if christian ppl still had absolute government powers today in the western part of the world (like in the middle ages), they will wage wars against muslims and other religions in an INSTANT!
(same as muslims states do, even today...cause they never passed through the cultural revolution that was enlightment...and their religious leaders still call the shot on anything...)
Yes
I don't have a problem calling myself MAGA, even if I agree and appreciate all the guys in this vid. I wonder if Shermer could steelman someone like me...
4:22 Of course (as Dennis Prager has asked) Where Do These Morals Come From?
From an imprint of what works better in allowing for more thriving offspring throughout the evolution of the speices?
@@Doutsoldome
And Whee does The Imprint come from?
Does this apply to someone else's offspring? Nature is replete with cases of males killing the offspring's of another male.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 _"Nature is replete with cases of males killing the offspring's of another male."_
Yes, indeed. And the success of this strategy seems to have shaped what you could call the "morality" of lions.
_"And Whee does The Imprint come from?"_
Whatever change in DNA that favored a behaviour that resulted in more thriving lives for the individuals would have an increased chance of spreading across the gene pool, taking the place of less successful DNA variants. This, in turn, would result in subsequent generations having a greater tendency to display the behaviour in question.
A complete explanation for a biological origin of morality is surely not an easy thing to prove and I don't have all the answers. What I'm trying to describe here, in general terms, is along the lines of what is studied in evolutionary psychology.
The notion that "morality comes from religion" and does not exist outside of that is pure GARBAGE...
Are all atheists that are currently living across the world "amoral" and "evil"? All murderers, reeepists, tyrants, etc.?
What about some version of morality existing even BEFORE religions were invented and codified into books? there were no morality concepts whatsoever in human civilizations before those events? I dont think so...
Is just an absurd point debunkable in 0.1 seconds...
@@Doutsoldome
"A complete explanation for a biological origin of morality is surely not an easy thing to prove"
Understatement of the week! Heck A partial is not easy!
I think a lot of it comes down to presuppositions. People like Dennis and I presuppose there is more than just the material. This leads to different conclusions.
People would not rather be free than enslaved. We saw that with covid.
People would rather be healthy than deseased yet over 40% of the US is obese. Which is it?
The truth is that people are like water, they move towards the path of least resistance, not towards what's good. This is why religion is very important ina society, a homogenous society at that.
Great locale also,
Santa Barbara, the hallmark of mainstream America 🙄
Nice!
Fantastic!
At 11:35-Does anyone really choose to believe in something? Isn’t it true that you either believe a claim or you don’t? And if you don’t believe it, but you say you do, isn’t that a lie? Or more charitably, just hope? The question, “Is it reasonable to PRACTICE Christianity…” makes much more sense to me.
Pragmatic epistemology: If the theory doesn't work that proves that it's wrong, and the theory that creates the best results is the most correct. This is true in hard science, if your theory about gravity didn't give you the result you expected, you couldn't get rockets to laundry properly, than it proves to be false. We need to apply the same thing to social beliefs. If your social beliefs seem iron-proof logically, but the people who believe that don't get the results (a good life) that they want, it must be false. And so Christianity, the teaching of Jesus when applied, lead to the best lives and the best societies we've ever seen, so it must be the most correct. I did a street epistemology talk about this, you can see it on my channel, in the playlist for appearing on other people's channels.
Shouldn't it be spelled lightning round? This is great you should make it a series, my tip for the future is to additionally mike up the contestants for want of a better word.
If you're in portland soon, I'd love to do a street interview with you.
I would love to be apart too! But it's smart of him not to mention where he will be next.
Watch where you step!
13:10 There are ten's of millions of slaves today.
That's right, we are not done and many people are getting in the way, namely critical theorists.
I enjoy, like, and respect all three of these gentlemen quite a bit. But side note: Shellenberger isn't a christian.
❤
With more time, I think Shellenberger could have moved towards Shermer. In the case of Christianity, his thinking was a little shallow: like Shermer said, we don't need to go very far to see how much religion has misled people throughout history, so I tend to agree with Shermer: that secular humanism is the antidote to wokeism more than religion, which is just exchanging one theology for another.
Well, the question doesn't entail that any of them are true. It merely asks which philosophical position, if taken as true or even just accepted as true for the pragmatic outcome of 'acting as though it is true', would be a better bulwark against wokeism.
So that raises the question, what propositions from secular humanism counter the woke narrative?
@@shawn4110nobody mentioned my take: that religions caused a lot of wokeism in the first place (effeminate gay man transes bc his sexist Baptist family told him homosexuality is a sin and he’s not a real man).
We need to bring our vision back to God.
Yep...I want a spanish inquisition 2.0 too! That would be fun... :DDDD
@@dimercamparini ""The crusades, a series of religious wars was sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, had various economic motivations. One of the key economic factors was the desire to gain control of the lucrative trade routes to the East, particularly those that led to the Holy Land."
In other words these things go on in the name of religion. But they are actually about money. And the people who participate believe the propaganda of the governments who send them to war.
But those who are against God, are happy to find a reason for not allowing spiritual guidance to run the governments. A person who really wants to come closer to God will immediately want the governments to be run by saintly persons. The whole purpose of societal life is to make social arrangements so that we all come closer to God. Those who object are actually driven by demonic motives. It is true that we do not want corruption and exploitation to go on in the name of religion. But if it does, this is not because religion is a bad thing. It is because most religious organizations are run by demonic people."
@@robb6059 Sure, SOME things were made in the name of religions, but with other actual purposes and goals in mind...BUT It's litterally ingrained in the concept of any religion the idea that you are right, the others are wrong, and in the end you must dominate them and spread your doctrine (eliminating all the others in the process)...
This is the basic nature of a religion in itself and cant be dismissed simply by saying "men bad, religion good"...too easy and clearly an excuse...
@@dimercamparini "The people in different religions have almost always ended up fighting against each other.
The fact is that Jesus didn't give instructions to launch the crusades against the Muslims.
Jesus didn't instruct the pope of Rome to begin the Spanish Inquisition.
Mohammed didn't give instructions to the Muslims to go to India and tear down the Vaishnava temples.
Jesus didn't give instructions to the Ku Klux Klan (who consider themselves to be Christians) to hate the black man.
Etc.
If there are bad policemen, does that mean that the concept of a benign police force that protects the public is a useless concept?
Therefore we can't blame these atrocities on Jesus or Mahammed, and their teachings.
These are not the activities and teachings of Jesus or Mhammed.
These activities reflect the madness of the people of this world who do these things in the name of Jesus and Mohammed.
These atrocities are part of the material world. The problem is not with religion. The problem is with the human race that refuses to allow their hearts to be touched by real spiritual teachings. If a person refuses to accept the process for leaving the material world because there are mad people here, nothing can be done to help him. He can only be helped when he is ready to receive help.
If we point out that the atrocities of religious groups don't represent actual spiritual teachings, and they refuse to acknowledge this, then we have to understand that they want to avoid reconciliation with God. Krishna understands their hearts and it is Krishna who provides them with these arguments because they want to remain antagonistic towards the process of spiritual culture."
@@robb6059 Nice wall of txt...the actual reality is that, as I said, is INTRINSIC in all religions (sometimes more sometimes less, but always present) to have a dictate to spread and delete all oppositions, with the ultimate purpose of becoming the dominant ideology of the world...
So yes...ultimately RELIGION said to ppl to do all the bad things we know (crusades etc.)...ppl didnt thought those things in a vacuum, all by themselves.
This is proven by the historical fact that ppl without religion NEVER waged wars against religious ppl, just for the goal of spreading their ideology...that happens ONLY in one direction: religion--->infidels and not the other way around.
(because yes...ppl are evil and have agendas and desires of power...BUT religion ENHANCES and add FUEL to THAT!)
I wonder what the purpose of an ought is without human free will in a naturalistic universe. In other words, what good is saying someone ought to do something to promote human flourishing if they lack the free will to do so?
Also I don't think we should believe in something unless it's true. I don't think we should believe false things because it benefits us.
And also what duty or obligation is there to promote another beings flourishing rather than exploit them for selfish purposes
Sorry - where is “70% of Democrats don’t support free speech on the internet” coming from?
Pew research, but the question that was asked was 'Do you support the government taking steps to restrict false information on the internet.' The secondary question which had 30% agree was "Do you believe that freedom of information should be protected even if it means some false claims will be published".
very interesting
"It is reasonable to believe in Christianity soley because of the benefits". Yes, but the reason is that the benefits attest to its truth. The notion that things can be beneficial without being true in some way is I think incorrect. So it is beneficial because it is true. As St Paul sais faith would be in vain if Christ did not rise
Good to real street epistemology, unlike all those fakers
What a backdrop though…
Nobody looks cold but it still ended early.
This. No. Good. Want. More
Basically Wokism is like the Islam of the secular movement.
This means, that when someone comes along believing they are a butterfly angel, maybe also because of the repercussions,
They will not want to call them out, the way they call out christians.
To overcome any ism in a moral way is to simply remove supremacists, including Jesus and supremacist governments, and replace them with education starting at the youngest ages in four complete areas which are relationships between people, emotions and energy, physical things including our human body, and money. Teach this to children starting as young as 5 years old throughout high school and into college for use in their life and do not disrupt. Then only make laws that stop people from hurting others in their pursuit of these goals
Why is supremacism wrong?
Is this idea/system supreme over others?
Shermer is growing older. That's sad.
It's sad?
How is it sad? And for a guy (Shermer) that is supposed to be a realist.
The more a person is able to accept life as it is, the less reliance they have on groundless beliefs in a supernatural dimension and mysticism.
If your brain is randomly created though how would you be able to trust that to tell you anything reliable?
Does that make your life better though? If your life is full of suffering, should you accept it as it is?
@@milesmungo
What do you suggest a person do?
@@jordandthornburg "If your brain is randomly created though how would you be able to trust that to tell you anything reliable?"
LOL...what kind of uber-stupid argument is this?! :DDDDDD
(maybe I have a "randomly created" brain...whatever that even means...but you certainly have NO brain at all...) :DDDD
How can you even ask this first question without defining woke?
Yes, women in Iran have the right to vote and run for parliament. They acquired the right to vote in 1963 and to be elected to parliament, and in the subsequent election, women were voted into parliament and the senate
At the moment women in Iran parliament are still less than 6%...what a progress in 60 years... :DDDD
(one thing is saying that a thing is technically allowed, in theory...another thing is experiencing actual consequences and results of that thing, in reality...I guess in Iranian parliament women are basically the "mascotte" of the team, with their presence made and tolerated just to avoid breaking some "human rights" international laws)
I'd love to talk to Michael Shellenberger about climate change.
Man made religion!
Yep...I am still amazed by how many ppl deny this simple fact...is litterally a FICTION created by the human brain to have confort that we are not alone and will not disappear into oblivion after death, and an explanation to our existance (while is completely possible that there is NO explanation at all...it just is...)
of course it is, it has no rules.
I find humanists to be rather inhuman. Materialism is no means to the good life.
Materialism doesnt equal Humanism